War on humanity

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?
---------------------------

Ooops. They do that already, my system is no different. It's up to
the People whether they want to enslave criminals or kill them.

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted
as any other.
-----------------------------

Balderdash, that's what Democracy IS!!
The only ones frightened of your mis-labeled "tyranny of the
majority" are the criminally thieving rich minority!!

Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of
government should enslave the less number that would be free?
--------------

Yes! Freedom is not freedom that enslaves the Majority to the
minority's criminal desires against them. And pretending that
obtaining liberties which ALL cannot have is not simply vicious
criminality is a fraud!!

More just
it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a
greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than
that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less
most injuriously to be their fellow slaves.
----------------

They will fail. They have always failed, and the Truth is that
which the Majority will finally hold as True.

They who seek nothing but
their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they
have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.
- John Milton
---------------------------------------

Anarchist criminals, like Miltons heroes, have no such rights,
and his stupid AynRandian posturing does NOT withstand reasoned
analysis.

Rights are awarded by the Majority, because strongman minorities
will never honor the rights of ALL, only steal those rights of
the rest of US and CALL them their own, as they always did in
the countless past crimes of feudalism.

What Milton was probably talking about from his one-sided view,
and the SAME error of analysis by Rand, was the oppression of
MAJORITY freedom by the Minority Nobility, which I assail as
well!! But he simply had no psychological analysis back in his
day to use to describe the mass brainwashing of the majority!!

-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <slrnc9e69e.m69.jdege@jdege.visi.com>,
jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted as
any other.

There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but perhaps
it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is tyrranical, and
should be avoided.
---------------

Nonsense.
Majorities who vote rights for one vote those same rights for
themselves. No Majority votes to enslave a minority, because
each wonders if he might be next!! The Majority only votes
to oppose criminality.

However, certain democratic processes are useful
to help maintain freedom by helping to maintain balance. A constitution
(or an immutable body of laws) is critical to maintain 'rule of law'
instead of a kind of 'rule by fiat.' This fiat can come from a Stalin
clone or an angry mob.
----------------------

All that means is writing it down.

It seems like the American constitutional process is a good (far from
perfect) example of balancing some of the attributes of 'democracy' with
a balanced 'rule of law.'
---------------------------

Many better systems of bureaucracy can be devised, the US Constitution
is popularly regarded as "perfect" for some propaganda purpose, but
it's a dogshit assertion. We have much better offerings.

It probably isn't necessary that the laws all be formalized, because
the UK seems to do a reasonably good job (perhaps defective in ways
other than in the US) of maintaining a balance with 'rule of law'.
-----------------------

Precisely, precedent works fine.

However, it does seem like certain rights aren't as clearly defined
as in the US. On the other hand, just because the Constitution states
that citizens are free, some of the freedoms can be re/mis-interpreted.
----------------------------------------

As they will be till people are sure what they are.

Some of the 'reinterpretations' or responsibly made 'modifications' are
quite good: clarifying rights for minorities or women. However, some
of the other modifications by attempted reinterpretation are intellectually
dishonest: (e.g. there is no specific right to privacy, and purposeful
misreading of archaic usage has given anti-gun forces some sway.)
-------------

There is no right of private criminality against others. There is
every right of privacy as in peace and quiet enjoyment. That is the
distinction that has yet to be properly made.

In some cases, I prefer some of the misinterpretations, but too often
our politicians don't have the courage or the public support to
effect an actual constitutional ammendment. Because of the possiblities
of tyrrany,
---------------

You forget, no "tyranny" was ever Democratic.
All we need is Democracy!
And that is all we can ever get anyway!


I MUCH prefer that we forgo the attempted 'common law' or

even 'dishonest' ammendments until they are done correctly. (Common
law isn't bad, but it is bad when the Constitution in the US is the
contract between the federal government and the people. Other places
might do it differently.)

John
-------------------------------

Some rights are wrong. Some wrongs are right. People will learn.
Democracy has made "tyranny" impossible. You just don't know it
yet.

-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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <40972721.5B9B@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?
---------------------------
Ooops. They do that already, my system is no different.

Ooops, your claim is definitely wrong WRT in the US.
----------------

I guess you haven't read about the Innocence Project's review
of executions the last 20 years.

The rule
of law is the basis of our decision making processes, while a
Jury only ejudicates the decision based upon the law (modulo
Jury nullification.) There are MANY MANY more checks and balances
in the American system beyond your beloved MOB RULE.
-----------------------------

I have no such love. You're a liar.
Democracy is the opposite of mob rule.

Your repubicanism is closer to "mob rule", allowing corporate
criminal mobs to profiteer.

Democracy in the pure sense (as you seem to advocate) is very
bad,
---------------

An allegation you cannot defend. And consequently don't!

and not much better (and sometimes much worse) than your
heros Stalin, Hitler or Mao...
-----------------

Why do you pretend Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were Democratists???
How stupid are you, really!!???

You seem also to forget that
the logical evolution of your 'socialist' mecca is indeed the
tyrranical dictatorship.
---------------------

Are you really so stupid that you imagine you can just prate
this insidious lying crap without defending it with reaosns?

You can't, you know, and there aren't any!

The checks and balances of your kinds
of systems are ineffective.
-----------------------

Again, you merely proclaim without demonstration or structural
argument for your belief. Are you really so intellectually
impoverished that you think you can merely state assertions
absent any defense of them?? You have none such of either kind.

Of course, no system can work when more than a small percentage
is dissident (except when you are totally tyrranical.)
----------------

I guess you aren't aware of prisons and how they have decreased
crime in the modern world. They are actually quite effective,
as crime statistics show. I'm sure that imprisoned felons would
agree with you. Maybe you should visit them and solicit their
votes!!

When you
build a system that is intrinsically tyrranical, like a
pure democracy,
-----------------

It is no moreso than ANY government. ALL governments require
obedience to laws some few or even many dislike. I see no
difference, except that a Democracy guarantees that the
minority opposed will be the smallest possible. Feudalism
does the opposite, all others are in between.

then the dissident population will often reach
a large enough proportion that you'll have total social disruption
and dysfunction, or you have to find a 'beloved leader' like
Stalin.

John
----------------------------------

Nope, the Majority will suppress them, as required, or the Majority
will mutate, and yet again suppress another minority.

-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

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <slrnc9e69e.m69.jdege@jdege.visi.com>,
jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted as
any other.

There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but perhaps

it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is tyrranical, and
should be avoided. However, certain democratic processes are useful
to help maintain freedom by helping to maintain balance. A constitution
(or an immutable body of laws) is critical to maintain 'rule of law'
instead of a kind of 'rule by fiat.' This fiat can come from a Stalin
clone or an angry mob.

It seems like the American constitutional process is a good (far from
perfect) example of balancing some of the attributes of 'democracy' with
a balanced 'rule of law.'

It probably isn't necessary that the laws all be formalized, because
the UK seems to do a reasonably good job (perhaps defective in ways
other than in the US) of maintaining a balance with 'rule of law'.
However, it does seem like certain rights aren't as clearly defined
as in the US. On the other hand, just because the Constitution states
that citizens are free, some of the freedoms can be re/mis-interpreted.

Some of the 'reinterpretations' or responsibly made 'modifications' are
quite good: clarifying rights for minorities or women. However, some
of the other modifications by attempted reinterpretation are intellectually
dishonest: (e.g. there is no specific right to privacy, and purposeful
misreading of archaic usage has given anti-gun forces some sway.)
In some cases, I prefer some of the misinterpretations, but too often
our politicians don't have the courage or the public support to
effect an actual constitutional ammendment. Because of the possiblities
of tyrrany, I MUCH prefer that we forgo the attempted 'common law' or
even 'dishonest' ammendments until they are done correctly. (Common
law isn't bad, but it is bad when the Constitution in the US is the
contract between the federal government and the people. Other places
might do it differently.)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <40972721.5B9B@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?
---------------------------
Ooops. They do that already, my system is no different.

Ooops, your claim is definitely wrong WRT in the US. The rule

of law is the basis of our decision making processes, while a
Jury only ejudicates the decision based upon the law (modulo
Jury nullification.) There are MANY MANY more checks and balances
in the American system beyond your beloved MOB RULE.

Democracy in the pure sense (as you seem to advocate) is very
bad, and not much better (and sometimes much worse) than your
heros Stalin, Hitler or Mao... You seem also to forget that
the logical evolution of your 'socialist' mecca is indeed the
tyrranical dictatorship. The checks and balances of your kinds
of systems are ineffective.

Of course, no system can work when more than a small percentage
is dissident (except when you are totally tyrranical.) When you
build a system that is intrinsically tyrranical, like a
pure democracy, then the dissident population will often reach
a large enough proportion that you'll have total social disruption
and dysfunction, or you have to find a 'beloved leader' like
Stalin.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <40972DB6.1EF2@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <40972721.5B9B@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?
---------------------------
Ooops. They do that already, my system is no different.

Ooops, your claim is definitely wrong WRT in the US.
----------------
I guess you haven't read about the Innocence Project's review
of executions the last 20 years.

You are being dishonest about the context. (This isn't 'I guess', but is

proven.) Here I'll re-insert the context:

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?
---------------------------
Ooops. They do that already, my system is no different.

Here -- I make the claim that this isn't the American system. The

'majority' doesn't really make the decision, in fact, a Judge can
throw out a death sentence. The US laws set guidelines that are
much more restrictive than your mob rule mentality.

Note that you are creating a straw argument about mistaken innocent
guilty verdicts. This has nothing to do with your suggested lawless society,
where it is totally by fiat. Note also that TOO OFTEN there are political
agendas that

The rule
of law is the basis of our decision making processes, while a
Jury only ejudicates the decision based upon the law (modulo
Jury nullification.) There are MANY MANY more checks and balances
in the American system beyond your beloved MOB RULE.
-----------------------------
I have no such love. You're a liar.
Democracy is the opposite of mob rule.

Anyone who knows what Democracy is -- it is definitely a mob

rule form of government. Are you stupid enough to believe that
there is any democracy in the world (or any system could function
under a democracy?) A very, very small state (perhaps a few 10ks),
with a homogeneous population might be able to be sustained
as a democracy or even a socialist state, but beyond that,
it is a wet dream of yours. A family is a perfect example of
the effective scale of 'socialism', for example.

Now, if you want to use common language usage where the American
system is called a 'democracy', then we have to define a huge
set of terms, because in a necessarily technical sense, even
though commonly called a 'democracy', the so called 'democratic'
systems in the world are not (and can not be) democratic.

If you want to discuss these issues, then YOU MUST describe your
system in detail, along with the legal system and the political
system. 'Democracy' doesn't cut it, unless you mean mob rule.

I wouldn't call you a liar, but simply recognize that you are
incompetent. Obviously, you are talking about things that you
aren't competent to discuss.

Now, if you want to define your terms, then there might be a
basis of discussion: for example, the US is a constitutional
government with some democratic elections for various kinds of
representatives. Even though it is accurate, it isn't sufficient.

So, start defining your terms, and specify the various governmental
and economic structures. Otherwise, you just blather.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <40972A67.4143@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <slrnc9e69e.m69.jdege@jdege.visi.com>,
jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted as
any other.

There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but perhaps
it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is tyrranical, and
should be avoided.
---------------
Nonsense.
Majorities who vote rights for one vote those same rights for
themselves. No Majority votes to enslave a minority, because
each wonders if he might be next!!

Wrong -- take a look at the structure in Iraq (without external

manipulation), and evaluate the effect of 'Democracy.' Hint:
the numbers will show that the Shite majority will have effective
control. Then, take a look at the probable Sunni/Kurd dissidents,
and think about the chaos resulting from human nature. The
fear of being in the 'minority' is non-operative because of the
long term (timescale) feedback process. People don't tend to
think much beyond the 6month-2yr timeframe, so the feedback that
you suppose is nonexistant. Essentially, you set-up the resultant
situation for tyrrany of one kind or another.

The only way to maintain stability in such a naturally federal system
is to set a framework where rights are maintained, and laws subordinate
to the constitution won't threaten the freedom or rights of the minority.
A system with democratic elections and constitutional guarantees for
rights and freedom is one example that provides some balance -- but
is NOT a democratic system per se. There are likely other systems
that can provide the balance, but they will definitely NOT be democratic.

Democracy in your way of thinking is tantamount to mob rule. It is
clear that you don't have the ability to think about in-depth
(or even trivial) consequences of idealistically pure results of
mental masturbation.

Hint: start thinking several steps beyond the idealistic imposition
that assumes a beneavolent ruler, and then evaluation the various
destablizing factors and how the system will maintain balance before
destruction (or the creation of your so beloved stalin like leader,
which is the epitome of non-democratic, but almost directly resulting
from pure democracy and human nature.)

Your kind of system can certainly work on the american sized family
level of complexity, or perhaps even slightly larger (perhaps on
a tribal basis.) Beyond that, even at a US county sized entity,
your system will break down into dictatorship (again, unless
there are constitutional guarantees.)

John

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 04:52:45 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

Because even if
you could manage such a redistribution, only weeks later the distribution
would be uneven again, because of differences in individual's desires,
ability, and chance.
----------------
Land then will no longer be salable, only tradable for the same
amount of residential land and home. All other land is governed
for social use by the Local Majority.

If you can't sell it, you don't own it.

What you plan is to have all land owned by the government, and controlled
by those in power.

In other words, a return to feudalism.

--
[Liberty] is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of
men's wisdom and capacities and aware that, withing the range for which
we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires.
It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience
of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils
so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of
his plans is likely to produce. Ambition, impatience, and hurry are
often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide
the power of coercion and if improvement depends on those who, when
authority is conferred on them, assume that in their authority lies
superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others.
I hope our generation may have learned that it has been perfectionism of
one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency
societies have achieved. With more limited objectives, more patience,
and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have
done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptive confidence
in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and in its discernment."
- F.A. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty"

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 05:26:56 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote:

There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but perhaps
it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is tyrranical, and
should be avoided.
---------------
Nonsense.
Majorities who vote rights for one vote those same rights for
themselves. No Majority votes to enslave a minority, because
each wonders if he might be next!! The Majority only votes
to oppose criminality.

And if the majority votes that R. Steve Walz is an Enemy of the
People, and his property should be siezed, and he imprisoned, for the
encouragement of the others?

--
What we have called the "British tradition" was made explicit mainly by
a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith,
and Adam Ferguson, seconded by their English contemporaries Josiah Tucker,
Edmund Burke, and William Paley, and drawing largely on a tradition rooted
in the jurisprudence of the common law. Opposed to them was the tradition
of the French Enlightenment, deeply imbued with Cartesian rationalism:
the Encyclopedists and Rousseau, the Physiocrats and Condorcet, are the
best-known representatives. [...]

Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as the ancestors
of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than
that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning
of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. The difference
is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist
view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. The
main contrast in the practical conclusions to which these approaches led
has recently been well put, as follows: "One finds the essence of freedom
in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be
realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute collective
purpose"; and "one stands for organic, slow, half-conscious growth, the
other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure,
the other for an enforced solely valid pattern." It is the second view,
as J.L. Talmon has shown in an important book from which this description
is taken, that has become the origin of totalitarian democracy.

The sweeping success of the political doctrines that stem from the
French tradition is probably due to their great appeal to human pride and
ambition. But we must not forget that the political conclusions of the
two schools derive from different conceptions of how society works. In
this respect the British philosophers laid the foundations of a profound
and essentially valid theory, while the rationalist school was simply
and completely wrong.

- F.A. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty"

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

You want equal outcome, despite differences in ability, effort, and pure
dumb luck.

------------------------
Nope, greater effort should result in greater wealth, effort is to
be measured solely by the hours spent at productive labor requested
by the Majority.

That right there is what killed the Soviet Union's socialist experiment.
You are using quantity of work as the predictor of one's wealth, not
quality of work.

The capitalistic system always rewards quality of work more than it
rewards simple quantity.

You say that a ditch digger's hours are as valuable as an engineering
designer's. But you are wrong. When a ditch digger finishes digging
his ditch, a ditch is dug. When an engineer finishes a good design,
his labor puts vast numbers of people to work, and society is enrichened
by a new product or service. The two efforts are not even close to
equal.

-Chuck

 

[Chuck Harris]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Land then will no longer be salable, only tradable for the same
amount of residential land and home. All other land is governed
for social use by the Local Majority.

How are you going to convince someone who has a piece of land that
happens to be in a popularily desirable location to swap with you
who has land that is on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, or
downwind of the People's Rehabilatory Crematorium?

By virtue of human desires, some residences will be more equal
than others. That inequality will make some people more wealthy
than others. Do you propose a complete reshuffeling every few
months (it would keep state movers occupied in their misery)?

-Chuck

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Chuck Harris" wrote
: R. Steve Walz wrote
: >>
: >>There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but
perhaps
: >>it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is
tyrannical, and
: >>should be avoided.
: > ---------------
: > Nonsense.
: > Majorities who vote rights for one vote those same rights for
: > themselves. No Majority votes to enslave a minority, because
: > each wonders if he might be next!! The Majority only votes
: > to oppose criminality.
:
: You are apparently unaware of the majority that ruled in the
: antebellum period of the US. That majority frequently ruled
: to end the rights of the minority. They did it by whipping,
burning
: and hanging. They were just plain folks, they called themselves
: the KKK.
<snip>

BS - The KKK has never been a majority! It was a religious based
group formed originally for self defense, in the Vacuum left when
the Confederacy was defeated and the Union failed to provide law
enforcement. Without oversight and regulation their goals shifted
and Racism became the primary interest of the group. Too much
power with too little restraint is always a recipe for excess and
extreme behavior. Look at Labor Unions and their political
agendas!

 

[Richard Henry]

"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4097985d$0$3054$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Land then will no longer be salable, only tradable for the same
amount of residential land and home. All other land is governed
for social use by the Local Majority.


How are you going to convince someone who has a piece of land that
happens to be in a popularily desirable location to swap with you
who has land that is on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, or
downwind of the People's Rehabilatory Crematorium?

In the past, RSW has proposed to kill all those who don't go along with his
agenda.

He has also called others "tyrants".

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> schreef in bericht
news:409571E0.3342@armory.com...

[snip]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Marx said 'I would never want to be part of a club that would have me as
a
member'.
-----------
Groucho said that, NOT Karl.

[snip]

For those who missed that, skip reading etc

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Bob Myers]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409705F8.65B5@armory.com...

Sigh. Steve, it's exactly these sorts of endless diatribes that
forced me to killfile you a while back. (That you're NOT in
the killfile now is the result of having moved on to a different
PC a couple of months ago, and not bringing all of the old
stuff over.) Could you PLEASE try to stick with electronics
here, and save the political crap for the appropriate newsgroup?

Bob M.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 03 May 2004 03:44:55 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <4095C0FA.72F7@armory.com>:

My System will be the last human system,
Yes it would.

and it will happen democratically by Majority Will.
This is actually very funny.

We are the BORG.
Resistance is futile.
JP

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 04 May 2004 02:41:51 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409703B6.54EA@armory.com>:

KR Williams wrote:

In article <4095C0FA.72F7@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40958496.3866@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------
Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

No, that's Walz. ...and you *know* it. You might as well admit
that even you admit here that you'll have to "sacrifice" those
who don't agree with you. Your record is googled.
-------------------------
It wouldn't be me, it would be the Majority.
And if they can't keep it to themselves, sure.

Bottom line:

That's why we all laugh at you. You're the lone wolf thrown out
by mommy and can't find a female who wants the bother with a
communist dog.

--
Keith
--------------------------
Haha! If you only REALLY knew!

It's amazing how many unadorned 40-50-something women want just an
intelligent lick/suck/fuck-friend who DOESN'T want to move in with
them and run their life for them!
You mean .... WORKING.... women I presume?

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409710C0.196A@armory.com>:

Example: How do you steal money when purchasing power is registered
to each person in State computers as labor hours and can only be
spent by them specifically by submitting an order and waiting for
the goods??
Hacking?

They chop off hands and make beggars, I botox their legs and make
cripples who must use their hands to work legally and buy food.
Makes no difference Steve, you can have someone without hands pull

something with a harness.
Some people can paint with the feet.
Both cases is about mutilating someone, because that someone had other
ideas then you.
Greater is he who can change the others mind, not by force from the outside,
but by letting the forces inside him / her work.
But 100% for sure the result will not be conforms you ideas.
But it will be real.
See (as to your previous point I snipped here), Good and Bad, as defined by
you, is not the same good and bad as defined by the heart.
A criminal (one in your view) can be right, a comrade (as in your system)
can be wrong, right and wrong is an internal experience.
Legal and not legal is societies verdict, NOTHING to do with right and wrong.
You are right as you now state there IS a 'basic human awareness about right
and wrong' (sort of quoting what I thought you did write), but it is NOT
possible to put that in a set of pre-defined rules, as for example your
system.
Because the right and wrong in the essence, in the heart, is a different
domain from the right and wrong in the 'reasoning' part of the MIND.
One aspect that comes from that power in the heart is compassion, missing
in your system, respect for others experiencing it (missing in your system),
and this inflexibility will make your system break.
You would have to kill your own children, as, if you make a society of 5
legged dogs, by killing all 4 legged, you may succeed perhaps, but the
children would perhaps be born with 4 again, and revolt.
Why do you think Pol Pots ideology is no more, Maos ideas are left, Stalins
ideas are left, and many other figures of the past.
The new generation came, had an open mind, and a good laugh at the system,
and then took over.
JP

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 03 May 2004 02:35:10 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <4095B0A4.9D4@armory.com>:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:12:33 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

The right of property has to meet the needs of the vast Majority for
EQUAL property, or it will fail!

Not only is there not a need for equal property, there's a fundamental
need for unequal property in order for an economy to function.
-----------------
Nope, that's unfairness and it's inherently dishonest and criminally
abusive of others who do work we all benefit from. It amounts to
enslaving others to authorize them to do work we all need done, and
would have to otherwise do ourselves, without paying them equally as
ourselves!
But what about man-women.

Women have tits, and men dont't.
Men have something women don't.
Given your interest in sex, can we conclude that as soon as your society
is advanced enough, women and man will be genetically modified, so they are
the same, and then all will be clones of you, so everyone has the same idea,
and no more problems and expensive jails or executions?
That IS a logical concequence of your line of thinking, or am I extrapolating
too far ;-)?
JP