Searching \ for '[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=definite+bloodboiler
Search entire site for: 'a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !'
2006\07\31@114118 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>I would like comments on why various speakers in this forum use the
> term "we" to refer
> to the country they live in, the sports team they favor, some
> arbitrary group they belong to.


[OT] tag added as otherwise we will largely not get this message.
OR we all will depending how the system is actually set up, as opposed
to how we are told it is.

:-)

We.
Vicarious participation or association, justified or not.
Allows us to attach ourselves to the wagon of some person/group/ideal
of which we approve (or, sometimes, don't) or would like to be
associated with. There will often be SOME basis for the linkage, but
this is not essential. (My country, my countrymen, my geographic area,
my racial group, those who think like me ...)

You know what we mean.

:-)

Arguably associated with the herd instinct, need to belong, protection
in numbers yada yada.

Specifics:

New Zealanders / we:    There are certain mindsets which tend to be
more closely correlated with our behaviours as a whole. Or not. Some
such are stereotypes with no real basis and some have some
relationship with reality. NZ was largely populated by pioneers,
adventurers and convicts. Oz had even more of the latter :-). The
pioneer period for us is "only" about 100-150 years away and the long
tail still pervades. Sport is king (or one of the kings) and we 'punch
above our weight' (even in boxing) in many areas. "We" are world
champion sportsmen and women in areas where the big Big BIG countries
are not too interested. And, on and off are also world champions in
those. With under 4 million population that's not bad. So "we" like to
go along for the ride and adulation and also partake in the hero
worship. Why wouldn't 'we'. We have held the Americas Cup and will do
so again. And the yachtsmen we race to try and regain it from are
often also NZers. In Rugby (what's that) 'we' are king of the world,
except when the Ozzies are. And Netball. And near the top in some
classes of motocross. And ... . Why should we not say we if it takes
us closer to being part of this. If you can understand why people go
to superbowl or spend months of their life watching gridiron or ...
then you don't really need to ask about 'we'. You already know what we
mean :-).

Engineers:    Partially a joke. Partially  a true correlation. See
recent post from me (I think) re correlation between eg engineers and
certain mental characteristics. These are statistical, but if they
don't apply to YOU, then, what are you doing here with us, Stranger?
:-). I just KNOW they do though based on your project !!! We all
approve.

Politics:        Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the
idiot in office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in
office who wanted to be. Both are also heroes, God's gift to the
world, saviours of mankind etc etc. Why would 'we' not want to stand
vicariously in their shadow as a group, or feel the support of all
those others as 'we' abuse them, depending on who they and we are.

The drive to belong and associate and not stand out varies with social
group. Arguably with racial group too but I suspect it's probably very
largely social effects that attach to the racial groupings they happen
to have developed among.  eg the Japanese and Asians generally to a
lesser extent overall (perhaps) are said to be more group oriented,
less individual, more 'we' than eg yer Kiwi & Ocker Antipodeans
(that's we from NZ and our Australian mates across the pond). I'm
told, and it seems, that the Japanese greatly prefer the group to be
seen as the originator and responsible party for decision and results.
That said 'we' in NZ have what is termed a "tall poppy syndrome" where
the one who sticks their heads up tends to be attacked and 'cut down
to size'. It seems that too much individualism threatens our
'we-ness'.

Maslow and his needs hierarchy probably has something of sorts to say
on this, AFAWR

Anyway, I'm sure we aren't telling you anything you don't already
know - I'm sure Y'All already know what we mean.


       Russell
       NZer and we're proud of it.




2006\07\31@143545 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> I would like comments on why various speakers in this forum use the term
>> "we" to refer to the country they live in, the sports team they favor,
>> some arbitrary group they belong to.

> We.

<-> You.

One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't provide (to my
knowledge) an easy way to distinguish between "you" (singular) and "you"
(plural). (This notwithstanding the Southern US idiom "y'all" -- which
seems to be rarely used here and I'm not sure would be generally called
"English" anyway :)  So writing "you" may very easily be responded with
"we" in a forum-type setting, where it is not clear what the "you" means.
This may then be the intended meaning -- or not.


> Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot in
> office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who
> wanted to be.

Actually little more than 20% of USA'ites voted for each. There is still
hope :)

Gerhard


'[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !'
2006\08\01@001105 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
>> Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot
>> in
>> office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who
>> wanted to be.

> Actually little more than 20% of USA'ites voted for each. There is
> still
> hope :)

Corrigendum:    Of the people who bothered to vote, nigh on ...


       R



2006\08\01@001112 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Anyway, I'm sure we aren't telling you anything you don't already
>> know - I'm sure Y'All already know what we mean.

> (plural). (This notwithstanding the Southern US idiom "y'all" --  
> which
> seems to be rarely used here ...

Say what?

:-)

       R



2006\08\01@030626 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't
>provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish
>between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural).

My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of
use.

The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is
"you".

2006\08\01@081159 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>> One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't provide (to my
>> knowledge) an easy way to distinguish between "you" (singular) and
>> "you" (plural).
>
> My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of
> use.
>
> The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is
> "you".

I didn't know that. While I of course have heard and read "thou" before, I
had no idea that it is the singular of "you" -- and I had no idea that
"you" is plural! Even though it makes sense, now that I know it.

Is this general knowledge, or am I in good company? :)

FWIW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

Gerhard

2006\08\01@101920 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gerhard,

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:07:37 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German, and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by
the plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the schedule!  "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans
that "du" rather sounds it too.  The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language *can* be used to address any number
of people, including one, and I suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will disappear except in old books, plays and
films!

Incidentally, addressing someone as "you" without using their name can feel rather agressive in English - a bit like pointing a finger at
them.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\01@105847 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:06:24 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't
> >provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish
> >between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural).
>
> My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of use.
>
> The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is "you".

Thou art correct, sir!  :-)  But "nobody" uses it any more, rather like saying "five and twenty" instead of "twenty five", but when I was
at school some of the older teachers did say numbers like that.  I don't know when "thou" died out, but I'd guess about the middle 1800s.  

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\01@115431 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 15:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:

> I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German, and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by
> the plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the schedule!  "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans
> that "du" rather sounds it too.  

I'm certainly no expert, but in the area of Austria my parents live in
I'd say things are going the other direction, sie is falling a little in
popularity, while du is more familiar, when in the company of people you
know.

> The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language *can* be used to address any number
> of people, including one, and I suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will disappear except in old books, plays and
> films!
>
> Incidentally, addressing someone as "you" without using their name can feel rather agressive in English - a bit like pointing a finger at
> them.

Interesting, something saying "you" to me doesn't seem at all
aggressive, unless you including the pointing finger with the you, then
yes, it would feel aggressive to me. TTYL

2006\08\01@131836 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>> I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German,
>> and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by the
>> plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the
>> schedule!  "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans
>> that "du" rather sounds it too.  
>
> I'm certainly no expert, but in the area of Austria my parents live in
> I'd say things are going the other direction, sie is falling a little in
> popularity, while du is more familiar, when in the company of people you
> know.

Howard, I don't know which Germans told you that, but they possibly were
from the north. Some of them tend to think they are what matters in terms
of German language and completely forget that their particular culture may
not be shared by other parts of the German language area :)

"Du" is definitely very common in southern Germany, Austria and
Switzerland. I don't know about other regions. When I'm there, I only use
"Sie" for people I don't know at all, like addressing a cashier in a
market. OTOH if that cashier looks like someone less formal, I might just
use "du".

We (I needed to get back on topic :) from the south tend to think that
people who /don't/ use it have some kind of socialization defect :)  It
definitely doesn't sound archaic.


>> The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language
>> *can* be used to address any number of people, including one, and I
>> suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will
>> disappear except in old books, plays and films!

If you want to apply this to German, it doesn't work. In German, you don't
use the 2nd person plural to address one person. (That used to be the
formal way to address higher-ups, I think, but that's definitely archaic
and I've never heard it in contemporary speech or read it in contemporary
writing.) Also, the 2nd person plural is just as informal as the 2nd person
singular -- almost same thing, just with the slightly softer touch that the
plural provides. (It's possible to address a group informally with "ihr"
(2nd person plural) that has some members that you would individually
address only formally). The formal way to address a group would be the 3rd
person plural ("Sie"); there's no way to distinguish the formal singular
from the formal plural.

Gerhard

2006\08\04@042436 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that many  
are not
eligible.  Possibly 20% or less of the population ( I am guessing  
here ) chose the
current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because the system  
is "mob rule" )
AGSC

On 2006-Jul 31, at 09:39hrs AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

Politics:        Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the
idiot in office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in
office who wanted to be. Both are also heroes, God's gift to the
world, saviours of mankind etc etc. Why would 'we' not want to stand
vicariously in their shadow as a group, or feel the support of all
those others as 'we' abuse them, depending on who they and we are.

Gus S Calabrese
Denver, CO
720 222 1309     303 908 7716 cell
Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow  
everything with  "spam2006"  in the subject or text to pass my spam  
filters.



2006\08\04@042647 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
How about thou and thous   ?

On 2006-Aug 01, at 01:06hrs AM, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't
> provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish
> between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural).

My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of
use.

The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is
"you".

-

2006\08\04@060619 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !
>
> Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that
> many are not eligible.  Possibly 20% or less of the
> population ( I am guessing here ) chose the
> current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because the system  
> is "mob rule" )
> AGSC


The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)

Tony

2006\08\04@111608 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that many  
> are not
> eligible.  Possibly 20% or less of the population ( I am guessing  
> here ) chose the
> current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because the system  
> is "mob rule" )
> AGSC

Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our current
"glorious leader" elected?

Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards work for
their victory!
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\04@144253 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> > current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because
> the system  
> > is "mob rule" )
> > AGSC
>
> Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our
> current "glorious leader" elected?
>
> Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards
> work for their victory!


I understand your point, but there is another side to this issue: Who gets
elected has less to do with what happens than how the public reacts after
they get elected.

Think about this logically. What motivation does the president have to do
what they say they will do after the election? Well, you could say that they
must have good ratings to get re-elected for a second term, but the public
memory is not 4 years long (sad but true) so the president can do as wants
for at least 3 years, then kiss up to the public for a year and get
re-elected. In the case of GW, it was 9/11 and the subsequent war. He would
NEVER have been re-elected had that not occurred, because his approval
rating was low even then. Now, after re-election, why on earth would the
President give a damn what the people think? They ONLY way they can get in
trouble is by being impeached, and that would require a LEGAL breach that is
clear and provable. I'm not going to argue that point right now...

In general, only during the last bit of the first term is there any pressure
on the president from voters.

On the other hand, when people get pissed at the presidents political party,
and start voting against members of the house, then you MAY get some
pressure on the president from the head of the party. And that may, or may
not, be effective pressure.

The only real pressure comes from people physically demonstrating, going on
strike, changing their buying habits and in other ways messing with the
/personal/ interests of the person or his family.

In this case, reducing oil use. Bush owns an "oil and gas production"
concern, the Lone Star Trust.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf I mean, come on!
His approval rating is the lowest in US history! Does he give a damn?
Obviously not.

Bush made more money last year from investments in treasury notes and
royalties in the oil industry than he was paid in salary as President of the
United States.

Cheney made more last year than the other two politicians combined, thanks
largely to investments from the enormous $36-million payout he received
several years ago as the former CEO of Halliburton. That's the same Houston
energy services company now enjoying billion-dollar federal contracts in
Iraq but also losing more than its share of employees deployed there during
the recent surge of violence.

http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now.

---
James.


2006\08\04@150917 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
>
> http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now.
>
> ---
> James.
>  
>
>  

Nice link, James.

--Bob

2006\08\04@175728 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our
> > current "glorious leader" elected?
> >
> > Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards
> > work for their victory!
>
> I understand your point, but there is another side to this issue: Who gets
> elected has less to do with what happens than how the public reacts after
> they get elected.

True. However, if more people were an *active* part of the political
process, things might change a bit.

Yes, this starts with voting and reading the newspapters, but it also
includes sending feedback (via letters) to legislators.

> Think about this logically. What motivation does the president have to do
> what they say they will do after the election? Well, you could say that they
> must have good ratings to get re-elected for a second term, but the public
> memory is not 4 years long (sad but true) so the president can do as wants
> for at least 3 years, then kiss up to the public for a year and get

Most of the public has a short memory. However, the groups with money and
single-issue adjendas typically have longer memories. And which is more
important under the US' system?

And the incumbant has a *lot* of power to grant voters things that they
want during this crucial period.

> re-elected. In the case of GW, it was 9/11 and the subsequent war. He would
> NEVER have been re-elected had that not occurred, because his approval
> rating was low even then. Now, after re-election, why on earth would the

In addition there are a very *strong* push from the right to get voters
out to the polls without a corresponding push from the left. I will admit,
however, that this election was the most well-attended I remember.

> President give a damn what the people think? They ONLY way they can get in
> trouble is by being impeached, and that would require a LEGAL breach that is
> clear and provable. I'm not going to argue that point right now...

Ayup. Well, it doesn't really require *provable*. It's not quite like
the judicial branch, but essentially you're right.

> In general, only during the last bit of the first term is there any pressure
> on the president from voters.

Ayup.

> On the other hand, when people get pissed at the presidents political party,
> and start voting against members of the house, then you MAY get some
> pressure on the president from the head of the party. And that may, or may
> not, be effective pressure.

Maybe. It's at least one thing to try.

> The only real pressure comes from people physically demonstrating, going on
> strike, changing their buying habits and in other ways messing with the
> /personal/ interests of the person or his family.

Physical demonstrations take a *long* time to work and require a large
portion of society to support them. Boycotts can be effective if you get
enough people to toe the line.

> In this case, reducing oil use. Bush owns an "oil and gas production"
> concern, the Lone Star Trust.
> http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf I mean, come on!
> His approval rating is the lowest in US history! Does he give a damn?
> Obviously not.

Ayup.

> Bush made more money last year from investments in treasury notes and
> royalties in the oil industry than he was paid in salary as President of the
> United States.

Heck, the president of Penn State gets paid more than the President of the
US. The head football coach (Joe Patterno) probably gets more. I don't
think that you run for President for the salary (though the retirement
benefits are wonderful for them and expensive for us).

> http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now.

I like it. I don't think that it's the only answer, but it may be part
of the solution. I think that we have to change our lifestyle before
it is changed for us.

> James.

And I think this is getting too political for me. If I want a political
argument I'll go to rec.arts.metalworking. :)
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
.....jayKILLspamspam@spam@sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\04@234932 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob  
should rule ?

On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !
>
> Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that
> many are not eligible.  Possibly 20% or less of the
> population ( I am guessing here ) chose the
> current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because the system
> is "mob rule" )
> AGSC


The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)

Tony

2006\08\05@012157 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob  
> should rule ?
>
> On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)
>
> Tony

I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for
the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution?

Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all have
the potential to become.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
jayspamKILLspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@041721 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !
> >
> > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)
> >
> > Tony
>
> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the
> mob should rule ?


Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule.

The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob.  By not voting, you're
a non-participant.  You can either abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?),
get political, stage a coup or sit about complaining.

You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although we borrowed it
from New Zealand).  Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.  This gives you the
chance to rank the candidates, rather than just picking one.  The pleasure
of putting people you don't like last on the bill...

This is fun, getting the majority of votes doesn't mean you win, like in the
USA, for example.  Say you have 4 candidates, one gets 40%, the others 20%
each.  Landslide win!  Well, not quite.  You need 51% of the total vote, 40%
doesn't cut it.

These elections are great when you have a candidate who polarises the
electorate, you either love 'em or hate 'em.  Australia had a fabulous
example recently, one Pauline Hanson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson) from Oxley, hencefore known as
the Oxley Moron, and her 'One Nation' party.  (Disclaimer - I encountered
these people on a profesional basis, and to say I disliked them is an
understatement).

Anyhoo, Pauline went after the redneck vote, (wogs go home, flat tax, jail
poofs etc).  So while a large chuck (up to 40%) of the electorate placed her
first on the ballot, everyone else placed her last.  She would have won in
the USA, despite over 60% of the voters absolutely loathing her.  She was
last seen heading off into the political distance complaining 'but I got the
most votes, I don't understand it'.

Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't show up.  

This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who put 'I
fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their vehicles.  In the
States, this is to encourage lazy fishing/shooting/banjoing people to get
off their arses & vote.  In Australia, it makes no difference, you need to
convince the non-fish/shoot/banjo people to vote for you, and that doesn't
happen much.

Tony

2006\08\05@042138 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob
> > should rule ?
> >
> > On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:
>
> > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)
> >
> > Tony
>
> I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections
> for the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution?
>
> Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all
> have the potential to become.
> --
> D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:


So, as per the Underpants Gnomes:

1. Don't vote
2. Complain about outcome
3. Profit?

Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your
protection for the minority.  Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation'
(aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post.

Tony

2006\08\05@054211 by Jinx

face picon face
> You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although
> we borrowed it from New Zealand)

I think (most) people in NZ might agree that changing from
FPP (first past the post - party with the most votes wins, no
matter how small the proportion of the total vote might be)
to MMP (mixed member proportional representation) has
probably made little difference in recent times. The reason
being that of the parties currently in coalition one, Labour, is
dominant and tends to push its policies through anyway. Although
it does make concessions to to its minority partner' policies to
get their support. But effectively coalition partners are of like
mind (or else they wouldn't be partners), and there will be
deals before the election to weed out "unsuitable" candidates,
so the nett result is likely similar to what would have happened
under FPP if Labour had won. Minor parties may win the
occassional battle for "niche policy" but the majority partner
has the Treasury. And that's what they really want

2006\08\05@060448 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> ( PS I do not vote because the system  is "mob rule" )

Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's
yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs.

Gerhard

2006\08\05@064125 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will produce a result
that the majority are happy with.

The 'One Notion' ratbag party was popular enough to win a FPP (first past
the post) election, but it was clear the majority did not want them.

Most democratic nations tend to wind up a the two party model, a liberal
party vs a conservative party.  (In Australia at the moment, it hard to tell
them apart).

It is possible for a minor party to gain power, people will place their
primary vote with one of the major parties, but everyone puts the minor
party second.  E.g.:

1. Major party 1
2. The Underdog party
3. Banjo reform party
4. Raving ratbag party
5. Major party 2

If neither major party gets a clear majority (say 30% each, the Underdogs
get 20%, the others 10%), the count goes to preferences.  Since everyone
(perhaps grudgingly) put the Underdogs second, they win despite getting only
20% of the primary vote.  They have no chance in a FPP vote.

The major parties also offer deals to the smaller parties in exchange for
their preferences.  While they may never get power, they still have
influence.  The major parties can't discount them totally, even if it seems
that way at times.

I wrote a vote counting (non-political) system a while back.  It's fun to
watch the process, especially fun to watch someone lose to the underdogs.
They always demand a recount & inspection of the papers.  But but but I got
42%!

Tony

2006\08\05@064139 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !
>
> Gus S Calabrese wrote:
>
> > ( PS I do not vote because the system  is "mob rule" )
>
> Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules;
> either it's yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it
> to be theirs.
>
> Gerhard


There's always a dictatorship, then it's ME who rules.  

Ok, I need a mob to back me up and not stab me in the back while I'm
sleeping, but I rule, Ok?

Me Me ME!

Tony

2006\08\05@072453 by Jinx

face picon face
> The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will
> produce a result that the majority are happy with

MMP, as in NZ, isn't preferential. An option offered when the
country changed was STV, single transferrable vote, which
some commentators argue would have been a far better choice
than MMP

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html

"The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of
public trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament, and the
simple certainties of the old two-party system"

Many would agree that public distatste for politicians has scarcely
changed. They still get up to the same old shenanigans and BS. I
think no matter what "democratic" system you use, you'll still end
up with the basically same kind of personalities in Parliament and
they will endeavour to stay there by traditional means

2006\08\05@073834 by Jinx

face picon face
> The 'One Notion' ratbag party was popular enough to win a FPP
> (first past the post) election, but it was clear the majority did not
> want them

Vote spread and dilution is a definite disadvantage of FPP. A party
that gets in under FPP by getting perhaps only 35% of the vote is
not supported by 65% of voters. At least under a proportional or
preferential system minorities have representation. However, unless
they chummy up to a major party they may not have any power. On
the other hand, as as happened in NZ at each election after the
change, one minor party has held the balance. Two major parties
have their natural allies to coalesce with but need this uncommited
minor "kingmaker" party to get a majority and form the government.
And it's been the same party and same drawn-out farce every time

Winston, I'm looking in your direction

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10350403

2006\08\05@074146 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:24:35 +1200, Jinx wrote:

>...
> Many would agree that public distatste for politicians has scarcely
> changed. They still get up to the same old shenanigans and BS. I
> think no matter what "democratic" system you use, you'll still end
> up with the basically same kind of personalities in Parliament and
> they will endeavour to stay there by traditional means

Indeed - whoever you vote for, politicians get in!  While this is deplorable, it could have been worse: lawyers or estate agents, for
example.  Hang on though, Tony Blair used to be a Barrister - QED!

My opinion has always been that anyone who wants to run the country should be banned from doing so...

I think we suffer from too much government - I wish they'd take a couple of years off and let the rest of us get things settled down.

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\05@082817 by Tony Smith

picon face
>
> > The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will
> produce a
> > result that the majority are happy with
>
> MMP, as in NZ, isn't preferential. An option offered when the
> country changed was STV, single transferrable vote, which
> some commentators argue would have been a far better choice than MMP
>
> http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html


That's rather fascinating.  I always thought NZ was the first to have
preferential voting.  Turns out you did, but didn't quite use it, even
though you were supposed to.  More interesting is each party was happy with
FPP.  Beats dealing with the minorities, I guess.

MMP doesn't really guarantee a small party a seat though.  I guess if you
can't get 1/120th of the vote, you might as well go home.  The same party
just might scrape in under STV (few primary votes, strong secondary votes).

'NZ First' is exactly the same as Australia's 'One Nation' party (wogs go
home, more law and order, less tax etc).  'One Nation' is pretty much dead
in Oz, maybe it's because they didn't pinch 'Bob the Builder's' catch
phrase.  Classic.

Tony

2006\08\05@084905 by Jinx

face picon face

> MMP doesn't really guarantee a small party a seat though.  I guess
> if you can't get 1/120th of the vote, you might as well go home

Quite true. A few have not reached the 5% or got an electorate
member instead and lost their deposit

> 'NZ First' is exactly the same as Australia's 'One Nation' party

NZ First is one party seriously on the skids. The leader, Winston
"Dapper" Peters lost his electorate seat after many many years as
an MP and then, like a little litigious kid, sued the winner. And lost
again. Despite that, he is NZ's Foreign Minister because, holding
the balance of power at the last election, he did a deal with the
Labour Party. And yet he was effectively thrown out of office
by his electorate. But his party got over the 5%, he was top of
the list => he gets a seat in Parliament. So, try as you may, you
just can't rid of some buggers

2006\08\05@085315 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 04:04hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> ( PS I do not vote because the system  is "mob rule" )

Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's
yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs.

Gerhard

There are other systems  and they are better than democracy.  Just  
verrry hard to implement.
I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule.
I am not wise enough to make choices for others.
AGSC

2006\08\05@085658 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
I am going to push until the day I die for "the one person, one vote  
system".
Each person gets one vote about how they are going to conduct their  
life.
How they are going to manage their financial affairs.  No one else  
gets a vote.
Sort of a one nation per person approach.
AGSC


On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:21hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

So, as per the Underpants Gnomes:

1. Don't vote
2. Complain about outcome
3. Profit?

Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your
protection for the minority.  Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation'
(aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post.

Tony

2006\08\05@090451 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:16hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

>> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !
>>
>> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)
>>
>> Tony
>
> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the
> mob should rule ?


Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule.

The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. ^1^  By not  
voting, you're
a non-participant. ^2^ You can either abolish voting (a meritocracy,  
perhaps?),
get political, stage a coup or sit about complaining ^3^.

You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although we  
borrowed it
from New Zealand).  Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.  This gives you the
chance to rank the candidates, rather than just picking one.  The  
pleasure
of putting people you don't like last on the bill...

This is fun, getting the majority of votes doesn't mean you win, like  
in the
USA, for example.  Say you have 4 candidates, one gets 40%, the  
others 20%
each.  Landslide win!  Well, not quite.  You need 51% of the total  
vote, 40%
doesn't cut it.

These elections are great when you have a candidate who polarises the
electorate, you either love 'em or hate 'em.  Australia had a fabulous
example recently, one Pauline Hanson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson) from Oxley, hencefore  
known as
the Oxley Moron, and her 'One Nation' party.  (Disclaimer - I  
encountered
these people on a profesional basis, and to say I disliked them is an
understatement).

Anyhoo, Pauline went after the redneck vote, (wogs go home, flat tax,  
jail
poofs etc).  So while a large chuck (up to 40%) of the electorate  
placed her
first on the ballot, everyone else placed her last.  She would have  
won in
the USA, despite over 60% of the voters absolutely loathing her.  She  
was
last seen heading off into the political distance complaining 'but I  
got the
most votes, I don't understand it'.

Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't show  
up.  ^4^

This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who put 'I
fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their vehicles.  In the
States, this is to encourage lazy fishing/shooting/banjoing people to  
get
off their arses & vote.  In Australia, it makes no difference, you  
need to
convince the non-fish/shoot/banjo people to vote for you, and that  
doesn't
happen much.

Tony

^1^  Oppose mob rule is another way.  Stop them every way you can from
making decisions for you or others.
^2^  Voting does not make you a participant.  Simple math  
demonstrates that
your vote is worth less than a plugged EURO.
^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%)   Give representatives  
decision making
power over the remaining 2%.
^4^  So one might show up, punch a chad and wobble on home, proud to  
have
dodged a fine.
AGSC

2006\08\05@090802 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 04, at 23:08hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote:

> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob
> should rule ?
>
> On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain!  :)
>
> Tony

I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for
the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution?
^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC  Rather than get into those,
tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ?
AGSC^

Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all have
the potential to become.
--  
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
.....jayKILLspamspam.....sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."
-

2006\08\05@092006 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:
> On 2006-Aug 05, at 04:04hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> Gus S Calabrese wrote:
>
>  
>> ( PS I do not vote because the system  is "mob rule" )
>>    
>
> Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's
> yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs.
>  
Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds
from the public chest
until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire.
This is what is happening in
the USA now.

The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential
investors realize that "the
emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great
here that no amount of taxation
can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it
will never be paid back with
specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money).

The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage
new investers, so that
nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out
against an oil-funded nuclear
Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to fight it.

Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this
happen. I give us about 5-7 years
here.

--Bob


2006\08\05@100858 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Say, you're not writing this from a little shack in Montana, are you?

1. How do you (or have you) oppose mob rule?  By not voting and then
complaining?
2. Voting is participation.  Lobbying is a step up from that, getting
elected even better.
3. You don't vote for many things.  You vote for someone with similar views
to yours, who then votes (legislates) on your behalf.
4. You don't have to worry about that.

What exactly are the mob doing that you don't like?  No-one likes mob rule,
but unless you want be be entirely self-sufficient, you're stuck with it.
Nobody is forcing you to participate in society under mob rule.  And no
cheating on the self-sufficiency, no trips into town to stock up on stuff
you can't make yourself, that's relying on the mob.  (Bonus test: how do you
make a pencil?)

I guess that's what 'no man is an island' means.

Tony

2006\08\05@130925 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 08:08hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Say, you're not writing this from a little shack in Montana, are you?
( Your question appears to be kind of an ad hominem  )

1. How do you (or have you) oppose mob rule?  By not voting and then
complaining?  Hardly
2. Voting is participation.  Lobbying is a step up from that, getting
elected even better.  ---^ Well yes you are right.... participating  
in mob rule ...^
^ Lobbying, voting and holding office is either participating in  
group rule or a
criminal oligarchy   and what I mean by that sometimes the  
politicians ( a small group )
take it upon themselves to make secret deals and rule illegitimately. ^

3. You don't vote for many things.  You vote for someone with similar  
views
to yours, who then votes (legislates) on your behalf.
4. You don't have to worry about that.

What exactly are the mob doing that you don't like?  No-one likes mob  
rule,
but unless you want be be entirely self-sufficient, you're stuck with  
it.
Nobody is forcing you to participate in society under mob rule.  And no
cheating on the self-sufficiency, no trips into town to stock up on  
stuff
you can't make yourself, that's relying on the mob.  (Bonus test: how  
do you
make a pencil?)

I guess that's what 'no man is an island' means.

Tony

^ Wow Tony  I was commenting on your comments until I got to " no one  
is forcing you to participate...."
Where you live ... are taxes optional?  Is attending elementary  
school optional?  Where you live ....  are
imminent domain laws not in effect.....   I could go on for a long time.
Plus you do not read other peoples missives very carefully.  I said  
nothing about self-sufficiency, in fact I am a 100%
believer in cooperation among freely consenting buyers and sellers.  
I think you have jumped to massive conclusions about
me that are not suggested by what I have said.
I am terminating my participation in this discussion because it  
appears to be headed toward useless name-calling.
AGSC ^

2006\08\05@131049 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
Bob  I hope you are around when it happens.
We can play music on the deck as the US goes down.
AGSC

On 2006-Aug 05, at 07:20hrs AM, Bob Axtell wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds
from the public chest
until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire.
This is what is happening in
the USA now.

The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential
investors realize that "the
emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great
here that no amount of taxation
can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it
will never be paid back with
specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money).

The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage
new investers, so that
nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out
against an oil-funded nuclear
Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to  
fight it.

Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this
happen. I give us about 5-7 years
here.

--Bob


2006\08\05@131210 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> > Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's
> > yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs.

> There are other systems  and they are better than democracy.  

Like which ones?

> Just verrry hard to implement.

Could that be because they don't work?

> I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am not wise
> enough to make choices for others.

It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ will use it.
Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living room?) or
you have to get together with a few people to accumulate some power, so
that you can keep the others from using it against you. Those few people is
then a "mob" already...

BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on that.
Hand gun violence is so last century :)  This is not about High Noon type
encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun doesn't help much
against most.

Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all
around by  "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty examples
how a mob without democracy can look like.


(From another message of yours)
> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%)   Give representatives decision
> making power over the remaining 2%.

Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by the
"wise five"? :)

Gerhard

2006\08\05@133722 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 11:11hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:

>> Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules;  
>> either it's
>> yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs.

> There are other systems  and they are better than democracy.

Like which ones?

> Just verrry hard to implement.

Could that be because they don't work?
Are you saying democracy works ?    I say it is terribly flawed, full  
of lies and does not work.
Of course it depends on your definition of democracy.   And which  
governments you include as
democracies.  Was Germany 1940 a democracy in your opinion ?

> I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am  
> not wise
> enough to make choices for others.

It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ will  
use it.
Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living  
room?) or
you have to get together with a few people to accumulate some power, so
that you can keep the others from using it against you. Those few  
people is
then a "mob" already...     <---- this paragraph is the belief system  
you base your life on ?

BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on  
that.
Hand gun violence is so last century :)  This is not about High Noon  
type
encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun doesn't help  
much
against most.  <---  Are you saying here that you have surrendered  
and are
awaiting orders from your betters ?

Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all
around by  "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty  
examples
how a mob without democracy can look like.

Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east.  I appears to me that the  
USA "surrounds"
everyone else with their killer-good do-bees.  ( Ever watch romper  
room ? )


(From another message of yours)
> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%)   Give representatives  
> decision
> making power over the remaining 2%.

Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by  
the
"wise five"? :)  Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2%

Gerhard

2006\08\05@165012 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds
> from the public chest
> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire.
> This is what is happening in
> the USA now.

Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value
because people believe it does.

When people lose faith in their government they tend to lose faith in
their money.

> The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential
> investors realize that "the
> emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great
> here that no amount of taxation
> can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it
> will never be paid back with
> specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money).

I also believe that the US has amassed too much debt. However, it is
possible to change this. Though I do believe that our standard of living
will drop.

And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold?

> The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage
> new investers, so that
> nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out
> against an oil-funded nuclear
> Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to  
> fight it.

All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes.

> Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this
> happen. I give us about 5-7 years
> here.

I'm sorry; I hope that your health improves.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
EraseMEjayspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@165409 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. By
> > not voting, you're a non-participant. You can either
> > abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political,
> > stage a coup or sit about complaining.

A meritocracy would be a wonderful idea, but who gets to decide on
the merit?

> > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you
> > don't show up.

Good for them!
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
jayspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@170202 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for
> the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution?

> ^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC  Rather than get into those,
> tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ?
> AGSC^

There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution
and also in law.

The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
@spam@jayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@171317 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your
> protection for the minority.  Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation'
> (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post.

I don't believe that political parties should have *any* legal standing
in the US. Right now it is extremely difficult for any third party to
gain power because of the entrenched power of the two main parties.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
KILLspamjayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@171758 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
D. Jay Newman wrote:
>> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds
>> from the public chest
>> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire.
>> This is what is happening in
>> the USA now.
>>    
>
> Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value
> because people believe it does.
>  
er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or silver. The
VALUE can't be changed
with gold or silver.

> When people lose faith in their government they tend to lose faith in
> their money.
>  
agreed.

{Quote hidden}

Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A
wheelbarrow of currency
could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he
returned the German
Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in
gold, its value returned.
'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish  families, but that's
another story.
{Quote hidden}

If they are not backed by specie, I agree. Specie-backed currencies
rarely lose value. Look at the Swiss.
>  
>> Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this
>> happen. I give us about 5-7 years
>> here.
>>    
>
> I'm sorry; I hope that your health improves.
>  
Me, too. Bad genes.

2006\08\05@173743 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
D. Jay Newman wrote:
>> I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for
>> the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution?
>>    
>
>  
>> ^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC  Rather than get into those,
>> tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ?
>> AGSC^
>>    
>
> There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution
> and also in law.
>  
These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US
constitution says that
"Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin."  But all such backing
of US currency stopped
years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a genuine
SILVER specie dollar.
Go to ANY bank and ask to redeem your dollar in gold or silver these
days, and you will be
arrested on your way out. If the ACLU removes "In God We Trust" off the
dollar, we will lose the
only protection we have left.. Who changed the Consitution's meaning
since 1963?

> The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems.
>  

I am very disappointed with the selective way the Constitution is
enforced. Younger folks don't know
the way it was, once, but there was a time when no law enforcement
officer could break into the sanctity
of a person's home without a SERIOUS court order. These days, they just
fill out a 3"x5" card and start
pounding away on the wrong house. The Supreme court ruled recently that
anybody's house could be
declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer  house is
built, the community can have greater
tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I?

--Bob

2006\08\05@174641 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
> >> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds
> >> from the public chest
> >> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire.
> >> This is what is happening in
> >> the USA now.
> >>    
> >
> > Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value
> > because people believe it does.
> >  
> er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or silver. The
> VALUE can't be changed
> with gold or silver.

That's also a myth. Usually the state sets the value of gold and silver.

And gold and siver have very little real value in and of themselves.

{Quote hidden}

That is because the people *believed* in the value of gold, not because
gold has any real value.

{Quote hidden}

Again, this is a belief thing, not anything real. The only advantage of
backing currency with something real is that it encourages the government
to not overspend.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
RemoveMEjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@180809 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> D. Jay Newman wrote:
> > There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution
> > and also in law.
> >  
> These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US

Agreed. I remember hearing somebody say that the Bill of Rights was not
put in to protect the powerless, but rather to protect the rich if *they*
ever became powerless.

> constitution says that
> "Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin."  But all such backing
> of US currency stopped

I would have to check that out. I belive that there was an amendment that
changed this.

> years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a genuine
> SILVER specie dollar.

Yes. Of course, that was quite a while ago. :)

> > The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems.
>
> I am very disappointed with the selective way the Constitution is
> enforced. Younger folks don't know
> the way it was, once, but there was a time when no law enforcement
> officer could break into the sanctity
> of a person's home without a SERIOUS court order. These days, they just
> fill out a 3"x5" card and start
> pounding away on the wrong house. The Supreme court ruled recently that

I agree. I deplore not only the loss of liberty, but also the general
population that allows this to happen.

> anybody's house could be
> declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer  house is
> built, the community can have greater
> tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I?

It's a bit more complicated that that, but I also agree that this ruling
expanded the rights of local government way too much.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
spamBeGonejayspamBeGonespamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@193626 by Bob Axtell
face picon face
Incredible.

D. Jay Newman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\08\05@232952 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> Are you saying democracy works ?    I say it is terribly flawed, full of
> lies and does not work.

I agree. I think it's a learning process (to learn to think and feel also
as a group, not only as individuals), and it may take a while. And when (or
if) we have learned that, as a species, there will be other, probably
better, options.

But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option besides
enjoying the benefits of a rather stable democracy while not participating
in creating them. IMO that's one of the behaviors why it doesn't work. As I
said, it'll take some time...

> Of course it depends on your definition of democracy.   And which
> governments you include as democracies.  Was Germany 1940 a democracy in
> your opinion ?

1940 probably not anymore. 1932 probably still. But that's not the
question. The question is not whether it can fail, the question is whether
it can work if you do it right -- and how to do it right.

Just tell me you have never blown a transistor. Yet you still continue to
use transistors. You didn't say "oh well, that thing just blows" and never
used it again -- you learned how to use it properly. And you started to
realize that if used properly, it might just do something useful.


{Quote hidden}

Nope. It's observation, not a belief system. Have you experience of living
in a country with a weak government, much weaker than the US government?
Whether I believe that it is too strong or not is not the point. But the
current experience shows what correlates with too weak a government. Look
around for countries with weak governments, and tell me whether you find a
place that you would like (in terms of government and public
administration).

>> BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on
>> that. Hand gun violence is so last century :)  This is not about High
>> Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun
>> doesn't help much against most.  

> <---  Are you saying here that you have surrendered and are awaiting
> orders from your betters ?

Did I say that? Read again... :)


>> Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all
>> around by  "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty
>> examples how a mob without democracy can look like.
>
> Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east.  

Wrong guess. Plenty of places outside of the Middle East with weak
governments. I happen to live in one.

> I appears to me that the USA "surrounds" everyone else with their
> killer-good do-bees.  

I didn't understand this phrase.

> ( Ever watch romper room ? )

And neither this one.

>> (From another message of yours)
>>> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%)   Give representatives
>>> decision making power over the remaining 2%.
>>
>> Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by
>> the "wise five"? :)  
>
> Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2%

Everybody doing his own, in peace... the nice version of anarchy. I'm
pretty sure that if it worked, democracy would also work -- because it
depends on people really wanting to live together in peace. Which happens
to be the base of a working democracy, too. The difficulties we have in
making democracy work reasonably well show that anarchy never would work.
Who would protect you from the real mob (the mafia type) taking over your
home, just because it's at a good location? Not your weapons, that's for
sure -- they have the better ones, and they are more. (Remember? You don't
want a group, you're alone.)

Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No
place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on their
loner status, only can be what they are because they are protected (more or
less, it could definitely be better) by the "democracy mob". The frontier
times are gone, mostly, and people are everywhere. You better get used to
it :)

Gerhard

2006\08\06@052146 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:
>> And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold?
>>
> Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A
> wheelbarrow of currency
> could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he
> returned the German
> Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in
> gold, its value returned.
> 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish  families, but that's
> another story.

Actually, the same result could have been achieved if they simply stopped
printing money.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2006\08\06@093636 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 15:33hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote:

> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>>> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves  
>>> funds
>>> from the public chest
>>> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the  
>>> empire.
>>> This is what is happening in
>>> the USA now.
>>>
>>
>> Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value
>> because people believe it does.
>>
> er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or  
> silver. The
> VALUE can't be changed
> with gold or silver.

That's also a myth. Usually the state sets the value of gold and silver.

And gold and siver have very little real value in and of themselves.

{Quote hidden}

That is because the people *believed* in the value of gold, not because
gold has any real value.   ^ What has real value ?  AGSC ^

{Quote hidden}

Again, this is a belief thing, not anything real. The only advantage of
backing currency with something real is that it encourages the  
government
to not overspend.   ^ What has real value ?  AGSC ^
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
TakeThisOuTjayEraseMEspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\06@094459 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 15:54hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote:

> D. Jay Newman wrote:
>> There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution
>> and also in law.
>>
> These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US

Agreed. I remember hearing somebody say that the Bill of Rights was not
put in to protect the powerless, but rather to protect the rich if  
*they*
ever became powerless.

> constitution says that
> "Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin."  But all such backing
> of US currency stopped

I would have to check that out. I belive that there was an amendment  
that
changed this.

> years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a  
> genuine
> SILVER specie dollar.

Yes. Of course, that was quite a while ago. :)

{Quote hidden}

I agree. I deplore not only the loss of liberty, but also the general
population that allows this to happen.

> anybody's house could be
> declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer  house is
> built, the community can have greater
> tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I? 2^

It's a bit more complicated that that,  1^ but I also agree that this  
ruling
expanded the rights of local government way too much.



1^  It is not more complicated than the government has given itself  
the power to
take anything a citizen owns.
2^  Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain"  has  
limits, so someone cares,
..... do you ?  I do.
www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2006/07/24/daily12.html
3^  Things during my lifetime were never that good....... now they  
are worse
AGSC

--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
RemoveMEjayspamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\06@100652 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> 1^  It is not more complicated than the government has given itself the
> power to take anything a citizen owns.

The concept of "owning" land is intimately linked to have a "military" to
"defend" its boundaries. This is either your personal "military", or it is
the government's "military". (Note that I'm not using "military" in the
sense it is used in a modern nation. The way I use it includes every form
of using violence for a purpose.) Other than by force of that "military",
you don't own land.

So a citizen (and you used the right word here) only owns something because
of the government. No government == no citizen. No government == no
"military" to defend the ownership.

Ownership is closely tied to groups (aka "mobs"). Ownership is only a valid
concept as long as a group defines and adheres to rules about ownership.
Everything we "own" we took from somewhere. This gets easily forgotten in
our virtual money world, but that's the essence. It all started with taking
something without paying anything. You grow food on "your" land? You just
"took" that land, without paying (aka stealing). If it wasn't you, it was
someone from whom you bought it (or from whom they bought it). You bought
leather clothes? Someone just took the hides from somewhere, without paying
(aka stealing). It's all based on a rather arbitrary definition of
"ownership".


> 2^  Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain"  has  
> limits, so someone cares,

This is pretty much self-evident. /Everything/ has limits. The only
struggle is to determine where exactly they are. And from what you say, it
seems you don't think it's worth it to participate in that struggle.

Gerhard

2006\08\06@103329 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 05, at 21:29hrs PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> Are you saying democracy works ?    I say it is terribly flawed,  
> full of
> lies and does not work.

I agree. I think it's a learning process (to learn to think and feel  
also
as a group, not only as individuals), and it may take a while. And  
when (or
if) we have learned that, as a species, there will be other, probably
better, options.

But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option  
besides
enjoying the benefits of a rather stable democracy while not  
participating
in creating them. IMO that's one of the behaviors why it doesn't  
work. As I
said, it'll take some time...
^ you imply I am not doing anything and just enjoying benefits that  
someone else laid on me. Not true
I am working to reverse the tide and replace " stable democracy "  
with something much better.
I believe I could talk until I dropped dead and drag out easels with  
diagrams and pie charts until heaven
burnt over and I could not get you to see that something has already  
existed that was better than what exists
now.  A Constitutional Republic !  Yes, in the era of 1776, many of  
the thinkers in the US at that time were
striving for a republic that guaranteed freedom and protection of  
property including your own body.  The US
was not created to make voting sacred.  It was not created to make  
voting machine companies profitable.  It was
not created to set an example to the world of democracy.  It was  
created to encourage and protect freedom and the
sacredness of property.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain  
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the  
pursuit of Happiness. "
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect  
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for  
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and  
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put  
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal  
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,  
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private  
property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

AGSC^

> Of course it depends on your definition of democracy.   And which
> governments you include as democracies.  Was Germany 1940 a  
> democracy in
> your opinion ?

1940 probably not anymore. 1932 probably still. But that's not the
question. The question is not whether it can fail, the question is  
whether
it can work if you do it right -- and how to do it right.

Just tell me you have never blown a transistor. Yet you still  
continue to
use transistors. You didn't say "oh well, that thing just blows" and  
never
used it again -- you learned how to use it properly. And you started to
realize that if used properly, it might just do something useful.

^ the analogy you present has nothing to with what is happening in  
the real
world right now  Systems that worked from 1776  through the early  
1800's and into
the 1900's  are being dismantled now in the name of  ' protect the  
USA from terrorists '  Those
systems would work quite well now, if reactivated.  AGSC^



{Quote hidden}

Nope. It's observation, not a belief system. Have you experience of  
living
in a country with a weak government, much weaker than the US government?
Whether I believe that it is too strong or not is not the point. But the
current experience shows what correlates with too weak a government.  
Look
around for countries with weak governments, and tell me whether you  
find a
place that you would like (in terms of government and public
administration).

>> BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on
>> that. Hand gun violence is so last century :)  This is not about High
>> Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun
>> doesn't help much against most.    ^ Well, yes carrying a gun does  
>> protect
against most forms of violence.  One area where a gun fails to do  
much good
is against a large group of government backed thugs. ^

> <---  Are you saying here that you have surrendered and are awaiting
> orders from your betters ?

Did I say that? Read again... :)


>> Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely  
>> secured all
>> around by  "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty
>> examples how a mob without democracy can look like.
>
> Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east.

Wrong guess. Plenty of places outside of the Middle East with weak
governments. I happen to live in one.

> I appears to me that the USA "surrounds" everyone else with their
> killer-good do-bees.

I didn't understand this phrase.

> ( Ever watch romper room ? )

And neither this one.

>> (From another message of yours)
>>> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%)   Give representatives
>>> decision making power over the remaining 2%.
>>
>> Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by
>> the "wise five"? :)
>
> Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2%

Everybody doing his own, in peace... the nice version of anarchy. I'm
pretty sure that if it worked, democracy would also work -- because it
depends on people really wanting to live together in peace. Which  
happens
to be the base of a working democracy, too. The difficulties we have in
making democracy work reasonably well show that anarchy never would  
work.
Who would protect you from the real mob (the mafia type) taking over  
your
home, just because it's at a good location? Not your weapons, that's for
sure -- they have the better ones, and they are more. (Remember? You  
don't
want a group, you're alone.) ^ <---- I never said that, never, ever,  
you made that up
completely on your own.  Living alone was never a stated, implied or  
desired
agenda on my part. Please tell me where you came up with the idea that
want to depend only on myself.   ^

Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No
place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on  
their
loner status, only can be what they are because they are protected  
(more or
less, it could definitely be better) by the "democracy mob". The  
frontier
times are gone, mostly, and people are everywhere. You better get  
used to
it :)   ^ <-------- you are completely making up things about what I  
said, .... what
am I to do ?  And you do not understand the various forms of anarchy  
that
are possible.  There is not just one form, just as there is not one  
implementation
of democracy. You have picked a form of anarchy that sounds like it  
occurs
every day in Washington D.C.  Not my kind of anachy. So do you want  
to hear
 more, or should I give up ?  AGSC^

Gerhard

2006\08\06@103626 by Tony Smith

picon face
> NZ First is one party seriously on the skids. The leader,
> Winston "Dapper" Peters lost his electorate seat after many
> many years as an MP and then, like a little litigious kid,
> sued the winner. And lost again. Despite that, he is NZ's
> Foreign Minister because, holding the balance of power at the
> last election, he did a deal with the Labour Party. And yet
> he was effectively thrown out of office by his electorate.
> But his party got over the 5%, he was top of the list => he
> gets a seat in Parliament. So, try as you may, you just can't
> rid of some buggers


That's hilarious.

You give a bloke whose party policy is 'foreigners go home' the job of
Foreign Minister.

Someone has a rather black sense of humour.

Tony

2006\08\06@104704 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 06, at 08:06hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> 1^  It is not more complicated than the government has given itself  
> the
> power to take anything a citizen owns.

The concept of "owning" land is intimately linked to have a  
"military" to
"defend" its boundaries. This is either your personal "military", or  
it is
the government's "military". (Note that I'm not using "military" in the
sense it is used in a modern nation. The way I use it includes every  
form
of using violence for a purpose.) Other than by force of that  
"military",
you don't own land.

So a citizen (and you used the right word here) only owns something  
because
of the government. No government == no citizen. No government == no
"military" to defend the ownership.

Ownership is closely tied to groups (aka "mobs"). Ownership is only a  
valid
concept as long as a group defines and adheres to rules about ownership.
Everything we "own" we took from somewhere. This gets easily  
forgotten in
our virtual money world, but that's the essence. It all started with  
taking
something without paying anything. You grow food on "your" land? You  
just
"took" that land, without paying (aka stealing). If it wasn't you, it  
was
someone from whom you bought it (or from whom they bought it). You  
bought
leather clothes? Someone just took the hides from somewhere, without  
paying
(aka stealing). It's all based on a rather arbitrary definition of
"ownership".  ^  <------ so true  AGSC  what can we do about that   I  
do not know. ^

^ Somewhere along the line you determined for yourself that I hate  
governments,
Not true.  I like self-government and I like governments that do what  
i think they should
do. Which is protect human freedom.  Yes, I used the word citizen,  
and I thank you for pointing
that out.  I have no use for the concept of citizenship and I will  
endeavour not to use the word
in the future. AGSC ^


> 2^  Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain"  has
> limits, so someone cares,

This is pretty much self-evident. ^ not so, the Ohio Supreme court  
'rolled back"
the decision of the US Supreme court. So limits are not so 'self-
evident' ^
 /Everything/ has limits. The only
struggle is to determine where exactly they are. And from what you  
say, it
seems you don't think it's worth it to participate in that struggle.  
^ < -------
I thought my comments made it clear that I am more than willing to  
struggle for
all humans freedom , I am just not willing to follow statist, non-
free rules.  BTW,
my concern of all humans freedom is self-serving.  I do not believe I  
can be free
unless everyone is free.  ( give or take a few percentage points )  
AGSC ^

Gerhard

2006\08\06@111006 by Tony Smith

picon face


{Quote hidden}

You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've no idea what
you are bitching about.

You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what you'd prefer, you
state 'you tell me'.  If you're going to complain, at least offer an
alternative.

Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're referring to
'democratic' society, rather than a group of people with torch & pitchforks
advancing on your house, Frankenstein style.  The mob does things to suit
themselves, which isn't fair.

On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no suggestion on
where they come from, but I presume it includes you), and then want to limit
their power to only 2% of decisions.  Good luck with that.  Right then, I
don't want to pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise from
anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony.  The 'rulers' can
decide on the colour of the pony.  Sounds good to me.  And get off my damn
lawn.

Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like.  And if I look
at it objectively (see above), I'm basically being selfish.  I can't offer a
real alternative, and coupled with being selfish, I don't have grounds to
complain.

You can drop out of society, plenty of people do.

You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. Heinlein
occasionally thinking otherwise).  Beside, whose going to build the iPod
factory?

Tony

(Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person.  Who just
happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep.  Which one
are you?  Silly question!)

2006\08\06@111928 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. By
> not voting,
> > > you're a non-participant. You can either abolish voting (a
> > > meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, stage a coup or sit about
> > > complaining.
>
> A meritocracy would be a wonderful idea, but who gets to
> decide on the merit?
>
> > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't
> > > show up.
>
> Good for them!
> --


Merit?  

Me, of course, I'm perfectly qualified (and it only took me 3 goes to spell
it right).

Tony

2006\08\06@112450 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political',
> there's your
> > protection for the minority.  Unless you're governed by the
> 'One Nation'
> > (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post.
>
> I don't believe that political parties should have *any*
> legal standing in the US. Right now it is extremely difficult
> for any third party to gain power because of the entrenched
> power of the two main parties.


In the US, the smaller parties are shut out due the the 'first post the
post' voting system.  Australia's preferential voting does give small
parties a chance.  (That said, Australia is basically a two party system as
well.)

On the flip side, ratbag parties like One Nation (anti-immigration, less
tax, longer jail sentences etc) who do gain enough votes to win at FPP still
lose because the majority dislike them.

Tony

2006\08\06@151030 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 06, at 09:09hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've no idea  
what
you are bitching about.

You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what you'd  
prefer, you
state 'you tell me'.  If you're going to complain, at least offer an
alternative.

Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're referring to
'democratic' society, rather than a group of people with torch &  
pitchforks
advancing on your house, Frankenstein style.  The mob does things to  
suit
themselves, which isn't fair.

On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no suggestion on
where they come from, but I presume it includes you), and then want  
to limit
their power to only 2% of decisions.  Good luck with that.  Right  
then, I
don't want to pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise  
from
anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony.  The  
'rulers' can
decide on the colour of the pony.  Sounds good to me.  And get off my  
damn
lawn.

Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like.  And if  
I look
at it objectively (see above), I'm basically being selfish.  I can't  
offer a
real alternative, and coupled with being selfish, I don't have  
grounds to
complain.

You can drop out of society, plenty of people do.

You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. Heinlein
occasionally thinking otherwise).  Beside, whose going to build the iPod
factory?  ^ the selfish individuals would build the iPOD factory ^

Tony

(Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person.  
Who just
happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep.  
Which one
are you?  Silly question!)

I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves.
Do I want my garbage picked up ?  hire a company to pick it up.
Do I want charity ?  Ask people to be charitable , no problem , Bill  
Gates and buddy pitched 60 billion.
No noise after 10PM ?  soundproof your house plus go talk to your  
neighbors or sign a contract with them.
negotiate   voluntary agreements among the willing.
Daylight savings ha ha ha ha  just say "meet me at xx o'clock please".
Pony can be purchased by you including optional cans of bio-
spray.paint.  ( to change the color )
And get off my damn lawn .... right away sir, it is your lawn and you  
own it and i expect the same in return.
Selfish people make much nicer decisions than government drones do.
And you can have a society of selfish individuals.  Why do you think  
not ?  The US was essentially that for 100 years or more.  Maybe 200  
years in some parts of the US.  It worked fine.  Then it was  
dismantled by statist addicts.
I don't want to drop out of a nicely functioning society, just the  
one we have now.
Even the sheep have better lives when surrounded by RAH people.


Gus S Calabrese
Denver, CO
720 222 1309     303 908 7716 cell
Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow  
everything with  "spam2006"  in the subject or text to pass my spam  
filters.



2006\08\06@160553 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Ok, that leaves me no wiser as to what you are bitching about, except you
object to the 'statist addicts', so 'the man' via the 'government drones' is
getting you down, what a drag, dude.

Right then, garbage.  No collection company, they don't exist.  No bunch of
selfish individuals is going to form a company, good lord, how would you
make a decision?  "YOU don't tell ME what to do, dude."

Bill Gates didn't make & give away $Mxx, Microsoft did.

No iPod company, see garbage.

100 year of rugged individualists in the USA?  Ah, the pioneer myth.  Every
country has that.  Even Australia, but it's followed by an embarassed laugh.

Gus, I believe there's a shack with your name on it in Montana.  Letter-bomb
mailing spree optional, of course.  PIC-based triggering mechanism perhaps?

You either have individuals or a society.  You can't have both.  Pick one.
Sure, a society can tolerate a number of indivduals, but that's not the same
thing.

Societies collect the garbage & build iPod factories, individuals don't.

This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller when you
heat it up' thread on another list.

Tony


2006\08\06@230820 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
Tony
I read through your latest missive and I am stunned.
You are correct and suddenly I had an epiphany.  What the hell
am I talking about ?  I am so embarrassed.  Please, everyone on the
list please forgive me.  I am better now.

Best to everyone on the list.
AGSC


On 2006-Aug 06, at 14:05hrs PM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Ok, that leaves me no wiser as to what you are bitching about, except  
you
object to the 'statist addicts', so 'the man' via the 'government  
drones' is
getting you down, what a drag, dude.

Right then, garbage.  No collection company, they don't exist.  No  
bunch of
selfish individuals is going to form a company, good lord, how would you
make a decision?  "YOU don't tell ME what to do, dude."

Bill Gates didn't make & give away $Mxx, Microsoft did.

No iPod company, see garbage.

100 year of rugged individualists in the USA?  Ah, the pioneer myth.  
Every
country has that.  Even Australia, but it's followed by an embarassed  
laugh.

Gus, I believe there's a shack with your name on it in Montana.  
Letter-bomb
mailing spree optional, of course.  PIC-based triggering mechanism  
perhaps?

You either have individuals or a society.  You can't have both.  Pick  
one.
Sure, a society can tolerate a number of indivduals, but that's not  
the same
thing.

Societies collect the garbage & build iPod factories, individuals don't.

This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller  
when you
heat it up' thread on another list.

Tony


2006\08\07@084932 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option  

This still holds. You have not presented how you imagine something to
function without the "mob" (aka elected representatives). Even the
constitution (that you cite later without really explaining anything) was
created by elected representatives (which seems to be what you call a
"mob").

You said you don't vote because voting is "mob rule". You said you have a
better system -- by the context obviously a system that doesn't need
elected representatives nor any other kind of voting. I'd really like to
hear about that.

If you feel that I misunderstood you so far, this may well be. From my
angle, it's mostly because you so far say what you don't like with the
current system, rather than what you would like -- and how that would work,
avoiding what you don't like all the while still providing you with what
you do like.

> I am working to reverse the tide and replace " stable democracy " with
> something much better. I believe I could talk until I dropped dead and
> drag out easels with diagrams and pie charts until heaven burnt over and
> I could not get you to see that something has already existed that was
> better than what exists now.  A Constitutional Republic !  

If I understood you correctly, you propose going back to the original
constitution from 1776 and nothing else. It seems to me, though, that it
have been procedures compliant with that constitution that created the
current situation -- that you don't like. If that is correct, then it seems
to me that there's something missing in that constitution: something that
prevents things straying from the "right path" (as defined by you). So what
would you add to prevent things from turning out the way they did?


{Quote hidden}

Interestingly enough, the word "freedom" doesn't appear in the cited
section. Also, the last item seems to imply that private property /may/ be
taken (it's written almost explicitly), just not without just compensation.
It is also implied -- if not explicitly stated elsewhere -- that what is
"just" will be defined by laws made by elected representatives. (Which
seems to be what you call "mob rule".)


> Systems that worked from 1776  through the early 1800's and into the
> 1900's  are being dismantled now in the name of  ' protect the USA from
> terrorists '  Those systems would work quite well now, if reactivated.  

Possibly. Which seems to mean that the constitution lacks something to
prevent that -- after all, it is general consensus (give or take a few)
that the current laws are constitutional.


>> (Remember? You don't want a group, you're alone.)

> I never said that, never, ever, you made that up completely on your own.
> Living alone was never a stated, implied or desired agenda on my part.
> Please tell me where you came up with the idea that want to depend only
> on myself.

You said "I do not vote because the system is 'mob rule'". I may have
misunderstood that as you being against voting. Which, as I see it, means
pretty much that you're on your own, because every group has to rely on
voting or consensus for deciding things. I don't think consensus works for
groups over a certain size.

I may well not understand you. In that case, please explain what you meant.
Voting good or not? If good, why not now?


>> Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No
>> place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on
>> their loner status, only can be what they are because they are
>> protected (more or less, it could definitely be better) by the
>> "democracy mob". The frontier times are gone, mostly, and people are
>> everywhere. You better get used to it :)

> <-------- you are completely making up things about what I said, ....

I didn't make anything up, in this paragraph, because I didn't say anything
about what you said. I just stated my opinion about anarchy and frontier
times.

> And you do not understand the various forms of anarchy that are possible.
>  There is not just one form, just as there is not one implementation of
> democracy.

I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what I understand or not.

In any case, the different forms of democracy are different in the way
governmental violence is restraint. Since there is by definition no
governmental violence (no compulsory organization at all) in anarchy, it
can't differ in implementation -- anarchy is the absence of any
implementation.

There can of course be different outcomes -- but they depend solely on what
the individuals will do. You and I may differ on probable outcomes, but
that doesn't make them different forms ("implementations") of anarchy.


> So do you want to hear more, or should I give up ?

I definitely would like to start hearing /something/ that states what you
want, and how that is related to you not wanting to vote.


>From another message:
> I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves.

The problem is not whether or not to rule myself, the problem is keeping
you from ruling me.

> Do I want my garbage picked up ?  hire a company to pick it up.

There is an amazing amount of public regulations hidden in that simple
phrase.

- "Hire": Requires at least the possibility of contractual relationships.
Which requires some laws to govern them, and a judicial system to decide
what is what in case there is a disagreement between the parties, and a
police force to enforce the outcome of such sentences of the judicial
system.

- "A company": Requires a system that limits the power individual groups
can accumulate. Otherwise, it's easy that a "company" becomes more powerful
that any other individual or company and even as the state itself. Which
then means simply that any constitutional protection (which you seem to
cherish) is gone, and that you start living by their rules.

- "To pick it up": They need to come to your place for that. They need
roads. If there is no public space (administrated by a government), you'd
have to pay toll to every property owner on the way. (And I'm not even
getting into the question what ownership of property means without all the
governmental infrastructure.) So you need public ownership of land, and to
be able to build streets and roads, you may need eminent domain. Say I own
all the lands around your land, and I tell you to "get off my damn lawn" --
and say I have the goons and weapons to enforce that. No way that garbage
truck you hired will be crossing my lawn... that's part of what eminent
domain is about.

There's more implied that you left out. The garbage needs to go somewhere.
What is stopping the garbage company to just dump it on your lawn? Or
somewhere else (maybe even their property), where it leaks into the water
that is feeding your well?

Gerhard

2006\08\10@003545 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller
> when you
> heat it up' thread on another list.

I'll bite.
Beats working :-)

One could do the math (arithmetic) but there seems a far easier way.

A heated piece of metal expands (for most metals).

EITHER:

The metal all expands linearly, in amount proportionally equally to
its original size and the object therefore retains its original
relative shape and proportions. In which case holes become larger to
retain their relationship to the expanded whole. ie the object is
simply a scaled up version of the original.

OR:

The object changes its relative shape and proportions in some way so
that eg holes can become smaller relative to the size of the expanded
whole.
ie heating the object uniformly throughout causes it to assume a new
shape which is not a directly scaled version of its original form.

AND, AS:

The former seems to obey the "laws" of Physics and the latter dinna
then we conclude that holes in a heated piece of metal will expand as
the metal expands to maintain the scale of the heated object.


QED



       RM

2006\08\10@062256 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Gah!  There's always one in a crowd  :)

Yep, everything expands proportionally, including the holes (whatever shape
they may be).  I don't know of any homogenous metal that shrinks when
heated...

Some people remain unconvinced of this, no amount of logic or reason will
sway them.  It gets more frustrating when said skeptic states "Well yes, I
have heated up metal to be able to get a bearing in or out, but I still
don't believe the hole gets bigger".  Gadzooks!

Aliens.  Must be aliens.  Gotta get my tinfoil hat to stop the rays.

Tony

2006\08\10@103048 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tony Smith wrote:

>>> This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller
>>> when you heat it up' thread on another list.
>>
>> I'll bite.

Let's chew on it :)

{Quote hidden}

Let's say you have a big chunk of metal. And let's say you take a flame to
the immediate neighborhood of the hole. And let's say the chunk itself
(farther away from the hole) stays at room temperature; only the area
around the hole gets heated. Does the hole get bigger?

Gerhard

2006\08\10@110034 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Yes, and as a bonus you crack the casting to were trying to get the bearing
into.

You'll be saying more than 'Gadzooks!' when that happens  :)

Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...