Field Hoppers Produce Results

BretCahill · Sep 28, 2003

The MRI came from a chemist who had
just started to hang around physicists.

This is very common with field switchers.

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7436CB.2060208@biz.ness> writes:

BretCahill wrote:

When were external rotor electric motors first conceived?

.. . .

I don't think a Tesla turbine could be turned inside-out. ;&gt

Why not? Just mount the outside of the
moving blades on the inside of a rotating
drum and mount the combustor and
nozzles on the internal stator as with
all ER turbines.

Finally "boundary layer" engines can
become an efficient cheap low tech -- less
than $50/kW -- gas turbine that can
operate at lower rpms over a broader
range.

What's REALLY curious about this is for
a couple of years I was specifically looking
for anyone who had worked in both fields
to determine why turbo is so conservative
compared to electrical.

I knew about Tesla's work in both fields,
yet I never made the connection.

Now how did THAT happen?

Bret Cahill

Harry Conover · Sep 29, 2003

bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message news:<20030928140717.00367.00000292@mb-m07.aol.com>...

The MRI came from a chemist who had
just started to hang around physicists.

This is very common with field switchers.

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in
Message-id: <3F7436CB.2060208@biz.ness> writes:

BretCahill wrote:

When were external rotor electric motors first conceived?

. . .

I don't think a Tesla turbine could be turned inside-out. ;&gt

Why not? Just mount the outside of the
moving blades on the inside of a rotating
drum and mount the combustor and
nozzles on the internal stator as with
all ER turbines.

Huh? I though that the entire point of a Tesla Turbine was that it
didn't have any blades.

Am I wrong? If so, what distinguishes a Tesla Turbine from a
conventional turbine?

Harry C.

Mark Fergerson · Sep 30, 2003

Harry Conover wrote:

bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message news:<20030928140717.00367.00000292@mb-m07.aol.com>...

The MRI came from a chemist who had
just started to hang around physicists.

This is very common with field switchers.

Yup. Note that in Tesla's time, "specialists" weren't as
specialized as they are today. Polymaths were far more
common, perhaps because the body of knowledge one had to
absorb to _be_ a specialist in any one field was so much
smaller.

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7436CB.2060208@biz.ness> writes:

BretCahill wrote:

When were external rotor electric motors first conceived?

I don't think a Tesla turbine could be turned inside-out. ;&gt

Why not? Just mount the outside of the
moving blades on the inside of a rotating
drum and mount the combustor and
nozzles on the internal stator as with
all ER turbines.

No, no, no. Tesla's machine is sorta analogous to the
power section of a complete turbine engine; no combustor or
compressor. He saw it as replacing most conventional types
of compressors _and_ pumps. What's holding it up? The
miscomprehension of its operation in that most people at
first glance think it works by friction.

Also, I can't see how to build an axial-flow Tesla
turbine (as in aircraft types).

Huh? I though that the entire point of a Tesla Turbine was that it
didn't have any blades.

That too. See frinst:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine

Am I wrong? If so, what distinguishes a Tesla Turbine from a
conventional turbine?

Dead right. For more just google for "Tesla turbine"
(watch out for the wacko sites, though).

Now, how the hell could you turn this thing inside-out?

Mark L. Fergerson

BretCahill · Oct 1, 2003

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F79E0D3.5000301@biz.ness> writes:

Harry Conover wrote:
bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message
news:<20030928140717.00367.00000292@mb-m07.aol.com>...

.. . .

Why not? Just mount the outside of the
moving blades on the inside of a rotating
drum and mount the combustor and
nozzles on the internal stator as with
all ER turbines.

No, no, no.

Are you renouncing all patent rights to
anything external rotor turbine?

This is a hot field -- 4000 degree F inlet
temperatures for the ceramic engines.

Tesla's machine is sorta analogous to the
power section of a complete turbine engine;

What is a "complete" turbine?

Closed cycle?

no combustor or
compressor.

What's spinning the turbine and where is
it coming from?

He saw it as replacing most conventional types
of compressors _and_ pumps.

EVERY inventor daydreams about THAT.

What's holding it up?

The internal rotor.

The
miscomprehension of its operation in that most people at
first glance think it works by friction.

Well? Straighten out the misconception
so we CAN get it to work.

Bret Cahill

Mark Fergerson · Oct 1, 2003

BretCahill wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F79E0D3.5000301@biz.ness> writes:

Harry Conover wrote:

bretcahill@aol.com (BretCahill) wrote in message

news:<20030928140717.00367.00000292@mb-m07.aol.com>...

Why not? Just mount the outside of the
moving blades on the inside of a rotating
drum and mount the combustor and
nozzles on the internal stator as with
all ER turbines.

No, no, no.

Are you renouncing all patent rights to
anything external rotor turbine?

Build it and they will pay...

No, I meant you had the wrong idea about Tesla's turbine.
Your idea would work just fine with a bladed (conventional)
turbine, if you could figure out where to put the bearings.

In a Tesla turbine, there are no blades. It's one or more
discs with holes in the center (spidered around the shaft
they're mounted on) surrounded by an ordinary-looking blower
housing. You spin the shaft, it sucks air in through the
center and blows it out the nozzle (blower mode). You blow
air in through the nozzle, the shaft spins (driven turbine
mode).

This is a hot field -- 4000 degree F inlet
temperatures for the ceramic engines.

No doubt. Tesla's design looks adaptable to me. Less
turbulence, fewer parts, and the rotors could likely be
liquid-cooled easily.

Tesla's machine is sorta analogous to the
power section of a complete turbine engine;

What is a "complete" turbine?

Inlet (nozzle/ramp), compressor, combustor (and
associated stuff), power turbine, exhaust nozzle (,afterburner).

I meant he saw it as a _general_ replacement for any kind
of pump/blower or fluid-driven motor (with suitable
modifications for a given application), which means it could
replace either the compressor or power turbine.

no combustor or
compressor.

What's spinning the turbine and where is
it coming from?

Doesn't matter.

He saw it as replacing most conventional types
of compressors _and_ pumps.

EVERY inventor daydreams about THAT.

It could happen yet, though it appears to be best
adaptable to a fairly narrow velocity and CFM regime.

What's holding it up?

The internal rotor.

No, I meant holding up the replacement process.

The
miscomprehension of its operation in that most people at
first glance think it works by friction.

Well? Straighten out the misconception
so we CAN get it to work.

Did you even _look_ at the link I gave? Did you even
bother Googling for "tesla turbine" to see what others have
done? I don't see it as my Mission In Life, though it is
interesting. Hell, I happen to need a really tiny compressor
(to run an itty-bitty Hilsch tube), so I might try building one.

Why are we holding this conversation in an electronics
group? I suppose I could suggest immersing the rotors in a
magnetic field and providing electrical contacts to the
center and rim, thus making a Homopolar motor out of it.
Just think; DC in, air out.

Mark L. Fergerson

BretCahill · Oct 2, 2003

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7A7C52.8010304@biz.ness> writes:

.. . .

Why are we holding this conversation in an electronics
group?

To produce results. See header.

The U. S. economy could benefit by
trillions with more cross pollination
between scientific and engineering fields.

That's why I was wondering how I could
have overlooked Tesla.

Bret Cahill

Mark Fergerson · Oct 2, 2003

BretCahill wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7A7C52.8010304@biz.ness> writes:

Why are we holding this conversation in an electronics
group?

To produce results. See header.

Ah. Well...

The U. S. economy could benefit by
trillions with more cross pollination
between scientific and engineering fields.

True. However,

That's why I was wondering how I could
have overlooked Tesla.

You aren't the only one, and there are a lot of other
researchers who aren't as generally famous as they ought to
be. Know who Charles Proteus Steinmetz was? He became the
prototype of the movies' Mad Scientist, but not by doing evil.

Nobody can know everything, not even in their chosen
field, much less in several. Being a cross-disciplinarian
can also reduce your status in any one field, which crimps
funding. Also there's a loss of status for pure scientist
who associate with "lowly engineers" as if they were equals.
Ever wonder why Tesla got so much done? Partly, because he
had no academic reputation to defend.

Getting specialists in many fields together definitely
produces results no individual would have thought of, as in
your chemist/physicist fusion yielding NMR. But who decides
which specialists to put together? You can't just throw
random experts together and expect breakthroughs, unless
you're Dilbert's PHB. ;&gt

Serendipity has a name for good reason.

Mark L. Fergerson

BretCahill · Oct 3, 2003

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7C61C4.3040001@biz.ness> writes:

.. . .

Nobody can know everything,

I knew more than enough about Tesla yet
I didn't connect the dot.

Bret Cahill

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

Mark Fergerson · Oct 4, 2003

BretCahill wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> in

Message-id: <3F7C61C4.3040001@biz.ness> writes:

. . .

Nobody can know everything,

I knew more than enough about Tesla yet
I didn't connect the dot.

So? Somebody has to be first, and not everyone sees the
dots in the same way. Are you similarly upset that you
didn't invent NMR?

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism. So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Oct 4, 2003

Mark Fergerson wrote:

BretCahill wrote:

Nobody can know everything,
--------------------

And luckily, neither does anyone NEED to.

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism.
----------------

No, socialism is based on the censorship of WRONG economic
information, and Evil Lies about economics.

So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------

The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Mark Fergerson · Oct 5, 2003

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

BretCahill wrote:

Nobody can know everything,

--------------------
And luckily, neither does anyone NEED to.

Well, some of us sure act as if we do.

<emoticon innocently asks "who, me?">

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism.

----------------
No, socialism is based on the censorship of WRONG economic
information, and Evil Lies about economics.

I didn't want to get that specific.

So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson

-------------------
The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

IMNSHO they're _all_ wrong (for sufficient values, etc).
I'm still wondering if a system that generates no losers at
all is possible.

And don't start about your plans again; I still can't
support a Deimocracy (Rule By Fear) no matter how many
"beneficial" aspects it has.

I appreciate having my mind clarified wonderfully, but
not by the imminent prospect of being hanged...

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Oct 6, 2003

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:

BretCahill wrote:

Nobody can know everything,

--------------------
And luckily, neither does anyone NEED to.

Well, some of us sure act as if we do.
------------------

Nope, one only has to know more than you to be right.

You're assuming one would have to know everything to know more
than you do; your error.

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism.
----------------
No, socialism is based on the censorship of WRONG economic
information, and Evil Lies about economics.

I didn't want to get that specific.
-------------------

Censorship of WRONG info is called Teaching, Learning, Knowledge,
Reason, and Science.

So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------
The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

IMNSHO they're _all_ wrong (for sufficient values, etc).
I'm still wondering if a system that generates no losers at
all is possible.
--------------------

You have been told THAT by people who wish to benefit from your
consequent paralysis, and the belief that "nothing is right" is
the ideal meme to produce just such a paralysis in an individual
or in a society. In fact all they did was lie, they continue to
lie the loudest because they OWN the Media. YOU imagine that you
hear what they tell you is because everyone believes that shit!!
Secretly, many of us know better!

In actual fact, there IS such a thing as the Good and the Right,
it is Easy and it is Obvious. You have simply been brainwashed not
to trust your own deepest reflexes in this regard, an ideal way to
ham-string opposition to their Plutocratic acquisition of everyone's
labor. Why wouldn't you think that people with NO morality whose
only purpose is the exploitation of others for their gain would
be above lying at a startlingly fundamental level like this????

And don't start about your plans again; I still can't
support a Democracy (Rule By Fear) no matter how many
"beneficial" aspects it has.
--------------------------------

Democracy - rule by fear? Man if they have sold you that, you'll
buy absolutely anything, because you've lost and surrendered
to them as your masters in the belief that you cannot possibly
know what's good for you and must always defer to the rich and
"successful" in order to know what to do!! That's a circle, a
feedback loop, they steal from you, thereby convincing you that
you are stupid, lazy, and inferior and that you need them to tell
you that it's alright if they steal from you and leave you with
nothing because you just can't do any better than that on your
OWN!!!

That sort of reasoning was designed by control-freaks who have
decided there is no punishment for what they want to take if only
they can keep control of society to prevent it from organizing
against them, so they should get whatever they want and ignore
all ethical considerations, that there is no real morality and
no consequences. They have convinced you that you're "just lazy",
while it is actually they who pursue the greatest possible
laziness, using money and the power it confers, to hire henchmen
to keep YOU at bay while THEY PARTY THEIR WHOLE LIFE AWAY ON YOUR
BACKS!

I appreciate having my mind clarified wonderfully, but
not by the imminent prospect of being hanged...

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------------

Then just obey them, and take whatever little fucked-up world
they deign to give you, you mindless, unreasoning coward!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Mark Fergerson · Oct 6, 2003

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

BretCahill wrote:

Nobody can know everything,

--------------------
And luckily, neither does anyone NEED to.

Well, some of us sure act as if we do.

------------------
Nope, one only has to know more than you to be right.

Oh, here we go. Did you assume I meant you? I didn't, you
know.

You're assuming one would have to know everything to know more
than you do; your error.

Yeah, OK, fine.

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism.

----------------
No, socialism is based on the censorship of WRONG economic
information, and Evil Lies about economics.

I didn't want to get that specific.

-------------------
Censorship of WRONG info is called Teaching, Learning, Knowledge,
Reason, and Science.

That's foolish. Better to teach the wrong stuff too, as
long as attention is called to its wrongness, and why it's
wrong.

So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson

-------------------
The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

IMNSHO they're _all_ wrong (for sufficient values, etc).
I'm still wondering if a system that generates no losers at
all is possible.

--------------------
You have been told THAT by people who wish to benefit from your
consequent paralysis, and the belief that "nothing is right" is
the ideal meme to produce just such a paralysis in an individual
or in a society. In fact all they did was lie, they continue to
lie the loudest because they OWN the Media. YOU imagine that you
hear what they tell you is because everyone believes that shit!!

Whatever makes you think I believe the media?

Secretly, many of us know better!

Gee, it must be nice to be "in the know".

In actual fact, there IS such a thing as the Good and the Right,
it is Easy and it is Obvious. You have simply been brainwashed not
to trust your own deepest reflexes in this regard, an ideal way to
ham-string opposition to their Plutocratic acquisition of everyone's
labor. Why wouldn't you think that people with NO morality whose
only purpose is the exploitation of others for their gain would
be above lying at a startlingly fundamental level like this????

Sturgeon's Law covers media propaganda. One must be alert
for the occasional bit of truth thrown in for verisimilitude.

And don't go on about the morality of others when you
stoop to editing my statements as below.

And don't start about your plans again; I still can't
support a Democracy (Rule By Fear) no matter how many
"beneficial" aspects it has.

--------------------------------
Democracy - rule by fear?

DO NOT edit my statements! I wrote DEIMOCRACY with an i
between the e and the m. You can't edit Google.

Can you figure out the root words?

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.

<irrelevance snipped>

I appreciate having my mind clarified wonderfully, but
not by the imminent prospect of being hanged...

Then just obey them, and take whatever little fucked-up world
they deign to give you, you mindless, unreasoning coward!

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force, then torture me to death for daring
to accumulate goods. Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Oct 7, 2003

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill

So is Socialism.
----------------
No, socialism is based on the censorship of WRONG economic
information, and Evil Lies about economics.

I didn't want to get that specific.
-------------------
Censorship of WRONG info is called Teaching, Learning, Knowledge,
Reason, and Science.

That's foolish. Better to teach the wrong stuff too, as
long as attention is called to its wrongness, and why it's
wrong.
-----------------------------------

Same thing.
Censorship is the prohibition of the assertion that lies are
true. You have to identify the lie.

So are all politicoeconomic systems. So
what?

Mark L. Fergerson

-------------------
The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

IMNSHO they're _all_ wrong (for sufficient values, etc).
I'm still wondering if a system that generates no losers at
all is possible.
--------------------
You have been told THAT by people who wish to benefit from your
consequent paralysis, and the belief that "nothing is right" is
the ideal meme to produce just such a paralysis in an individual
or in a society. In fact all they did was lie, they continue to
lie the loudest because they OWN the Media. YOU imagine that you
hear what they tell you is because everyone believes that shit!!
Secretly, many of us know better!

In actual fact, there IS such a thing as the Good and the Right,
it is Easy and it is Obvious. You have simply been brainwashed not
to trust your own deepest reflexes in this regard, an ideal way to
ham-string opposition to their Plutocratic acquisition of everyone's
labor. Why wouldn't you think that people with NO morality whose
only purpose is the exploitation of others for their gain would
be above lying at a startlingly fundamental level like this????

Whatever makes you think I believe the media?
----------------------------

Then you SHOULD know better.

In actual fact, there IS such a thing as the Good and the Right,
it is Easy and it is Obvious. You have simply been brainwashed not
to trust your own deepest reflexes in this regard, an ideal way to
ham-string opposition to their Plutocratic acquisition of everyone's
labor. Why wouldn't you think that people with NO morality whose
only purpose is the exploitation of others for their gain would
be above lying at a startlingly fundamental level like this????

Sturgeon's Law covers media propaganda. One must be alert
for the occasional bit of truth thrown in for verisimilitude.
----------------------------------

Sure.

And don't go on about the morality of others when you
stoop to editing my statements as below.
-------------------------

My editing is for brevity, not distortion.

And don't start about your plans again; I still can't
support a Democracy (Rule By Fear) no matter how many
"beneficial" aspects it has.
--------------------------------
Democracy - rule by fear?

DO NOT edit my statements! I wrote DEIMOCRACY with an i
between the e and the m. You can't edit Google.
----------------------------

I thought you had typoed it and I was doing you a favor.

Democracy - rule by fear? Man if they have sold you that, you'll
buy absolutely anything, because you've lost and surrendered
to them as your masters in the belief that you cannot possibly
know what's good for you and must always defer to the rich and
"successful" in order to know what to do!! That's a circle, a
feedback loop, they steal from you, thereby convincing you that
you are stupid, lazy, and inferior and that you need them to tell
you that it's alright if they steal from you and leave you with
nothing because you just can't do any better than that on your
OWN!!!

That sort of reasoning was designed by control-freaks who have
decided there is no punishment for what they want to take if only
they can keep control of society to prevent it from organizing
against them, so they should get whatever they want and ignore
all ethical considerations, that there is no real morality and
no consequences. They have convinced you that you're "just lazy",
while it is actually they who pursue the greatest possible
laziness, using money and the power it confers, to hire henchmen
to keep YOU at bay while THEY PARTY THEIR WHOLE LIFE AWAY ON YOUR
BACKS!

Can you figure out the root words?
-------------------------------

Yeah.
But why are you using Greek roots in English instead of the Latinate??
You SHOULD have fraudulently alleged "demonocracy".

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.
----------------------------

I'd like to see you rule ANY OTHER WAY!

Did you imagine you could simply get evil people to "get along"
with the rest of us just because you ASKED them to?
Who do you think YOU are, Rodney King??

All governments rule by fear of punishment. That's what LAW is!
The rule of Democracy is just, that is the only difference.

I appreciate having my mind clarified wonderfully, but
not by the imminent prospect of being hanged...

Then just obey them, and take whatever little fucked-up world
they deign to give you, you mindless, unreasoning coward!

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force,
----------

Hell, they do that already! It's called taxes.

then torture me to death for daring to accumulate goods.
------------

If it's by your theft from others instead of your own labor.

Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.
Mark L. Fergerson
--------------

Irrelevant bullshit and bluster.

You'll pee yourself when the police point their guns at you,
just like all the rest.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Mark Fergerson · Oct 7, 2003

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

. So
what?

The difference is merely which one is wrong, and why,
and who benefits!

IMNSHO they're _all_ wrong (for sufficient values, etc).
I'm still wondering if a system that generates no losers at
all is possible.

You have been told THAT by people who wish to benefit from your
consequent paralysis, and the belief that "nothing is right" is
the ideal meme to produce just such a paralysis in an individual
or in a society. In fact all they did was lie, they continue to
lie the loudest because they OWN the Media. YOU imagine that you
hear what they tell you is because everyone believes that shit!!

I said I'm _wondering_.

Secretly, many of us know better!

What was that about "knowing everything", again? ;&gt

In actual fact, there IS such a thing as the Good and the Right,
it is Easy and it is Obvious. You have simply been brainwashed not
to trust your own deepest reflexes in this regard, an ideal way to
ham-string opposition to their Plutocratic acquisition of everyone's
labor. Why wouldn't you think that people with NO morality whose
only purpose is the exploitation of others for their gain would
be above lying at a startlingly fundamental level like this????

Sigh. Who did you think I was? Don't you recall that I
told you that I read _The Hidden Persuaders_ as a child?

Whatever makes you think I believe the media?

Then you SHOULD know better.

Unlike you, I make no assumptions about any "perfect"
socioeconomic system except that it hasn't yet materialized.
If it had, it'd have out-competed all others because it
works better.

<re: Deimocracy>

Can you figure out the root words?

Yeah.
But why are you using Greek roots in English instead of the Latinate??

The Late Latin "democratia" is taken from the Greek
"demokratia", and I can't recall the Latin for either fear
or terror offhand or even if the Romans bothered inventing a
specific term for either; they were great borrowers from the
Greek. (You get pedantic about that and not my misuse of
"Deimos" rather than "Phobos" to indicate "fear"?)

You SHOULD have fraudulently alleged "demonocracy".

"Fraudulently alleged"? I was talking about the system
you promote. "Rule by terror" is more accurate in describing
it anyway; everyone would live in continuous terror that
they'd be dragged away to be tortured to death for _any_
crime at all. Why do you think the period immediately
following the French Revolution was called "The Terror"?
Granted it was milder than your version, they "humanely"
guillotined their victims.

BTW why did you suggest "demonocracy"? Did you think I
was trying to demonize you or your system? Not at all. I'm
merely pointing out what I see as flaws.

I don't doubt that you've intensely studied politics,
economics, and so on in order to reach the conclusions you
have, but have you studied actual _people_? It's been said
that most people live in "quiet desperation" due to the
confining effects of the socioeconomic system(s) they're
immersed in, and AFAICT it's true. It strikes me that if you
offered them the option (or ordered them) to exchange that
quiet desperation for active terror, most would decline. Why
do you think The Terror ended?

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.

I'd like to see you rule ANY OTHER WAY!

See, that's the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe
most people _need_ ruling, whereas you do. BTW, you never
answered one of my earlier questions; why do you think _you_
need to be ruled?

Did you imagine you could simply get evil people to "get along"
with the rest of us just because you ASKED them to?

No. As I told you before, _my_ (as near as possible)
ideal social system provides that all citizens be equally
capable of self-defense against all comers. Frinst, laws
that ban "assault weapons" are stupid; assault weapons also
make dandy _anti_-assault weapons. Similarly, why can't I
buy the same (high) grades of body armor available to law
enforcement and the military, given I'm not a _proven_
threat to either?

All governments rule by fear of punishment. That's what LAW is!

Exactly. If we aren't capable of wronging anyone else
(because they can defend themselves), what's LAW for?

The rule of Democracy is just, that is the only difference.

Which definition of "just" do you have in mind? My
Webster's gives several, and they're all subtly different.
Some appeal to objective fact, to reason, or to a moral
standard. However, "objective fact" keeps changing its face
according to one's Newtonian/Einsteinian/QM prejudices,
"reason" evolves as new methods of thought develop, and
"moral absolutes" vary by time, place, and culture, even
from one person to the next. Hence the concept of "justice"
gets rather fuzzy. Better to stick with "fairness" or
"equality" as they're easier to define and more broadly
applicable.

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force,

Hell, they do that already! It's called taxes.

Yet another example of the "wrongness" of all extant
systems (that support themselves by taxation, equal or
unequal). You would presumably levy taxes on me to provide a
hall for your assorted councils to meet in, paper for
records, etc. Screw that, let 'em meet in their homes, or
outdoors, and provide their own materials.

then torture me to death for daring to accumulate goods.

If it's by your theft from others instead of your own labor.

According to your definition of "theft". If I buy
something made in China (at a lesser price than a similar
product made here), am I conspiring with the international
network of politicians, manufacturers, distributors, etc.
who set up the current system, in order to steal from the
laborers involved given that they don't get the same wage as
local laborers? Or, am I stealing from the local laborers
because I didn't help pay their higher wages? Both? Neither?

What if I _make_ said something instead of buying either
local-made or imported? Am I stealing from both groups of
laborers?

Lots of opportunity for terror there.

And don't tell me about how you're talking about your
ideal situation; I'm talking about the real world. According
to your lights, am I a thief _right now_?

Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.

Irrelevant bullshit and bluster.

Really? I'm talking about _your_ willingness to enforce
your system. If you think I'm a thief, why are you letting
me get away with it rather than hurrying over with your
flensing knives? Do you think I'll passively let you
disassemble me?

You'll pee yourself when the police point their guns at you,
just like all the rest.

How many times have you had police's guns pointed at you?
For me three so far, and my pants stayed dry partly because
I knew I was innocent, and partly because I don't fear
death. Tasers, now, that's different. Nobody relishes the
prospect of being incapacitated even temporarily.

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Oct 8, 2003

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Whatever makes you think I believe the media?

Then you SHOULD know better.

Unlike you, I make no assumptions about any "perfect"
socioeconomic system
-----------------------------

I don't judge the "perfection" of a social system by its "perfection"
of design, or any kind of "elegance of function". I judge perfection
in social systems by whether they are fair to everyone. For all I
care it can function badly and require us to execute people and
suppress evil viciously, and scare many people who richly deserve it,
and why would I still support it, you might ask? Because it is FAIR
and RIGHT, and it will cause our species to evolve toward its happiest
future, even if it must do so by killing those of us with the inherent
flaws of dishonesty, unfairness, and unsociable greed!!

except that it hasn't yet materialized.
If it had, it'd have out-competed all others because it
works better.
-----------------------------

That's like saying that if it were possible for an improved human
species to exist, that it would already, that's a logical fallacy.

re: Deimocracy

Can you figure out the root words?

Yeah.
But why are you using Greek roots in English instead of the > > Latinate??

The Late Latin "democratia" is taken from the Greek
"demokratia",
----------------

Demos and Kratia are Greek, and they mean People's Rule.

and I can't recall the Latin for either fear
or terror offhand or even if the Romans bothered inventing a
specific term for either; they were great borrowers from the
Greek. (You get pedantic about that and not my misuse of
"Deimos" rather than "Phobos" to indicate "fear"?)
------------------------------------------

Deimos is panic, Phobos is terror, the children of the God of War,
Aries, or in Latin, Mars.

You SHOULD have fraudulently alleged "demonocracy".

"Fraudulently alleged"? I was talking about the system
you promote. "Rule by terror" is more accurate in describing
it anyway; everyone would live in continuous terror that
they'd be dragged away to be tortured to death for _any_
crime at all.
--------------------------

Nope, all they need do to be safe is to desist from engaging in
anything that could be regarded as criminal. Crimes are unfair.
If you don't KNOW what is fair, ask 20 of your neighbors to vote
on it! If you have done these humble things, you need have no fear.

If one wishes not to be jailed or killed then do not kill, steal,
or plot to become rich, or benefit by ANY other means than the
sweat of your own brow. If you even THINK of cheating someone,
you should feel the terror of death at your throat!! There are
a million things you can do which can in NO way EVER be regarded
as crimes or evil! DO THOSE AND LIVE!!

Why do you think the period immediately
following the French Revolution was called "The Terror"?
Granted it was milder than your version, they "humanely"
guillotined their victims.
-------------------------------

The humanity of the guillotine is debatable, but the French Revolution
and the tumbrills taking them to the blade was about PRIOR bad acts
which they might be executed for due to rumor or innuendo, or merely
because someone didn't LIKE them, AND without proof.

BUT!: We should offer ONE AND ONLY ONE CHANCE to be forgiven ALL
acts that are NEWLY made crimes which are not now punished, other
than murder and brutality and prior embezzlement, conditional on
them being willing to divest, to desist, to forswear EVER doing such
again, and then to live in abject fairness with others and without
ANY complaint against that fairness. If they ever depart that, then
they can expect NO mercy.

BTW why did you suggest "demonocracy"? Did you think I
was trying to demonize you or your system? Not at all. I'm
merely pointing out what I see as flaws.
-------------------------------

You don't even understand my system, you believed I was some sort
of Richelieu. I'm perfectly willing to forgive and forget, as long
as they divest and forget ever trying that shit again!

I don't doubt that you've intensely studied politics,
economics, and so on in order to reach the conclusions you
have, but have you studied actual _people_? It's been said
that most people live in "quiet desperation" due to the
confining effects of the socioeconomic system(s) they're
immersed in, and AFAICT it's true. It strikes me that if you
offered them the option (or ordered them) to exchange that
quiet desperation for active terror, most would decline. Why
do you think The Terror ended?
--------------------------------

Since I'm not interested in terrorizing people, except to dissuade
people from criminality, your analogy is totally flawed. Yes, I
believe firmly that anyone who tries to collect rent should be killed
outright, but if they head warnings not to try that and do not,
then I am not at all interested in them coming to harm. Yes, I think
that anyone who tries to flee with wealth should be killed, but if
they don't and accept the loss of their wealth with aplomb, I could
care less. Yes, I believe that anyone who tries to pay someone less
than he is paid should be killed, but if they do not, then they are
not criminals. This is simple. No one is in danger who isn't a
stubborn vicious animalistic conspirator against the People's State.

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.

I'd like to see you rule ANY OTHER WAY!

See, that's the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe
most people _need_ ruling, whereas you do. BTW, you never
answered one of my earlier questions; why do you think _you_
need to be ruled?
-----------------------------------

*I* don't, MOST people of GoodWill don't. The good will support,
obey, and agree with the rules, but those who do not will have to
be dererred from acting out their viciousness by simple fright and
terror.

If we did not have law and punishment now, the most strong and
vicious would destroy society, steal everything, kill anyone who
got in their way and then wonder why they had no place they could
plug it all in.

These minority of criminals exist in every population, and they are
a sizable minority of deviants who might be eliminated by careful
eugenics, that remains to be seen, or simply be made non-existent by
better childrearing that is socially enforced by the People's Will.

Did you imagine you could simply get evil people to "get along"
with the rest of us just because you ASKED them to?

No. As I told you before, _my_ (as near as possible)
ideal social system provides that all citizens be equally
capable of self-defense against all comers. Frinst, laws
that ban "assault weapons" are stupid; assault weapons also
make dandy _anti_-assault weapons. Similarly, why can't I
buy the same (high) grades of body armor available to law
enforcement and the military, given I'm not a _proven_
threat to either?
--------------------------------

It depends on your opinions whether you are or not.

If you are a decent citizen in obedience to the Democratic Will
of the People, then you can be certified as someone We Trust.
No social group will permit those they don't trust to be armed,
and they SHOULD NOT!!!!

Those with no political shadow over them will undoubtedly be
permitted private ownership of arms, and they'll be expected to
use them against criminals at the behest or their neighbors.

But people who have expressed opinions that are against Fairness
and Democratic Equality, or who have been sanctioned politically
and forbidden political expression because their opinions were
dangerous to the body politic and our freedoms and equality, they
must be denied that, as any criminal must be.

All governments rule by fear of punishment. That's what LAW is!

Exactly. If we aren't capable of wronging anyone else
(because they can defend themselves), what's LAW for?
----------------------------------

To punish, and thus deter criminality. Self-defense against criminals
is iffy, and if self-defense worked perfectly we might not need police.
But of course we do, one cannot withstand a seige of bandits, or a
silent bandit while you sleep. We are weak things, alone. But together
we are VERY dangerous.

The rule of Democracy is just, that is the only difference.

Which definition of "just" do you have in mind? My
Webster's gives several, and they're all subtly different.
Some appeal to objective fact, to reason, or to a moral
standard. However, "objective fact" keeps changing its face
according to one's Newtonian/Einsteinian/QM prejudices,
"reason" evolves as new methods of thought develop, and
"moral absolutes" vary by time, place, and culture, even
from one person to the next. Hence the concept of "justice"
gets rather fuzzy. Better to stick with "fairness" or
"equality" as they're easier to define and more broadly
applicable.
-----------------------------

I see the absolute same moral absolutes from time immemorial.
Fairness and Equality was spoken of old, by ancient prophets
and seers.

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force,

Hell, they do that already! It's called taxes.

Yet another example of the "wrongness" of all extant
systems (that support themselves by taxation, equal or
unequal). You would presumably levy taxes on me to provide a
hall for your assorted councils to meet in, paper for
records, etc. Screw that, let 'em meet in their homes, or
outdoors, and provide their own materials.
----------------------------

Nonsense. Taxes of some kind, an extraction of wealth from everyone
to do everyone's Democratic Will, is inevitable.

It takes a complete idiot as only a Libertarian can be to stupidly
believe otherwise.

then torture me to death for daring to accumulate goods.

If it's by your theft from others instead of your own labor.

According to your definition of "theft". If I buy
something made in China (at a lesser price than a similar
product made here), am I conspiring with the international
network of politicians, manufacturers, distributors, etc.
who set up the current system, in order to steal from the
laborers involved given that they don't get the same wage as
local laborers? Or, am I stealing from the local laborers
because I didn't help pay their higher wages? Both? Neither?
-------------------------------------

It's up to your neighbors, do what they say, seek their counsel,
decide together what is fair, until Democratic Communism can be
exported across the entire earth and end ALL inequality. If the
People say it's okay for now, then do that, and cite that recorded
opinion in your notes justifying yourself and you cannot be held
at any fault. When it changes, abide that new ruling as well.

What if I _make_ said something instead of buying either
local-made or imported? Am I stealing from both groups of
laborers?
Lots of opportunity for terror there.
------------------------------------

Making something for yourself is always permitted, it is your labor.

And don't tell me about how you're talking about your
ideal situation; I'm talking about the real world. According
to your lights, am I a thief _right now_?
-----------------------------------

I don't know your life in detail.

Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.

Irrelevant bullshit and bluster.

Really? I'm talking about _your_ willingness to enforce
your system.
----------------

NO one person enforces a "system".
As a member of a Democratic group I'm willing.

If you think I'm a thief, why are you letting
me get away with it rather than hurrying over with your
flensing knives? Do you think I'll passively let you
disassemble me?
-------------------

It doesn't matter, if we wanted you, you'd lose.
Are you really so stupid that you don't know this??

You'll pee yourself when the police point their guns at you,
just like all the rest.

How many times have you had police's guns pointed at you?
For me three so far, and my pants stayed dry partly because
I knew I was innocent, and partly because I don't fear
death.
------------

Liars like you amuse. I worked in an ER for 3.5 years,
you're ALL terrified, everyone, to the last moment.

Tasers, now, that's different. Nobody relishes the
prospect of being incapacitated even temporarily.

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------------

Doesn't matter, if we want you, we'll have you.
And you'll capitulate or die.
That's true tonight, in the current system,
and true in ALL systems forever.
You are NOT "in charge" of what you get.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Mark Fergerson · Oct 8, 2003

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Whatever makes you think I believe the media?

Then you SHOULD know better.

Unlike you, I make no assumptions about any "perfect"
socioeconomic system

-----------------------------
I don't judge the "perfection" of a social system by its "perfection"
of design, or any kind of "elegance of function". I judge perfection
in social systems by whether they are fair to everyone. For all I
care it can function badly and require us to execute people and
suppress evil viciously, and scare many people who richly deserve it,
and why would I still support it, you might ask? Because it is FAIR
and RIGHT, and it will cause our species to evolve toward its happiest

"Fair" I'll accept because your rules would apply to all,
but "right" is a flat-out value judgement on your part, with
which I disagree, because:

future, even if it must do so by killing those of us with the inherent
flaws of dishonesty, unfairness, and unsociable greed!!

the end does not justify the means. We've (the world,
that is) played that game before, remember?

And how do you know that traits like acquisitiveness,
which become criminal when taken to extreme, aren't valuable
in moderation? Seems to me it's responsible for most of our
technological advancement.

except that it hasn't yet materialized.
If it had, it'd have out-competed all others because it
works better.

-----------------------------
That's like saying that if it were possible for an improved human
species to exist, that it would already, that's a logical fallacy.

No, I said what I said. Don't draw bogus similies.

re: Deimocracy

You SHOULD have fraudulently alleged "demonocracy".

"Fraudulently alleged"? I was talking about the system
you promote. "Rule by terror" is more accurate in describing
it anyway; everyone would live in continuous terror that
they'd be dragged away to be tortured to death for _any_
crime at all.

--------------------------
Nope, all they need do to be safe is to desist from engaging in
anything that could be regarded as criminal. Crimes are unfair.

"Could be regarded". Yep, certain safety.

If one wishes not to be jailed or killed then do not kill, steal,
or plot to become rich, or benefit by ANY other means than the
sweat of your own brow. If you even THINK of cheating someone,
you should feel the terror of death at your throat!! There are
a million things you can do which can in NO way EVER be regarded
as crimes or evil! DO THOSE AND LIVE!!

Better to make everyone filthy rich. Greed requires
inspiration.

Why do you think the period immediately
following the French Revolution was called "The Terror"?
Granted it was milder than your version, they "humanely"
guillotined their victims.

-------------------------------
The humanity of the guillotine is debatable, but the French Revolution
and the tumbrills taking them to the blade was about PRIOR bad acts
which they might be executed for due to rumor or innuendo, or merely
because someone didn't LIKE them, AND without proof.

BUT!: We should offer ONE AND ONLY ONE CHANCE to be forgiven ALL
acts that are NEWLY made crimes which are not now punished, other
than murder and brutality and prior embezzlement, conditional on
them being willing to divest, to desist, to forswear EVER doing such
again, and then to live in abject fairness with others and without
ANY complaint against that fairness. If they ever depart that, then
they can expect NO mercy.

Why do you exclude "prior embezzlement" (assuming they
divest their ill-gotten gains)? Are you merely assuming they
can't break the habit?

BTW why did you suggest "demonocracy"? Did you think I
was trying to demonize you or your system? Not at all. I'm
merely pointing out what I see as flaws.

-------------------------------
You don't even understand my system, you believed I was some sort
of Richelieu. I'm perfectly willing to forgive and forget, as long
as they divest and forget ever trying that shit again!

The flaw I see is its essential brutality. Death by
torture as criminal punishment is practically a definition
of uncivilized. Hell, why not go for "necklacing"? That's
_really_ brutal.

I don't doubt that you've intensely studied politics,
economics, and so on in order to reach the conclusions you
have, but have you studied actual _people_? It's been said
that most people live in "quiet desperation" due to the
confining effects of the socioeconomic system(s) they're
immersed in, and AFAICT it's true. It strikes me that if you
offered them the option (or ordered them) to exchange that
quiet desperation for active terror, most would decline. Why
do you think The Terror ended?

--------------------------------
Since I'm not interested in terrorizing people, except to dissuade
people from criminality, your analogy is totally flawed. Yes, I
believe firmly that anyone who tries to collect rent should be killed
outright, but if they head warnings not to try that and do not,
then I am not at all interested in them coming to harm. Yes, I think
that anyone who tries to flee with wealth should be killed, but if
they don't and accept the loss of their wealth with aplomb, I could
care less. Yes, I believe that anyone who tries to pay someone less
than he is paid should be killed, but if they do not, then they are
not criminals. This is simple. No one is in danger who isn't a
stubborn vicious animalistic conspirator against the People's State.

You're not talking about the unfair accumulation of
wealth, you're talking about status games, and power over
others, with physical wealth as game counters. You cannot
completely remove those impulses from humans. _Have_ you
ever studied actual people?

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.

I'd like to see you rule ANY OTHER WAY!

See, that's the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe
most people _need_ ruling, whereas you do. BTW, you never
answered one of my earlier questions; why do you think _you_
need to be ruled?

-----------------------------------
*I* don't, MOST people of GoodWill don't. The good will support,
obey, and agree with the rules, but those who do not will have to
be dererred from acting out their viciousness by simple fright and
terror.

Were you terrorized by an asshole landlord, or what?
You're extremely fond of imagining using terror to enforce
your ideals.

If we did not have law and punishment now, the most strong and
vicious would destroy society, steal everything, kill anyone who
got in their way and then wonder why they had no place they could
plug it all in.

Then they'd kill each other off (status imperative) until
one with a smidgen of forbearance filtered down, and quit
killing those who actually work. That's how we got where we
are, after all. Machiavelli and Nietzsche were full of shit.

These minority of criminals exist in every population, and they are
a sizable minority of deviants who might be eliminated by careful
eugenics, that remains to be seen, or simply be made non-existent by
better childrearing that is socially enforced by the People's Will.

Again, you see acquisitiveness as absolute deviancy. I do
not.

Did you imagine you could simply get evil people to "get along"
with the rest of us just because you ASKED them to?

No. As I told you before, _my_ (as near as possible)
ideal social system provides that all citizens be equally
capable of self-defense against all comers. Frinst, laws
that ban "assault weapons" are stupid; assault weapons also
make dandy _anti_-assault weapons. Similarly, why can't I
buy the same (high) grades of body armor available to law
enforcement and the military, given I'm not a _proven_
threat to either?

--------------------------------
It depends on your opinions whether you are or not.

What? I've never threatened a cop or the security of the USA.

If you are a decent citizen in obedience to the Democratic Will
of the People, then you can be certified as someone We Trust.

Screw trust, gimme body armor.

No social group will permit those they don't trust to be armed,
and they SHOULD NOT!!!!

I don't care who's armed, if I'm armored.

Those with no political shadow over them will undoubtedly be
permitted private ownership of arms, and they'll be expected to
use them against criminals at the behest or their neighbors.

There's that "political shadow" again; why do you propose
letting such people (potential criminals) live at all? I see
a logical disconnect here.

But people who have expressed opinions that are against Fairness
and Democratic Equality, or who have been sanctioned politically
and forbidden political expression because their opinions were
dangerous to the body politic and our freedoms and equality, they
must be denied that, as any criminal must be.

Then why are they still breathing? Where's your ruthlessness?

All governments rule by fear of punishment. That's what LAW is!

Exactly. If we aren't capable of wronging anyone else
(because they can defend themselves), what's LAW for?

----------------------------------
To punish, and thus deter criminality. Self-defense against criminals
is iffy, and if self-defense worked perfectly we might not need police.

Exactly.

But of course we do, one cannot withstand a seige of bandits, or a
silent bandit while you sleep. We are weak things, alone. But together
we are VERY dangerous.

Ever heard of locks, or dogs, or a zillion other things
to deter sneaks in the night? A lone, armed (FTM unarmed)
man can also be very dangerous _if_ he's taught properly. If
_all_ are taught properly, none are dangerous. That may
sound like a paradox, but it isn't. Think it through.

The rule of Democracy is just, that is the only difference.

Which definition of "just" do you have in mind? My
Webster's gives several, and they're all subtly different.
Some appeal to objective fact, to reason, or to a moral
standard. However, "objective fact" keeps changing its face
according to one's Newtonian/Einsteinian/QM prejudices,
"reason" evolves as new methods of thought develop, and
"moral absolutes" vary by time, place, and culture, even
from one person to the next. Hence the concept of "justice"
gets rather fuzzy. Better to stick with "fairness" or
"equality" as they're easier to define and more broadly
applicable.

-----------------------------
I see the absolute same moral absolutes from time immemorial.

Which ones would they be? You and I do not share some
important ones, frinst that brutality begets more brutality.

Fairness and Equality was spoken of old, by ancient prophets
and seers.

No problem.

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force,

Hell, they do that already! It's called taxes.

Yet another example of the "wrongness" of all extant
systems (that support themselves by taxation, equal or
unequal). You would presumably levy taxes on me to provide a
hall for your assorted councils to meet in, paper for
records, etc. Screw that, let 'em meet in their homes, or
outdoors, and provide their own materials.

----------------------------
Nonsense. Taxes of some kind, an extraction of wealth from everyone
to do everyone's Democratic Will, is inevitable.

Why?

It takes a complete idiot as only a Libertarian can be to stupidly
believe otherwise.

Insults are pointless; try convincing me with logic.
Aristotle taught with a stick and some sand; you have much
more to work with.

then torture me to death for daring to accumulate goods.

If it's by your theft from others instead of your own labor.

According to your definition of "theft". If I buy
something made in China (at a lesser price than a similar
product made here), am I conspiring with the international
network of politicians, manufacturers, distributors, etc.
who set up the current system, in order to steal from the
laborers involved given that they don't get the same wage as
local laborers? Or, am I stealing from the local laborers
because I didn't help pay their higher wages? Both? Neither?

-------------------------------------
It's up to your neighbors, do what they say, seek their counsel,
decide together what is fair, until Democratic Communism can be
exported across the entire earth and end ALL inequality. If the
People say it's okay for now, then do that, and cite that recorded
opinion in your notes justifying yourself and you cannot be held
at any fault. When it changes, abide that new ruling as well.

Hello? Not in your Utopia, but here, today.

What if I _make_ said something instead of buying either
local-made or imported? Am I stealing from both groups of
laborers?
Lots of opportunity for terror there.

------------------------------------
Making something for yourself is always permitted, it is your labor.

How about the poor bastard who didn't get the opportunity
to sell me said something? Unfair competition is a crime, no?

And don't tell me about how you're talking about your
ideal situation; I'm talking about the real world. According
to your lights, am I a thief _right now_?

-----------------------------------
I don't know your life in detail.

I gave you examples of things I do (so do you, no doubt).
Apply your moral absolutes and give me a straight answer.

Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.

Irrelevant bullshit and bluster.

Really? I'm talking about _your_ willingness to enforce
your system.

----------------
NO one person enforces a "system".
As a member of a Democratic group I'm willing.

Ah, I see. Safety in the mob. Your display of courage of
your convictions is inspiring.

If you think I'm a thief, why are you letting
me get away with it rather than hurrying over with your
flensing knives? Do you think I'll passively let you
disassemble me?

-------------------
It doesn't matter, if we wanted you, you'd lose.
Are you really so stupid that you don't know this??

But how many are willing to die messily to get me? I know
lots of "dangerous" techniques. I'm not so stupid that I
don't know some basic mob psychology.

You'll pee yourself when the police point their guns at you,
just like all the rest.

How many times have you had police's guns pointed at you?
For me three so far, and my pants stayed dry partly because
I knew I was innocent, and partly because I don't fear
death.

------------
Liars like you amuse. I worked in an ER for 3.5 years,
you're ALL terrified, everyone, to the last moment.

You so easily assume the worst of me; why do you assume
I'm lying? Or are you merely projecting?

Tasers, now, that's different. Nobody relishes the
prospect of being incapacitated even temporarily.

Doesn't matter, if we want you, we'll have you.
And you'll capitulate or die.
That's true tonight, in the current system,

Then answer my questions about your judgement of my
behavior in today's system.

and true in ALL systems forever.
You are NOT "in charge" of what you get.

Yeah, I remember your dismissal of free will based on
your unfounded belief in determinism.

So, ever heard of Heisenberg?

Mark L. Fergerson

R. Steve Walz · Oct 9, 2003

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Unlike you, I make no assumptions about any "perfect"
socioeconomic system
-----------------------------
I don't judge the "perfection" of a social system by its "perfection"
of design, or any kind of "elegance of function". I judge perfection
in social systems by whether they are fair to everyone. For all I
care it can function badly and require us to execute people and
suppress evil viciously, and scare many people who richly deserve it,
and why would I still support it, you might ask? Because it is FAIR
and RIGHT, and it will cause our species to evolve toward its happiest

"Fair" I'll accept because your rules would apply to all,
but "right" is a flat-out value judgement on your part, with
which I disagree, because:

future, even if it must do so by killing those of us with the inherent
flaws of dishonesty, unfairness, and unsociable greed!!

the end does not justify the means.
------------------

Nonsense. Of course it does!!

We've (the world,
that is) played that game before, remember?
--------------------

Never did, all sides use the same means, to different ends.
Every time, every win or loss occurs that way.

All we have ever gained and all we have ever lost
was gained or lost by the same means exactly.

Therefore!: *ONLY* the ends justify the means!!

And how do you know that traits like acquisitiveness,
which become criminal when taken to extreme, aren't valuable
in moderation? Seems to me it's responsible for most of our
technological advancement.
-------------------------------

We are now beyond evolution. What we get is up to what we want,
and no other thing. Whatever is useful will be preserved, BY US,
and whatever is not, TO US, will be destroyed, BY US.

Some form of acquisitiveness, namely for the group, are laudable.
Other forms are NOT, they are criminal. The ends justify the means.

The sprectum from evil to good is the same trait, developed for
different ends, and whatever develops it to Good ends, will be
preseved, and whatever does not will be destroyed.

except that it hasn't yet materialized.
If it had, it'd have out-competed all others because it
works better.
-----------------------------
That's like saying that if it were possible for an improved human
species to exist, that it would already, that's a logical fallacy.

No, I said what I said. Don't draw bogus similies.
------------------------------

Nope, that's what you said, a patent fallacy.
It is fallacious to insist the future happen now.

re: Deimocracy
You SHOULD have fraudulently alleged "demonocracy".

"Fraudulently alleged"? I was talking about the system
you promote. "Rule by terror" is more accurate in describing
it anyway; everyone would live in continuous terror that
they'd be dragged away to be tortured to death for _any_
crime at all.
--------------------------
Nope, all they need do to be safe is to desist from engaging in
anything that could be regarded as criminal. Crimes are unfair.

"Could be regarded". Yep, certain safety.
-----------------------

I was being artful, it IS criminal.
Democracy determines what is "regarded" as what in the end.

If one wishes not to be jailed or killed then do not kill, steal,
or plot to become rich, or benefit by ANY other means than the
sweat of your own brow. If you even THINK of cheating someone,
you should feel the terror of death at your throat!! There are
a million things you can do which can in NO way EVER be regarded
as crimes or evil! DO THOSE AND LIVE!!

Better to make everyone filthy rich.
-------------------------

Impossible, rich is relevative.

Greed requires inspiration.
-------------------------

So does crime. Irrelevant.

Why do you think the period immediately
following the French Revolution was called "The Terror"?
Granted it was milder than your version, they "humanely"
guillotined their victims.
-------------------------------
The humanity of the guillotine is debatable, but the French > > Revolution
and the tumbrills taking them to the blade was about PRIOR bad acts
which they might be executed for due to rumor or innuendo, or merely
because someone didn't LIKE them, AND without proof.

BUT!: We should offer ONE AND ONLY ONE CHANCE to be forgiven ALL
acts that are NEWLY made crimes which are not now punished, other
than murder and brutality and prior embezzlement, conditional on
them being willing to divest, to desist, to forswear EVER doing such
again, and then to live in abject fairness with others and without
ANY complaint against that fairness. If they ever depart that, then
they can expect NO mercy.

Why do you exclude "prior embezzlement" (assuming they
divest their ill-gotten gains)? Are you merely assuming they
can't break the habit?
---------------------------------

Nope, intentional conspiratorial embezzlement from the people
shows a conscious and intentional disregard of honesty so that
it isn't forgiveable, and they should be forever barred from
free survival. Crimes of passion are understandable, crimes of
desperation forgivable, but crimes of connivance, plotting of
theft mis-using power, and disregard for equality, democracy,
and justice are unforgivable.

BTW why did you suggest "demonocracy"? Did you think I
was trying to demonize you or your system? Not at all. I'm
merely pointing out what I see as flaws.

-------------------------------
You don't even understand my system, you believed I was some sort
of Richelieu. I'm perfectly willing to forgive and forget, as long
as they divest and forget ever trying that shit again!

The flaw I see is its essential brutality. Death by
torture as criminal punishment is practically a definition
of uncivilized. Hell, why not go for "necklacing"? That's
_really_ brutal.
--------------------------------------

Ho-hum.
Deterrence, when it works, has to work because it terrifies
the potential conniving conspiratorial plotter into absolutely
abject fright so that he cannot function to do his crime.

I don't doubt that you've intensely studied politics,
economics, and so on in order to reach the conclusions you
have, but have you studied actual _people_? It's been said
that most people live in "quiet desperation" due to the
confining effects of the socioeconomic system(s) they're
immersed in, and AFAICT it's true. It strikes me that if you
offered them the option (or ordered them) to exchange that
quiet desperation for active terror, most would decline. Why
do you think The Terror ended?
--------------------------------
Since I'm not interested in terrorizing people, except to dissuade
people from criminality, your analogy is totally flawed. Yes, I
believe firmly that anyone who tries to collect rent should be > > killed
outright, but if they head warnings not to try that and do not,
then I am not at all interested in them coming to harm. Yes, I think
that anyone who tries to flee with wealth should be killed, but if
they don't and accept the loss of their wealth with aplomb, I could
care less. Yes, I believe that anyone who tries to pay someone less
than he is paid should be killed, but if they do not, then they are
not criminals. This is simple. No one is in danger who isn't a
stubborn vicious animalistic conspirator against the People's State.

You're not talking about the unfair accumulation of
wealth, you're talking about status games, and power over
others, with physical wealth as game counters.
------------------

Be careful what kind of shit you defend, lest you smell like it.
And ask yourself whether you really want to defend criminal evil
just because it can excite people who are damaged.

You cannot
completely remove those impulses from humans.
---------------------------------------

Sure I can. They come from the abuse done to children by being
brainwashed and harmed by a chaotic evil abusive society that
doesn't even deserve that name.

A true society protects, fulfills, enhances, loves, and cautions
its people to remain the innocent loving children as they are
born, but generates the vilest most enduring hatred for anyone
or anything that treats people inequitably, unfairly, unjustly,
or with less than determined stubborn equality.

_Have_ you ever studied actual people?
--------------------------

All my life, and if they cannot be corrected, then they don't
deserve to live, not individuals who cannot, and not even as
a species! It would make any future useless, worthless, and
hopeless. Better an asteroid, better moreso that they are
destroyed and know WHY, that they might suffer guilt for
their evil for the few seconds before death, and thus learn
Truth. Better death and Truth than an infinity of falsehood
and futile feral striving to clamber up some fanciful ladder
of meritorius theivery by stomping on the faces and lives of
others.

That's what your Ideal government is; rule by fear.
You've described it often enough.

I'd like to see you rule ANY OTHER WAY!

See, that's the nub of our disagreement. I don't believe
most people _need_ ruling, whereas you do. BTW, you never
answered one of my earlier questions; why do you think _you_
need to be ruled?
-----------------------------------
*I* don't, MOST people of GoodWill don't. The good will support,
obey, and agree with the rules, but those who do not will have to
be dererred from acting out their viciousness by simple fright and
terror.

Were you terrorized by an asshole landlord, or what?
-----------------------------

Not specifically, but Asshole IS the definition of a Landlord.

Those who steal your labor renting you something you are owed
by right of birth are vicious thieves and enslavers.

You're extremely fond of imagining using terror to enforce
your ideals.
------------------------------------

It is the requirement of Morality that Evil be opposed Infinitely
and Eternally, that Evil be Absolutely Opposed Unequivocally.

If we did not have law and punishment now, the most strong and
vicious would destroy society, steal everything, kill anyone who
got in their way and then wonder why they had no place they could
plug it all in.

Then they'd kill each other off (status imperative) until
one with a smidgen of forbearance filtered down, and quit
killing those who actually work. That's how we got where we
are, after all. Machiavelli and Nietzsche were full of shit.
------------------------------------

The least required to survive is not the BEST outcome to survive in.
And we deserve the BEST, not the least!

The invariable lesson of history is that We Must take control as
a whole People, and with NO smarmy apology of ANY kind oppose and
thus prevent All Evil of All Kinds with the most vicious Extreme
Prejudice.

If it prevents even ONE crime, we should make the penalty for that
crime MORE brutal, vicious, and torturous enough to deter anyone
from it! We should make the penalty SO frightening that NO one ever
even DARES TO THINK of that crime EVER AGAIN without PEEING themselves!

These minority of criminals exist in every population, and they are
a sizable minority of deviants who might be eliminated by careful
eugenics, that remains to be seen, or simply be made non-existent by
better childrearing that is socially enforced by the People's Will.

Again, you see acquisitiveness as absolute deviancy. I do
not.
------------------------------------

Acquisitiveness is not a deviancy, theft is the deviancy.

Acquisitiveness can be principled, for oneself by one's own
sweat and effort, or for the group by one's loyalty to their
beloved tribe and community, but anyone who allows theirs
to be UN-principled must be CULLED with the most terrifying
viciousness, so that even the NOTION becomes UNTHINKABLE!

Did you imagine you could simply get evil people to "get along"
with the rest of us just because you ASKED them to?

No. As I told you before, _my_ (as near as possible)
ideal social system provides that all citizens be equally
capable of self-defense against all comers. Frinst, laws
that ban "assault weapons" are stupid; assault weapons also
make dandy _anti_-assault weapons. Similarly, why can't I
buy the same (high) grades of body armor available to law
enforcement and the military, given I'm not a _proven_
threat to either?
--------------------------------
It depends on your opinions whether you are or not.

What? I've never threatened a cop or the security of the USA.
-----------------------------

How about the future government?

If you are a decent citizen in obedience to the Democratic Will
of the People, then you can be certified as someone We Trust.

Screw trust, gimme body armor.
--------------------------------

If the People trust you, you'll have it, if not, They will!

No social group will permit those they don't trust to be armed,
and they SHOULD NOT!!!!

I don't care who's armed, if I'm armored.
-------------------------------

Then you've never seen the penetration of a .50 caliber round at
close range.

Those with no political shadow over them will undoubtedly be
permitted private ownership of arms, and they'll be expected to
use them against criminals at the behest or their neighbors.

There's that "political shadow" again; why do you propose
letting such people (potential criminals) live at all? I see
a logical disconnect here.
------------------------------

This society lets parentally-beaten bad-boy-types threaten, and to
act out threateningly, and say evil shit to others for years before
they get caught for beating or killing someone. No future society
will tolerate that. People who say shit like that will be detained
and imprisoned just for THREATENING crime years beforehand as a
public threat.

You see, it used to be you could say any old thing and they couldn't
touch you, but the last 20 years society has developed a host of
new anti-"intimidation" anti-terrorist threat" laws that allow us
to assume that if you say evil threats that you are danger, and which
are crimes in and of themselves.

And so if someone plots to steal from the rest of us, and we can
detect that they might be apt to commit such a crime by their prior
speech and communications, then we'll prevent that in advance as
well.

If either of those are "political" then why are they just murder
and theft, the same as all CRIME down through history?? Because
political IS about theft and abuse, THAT'S why, by an entire CLASS!

But people who have expressed opinions that are against Fairness
and Democratic Equality, or who have been sanctioned politically
and forbidden political expression because their opinions were
dangerous to the body politic and our freedoms and equality, they
must be denied that, as any criminal must be.

Then why are they still breathing? Where's your ruthlessness?
------------------------------

If you're just going to get fanciful now and try to steer this
into some disingenuous claim that I should take on the world
alone, I'll just start throwing the shit you deserve at you in
huge handfuls, so tell me and we can truncate all the content
and go right for pure hatred and viciousness, that's what
most of you shitheads finally do when you can't find a way to
out-think me.

All governments rule by fear of punishment. That's what LAW is!

Exactly. If we aren't capable of wronging anyone else
(because they can defend themselves), what's LAW for?
----------------------------------
To punish, and thus deter criminality. Self-defense against criminals
is iffy, and if self-defense worked perfectly we might not need police.

Exactly.
---------------

Meaning we meed police, and laws.

But of course we do, one cannot withstand a seige of bandits, or a
silent bandit while you sleep. We are weak things, alone. But together
we are VERY dangerous.

Ever heard of locks, or dogs, or a zillion other things
to deter sneaks in the night? A lone, armed (FTM unarmed)
man can also be very dangerous _if_ he's taught properly. If
_all_ are taught properly, none are dangerous. That may
sound like a paradox, but it isn't. Think it through.
-------------------

There is not one single person I can't kill if I choose to take
the time to watch them, but I'd never think of taking on everybody.

The rule of Democracy is just, that is the only difference.

Which definition of "just" do you have in mind? My
Webster's gives several, and they're all subtly different.
Some appeal to objective fact, to reason, or to a moral
standard. However, "objective fact" keeps changing its face
according to one's Newtonian/Einsteinian/QM prejudices,
"reason" evolves as new methods of thought develop, and
"moral absolutes" vary by time, place, and culture, even
from one person to the next. Hence the concept of "justice"
gets rather fuzzy. Better to stick with "fairness" or
"equality" as they're easier to define and more broadly
applicable.
-----------------------------
I see the absolute same moral absolutes from time immemorial.

Which ones would they be? You and I do not share some
important ones, frinst that brutality begets more brutality.
-------------------------------------

Irrelevant, and not even demonstrable.
Brutality that wins can afford to be magnanimous.

Fairness and Equality was spoken of old, by ancient prophets
and seers.

No problem.

You are the one who proposes to take the fruits of my
labor from me by force,

Hell, they do that already! It's called taxes.

Yet another example of the "wrongness" of all extant
systems (that support themselves by taxation, equal or
unequal). You would presumably levy taxes on me to provide a
hall for your assorted councils to meet in, paper for
records, etc. Screw that, let 'em meet in their homes, or
outdoors, and provide their own materials.
----------------------------
Nonsense. Taxes of some kind, an extraction of wealth from everyone
to do everyone's Democratic Will, is inevitable.

Why?
-----------------------------------

Because in a group, to do what the group decides, each must offer
their services.

It takes a complete idiot as only a Libertarian can be to stupidly
believe otherwise.

Insults are pointless; try convincing me with logic.
----------------------------

When Libertarians get done qualifying that they don't believe
in literal Libertarianism, who would all have to grant each other
easements and beg for help fixing the roads, they wind up as just
more thieving Republicans.

Aristotle taught with a stick and some sand; you have much
more to work with.
--------------------------------

He did too, he was merely posturing.

then torture me to death for daring to accumulate goods.

If it's by your theft from others instead of your own labor.

According to your definition of "theft". If I buy
something made in China (at a lesser price than a similar
product made here), am I conspiring with the international
network of politicians, manufacturers, distributors, etc.
who set up the current system, in order to steal from the
laborers involved given that they don't get the same wage as
local laborers? Or, am I stealing from the local laborers
because I didn't help pay their higher wages? Both? Neither?
-------------------------------------
It's up to your neighbors, do what they say, seek their counsel,
decide together what is fair, until Democratic Communism can be
exported across the entire earth and end ALL inequality. If the
People say it's okay for now, then do that, and cite that recorded
opinion in your notes justifying yourself and you cannot be held
at any fault. When it changes, abide that new ruling as well.

Hello? Not in your Utopia, but here, today.
----------------------------

I can't speak of a flawed state. Any chaotic example can be given.

What if I _make_ said something instead of buying either
local-made or imported? Am I stealing from both groups of
laborers?
Lots of opportunity for terror there.
------------------------------------
Making something for yourself is always permitted, it is your labor.

How about the poor bastard who didn't get the opportunity
to sell me said something? Unfair competition is a crime, no?
--------------------------------

Selling is the crime if he doesn't get it sanctioned.
He can probably do so easily, but he has to ask the Local Committee.
He sells it to the People's State for the correct labor hours and
his friend buys it with somehat more labor hours, adjusted to pay
the "taxes" which is the adjustment factor between hours to produce
and hours to buy that finances Public purposes as the People enact.

And don't tell me about how you're talking about your
ideal situation; I'm talking about the real world. According
to your lights, am I a thief _right now_?
-----------------------------------
I don't know your life in detail.

I gave you examples of things I do (so do you, no doubt).
Apply your moral absolutes and give me a straight answer.
-------------------------------------

I speak of personal morality and Public Legality only. My personal
morality is mine, the Public Legality I discuss is in the context
of a new society. In that new society tell me what you'd do and
I'll tell you the outcome.

Come try, and we'll see who's a coward.

Irrelevant bullshit and bluster.

Really? I'm talking about _your_ willingness to enforce
your system.
----------------
NO one person enforces a "system".
As a member of a Democratic group I'm willing.

Ah, I see. Safety in the mob. Your display of courage of
your convictions is inspiring.
--------------------------------

I have no interest in martyrdom, neither does anyone else.

More disingenuous baiting, do you want the shit throwing to start yet?
Most of you assholes realize you're losing and start throwing shit,
lying, and calling names LONG before this.

If you think I'm a thief, why are you letting
me get away with it rather than hurrying over with your
flensing knives? Do you think I'll passively let you
disassemble me?
-------------------
It doesn't matter, if we wanted you, you'd lose.
Are you really so stupid that you don't know this??

But how many are willing to die messily to get me? I know
lots of "dangerous" techniques. I'm not so stupid that I
don't know some basic mob psychology.
---------------------------------------

If you want to be dead, they will do that, and without dying
or even being endangered themselves. You're a boasting fool.
You'll be stuck where you are, isolated till you starve, then
if you come out, you'll be taken down. You've become a boasting
fool.

You'll pee yourself when the police point their guns at you,
just like all the rest.

How many times have you had police's guns pointed at you?
For me three so far, and my pants stayed dry partly because
I knew I was innocent, and partly because I don't fear
death.
------------
Liars like you amuse. I worked in an ER for 3.5 years,
you're ALL terrified, everyone, to the last moment.

You so easily assume the worst of me; why do you assume
I'm lying? Or are you merely projecting?
-------------------------------

It's what teenagers do, they puff up their chests and boast
of their virilty, their car, their dad's weapons, their strength,
all irrelevant in the face of a public police force. Humans must
breathe, eat, sleep, and when alone, all these result in total
vulnerabilities.

Tasers, now, that's different. Nobody relishes the
prospect of being incapacitated even temporarily.

Doesn't matter, if we want you, we'll have you.
And you'll capitulate or die.
That's true tonight, in the current system,

Then answer my questions about your judgement of my
behavior in today's system.
----------------------------

The current system is unimportant.

and true in ALL systems forever.
You are NOT "in charge" of what you get.

Yeah, I remember your dismissal of free will based on
your unfounded belief in determinism.
---------------------------------

You shouldn't lie and claim somethng is "unfounded"
without offer of proof. It's a sad little tactic,
but all you have left, I suppose.

So, ever heard of Heisenberg?

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------------------

You misunderstand Heisenberg, as I know quite well, being a
physicist. Determinism is widely known among physicists to
be entirely reasonable in response to QM and Uncertainty,
in the MWI or Many World Interpretation of QM, which knows
no contradiction in the Science, nor CAN it, being too simple
to assail.

Only one Future happens, to US, and it was always GOING to
happen, to US, whoever "US" is. We will never ever experience
more than one timeline, one set of events in our life, and it
does finally happen as it will happen, therefore it was always
going to happen. That *IS* Determinism, QED.

QM describes statistical randomness in subatomic interactions,
but doesn't in ANY way contradict inevitability. That is a
common, and a very amateurish mistake about QM by laymen.

Nor does that randomness have any relation to "Free Will"
in the human brain, because you have no more control over
what subatomic interactions finally do than you would over
a coin toss. If you did, reality couldn't even work right
because you'd be able to change your beliefs about the world
you live in on a whim, and you'd find yourself in some new
false world you THINK you live in, in other words, you'd be
psychotic!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Field Hoppers Produce Results

BretCahill

Guest

Harry Conover

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

BretCahill

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

BretCahill

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

BretCahill

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor