Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Jack Sheehan, SF-Based War Criminal for Bechtel
Jack Sheehan's skull is barely covered by his death white skin, a fitting expression for a thin-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy.
JACK SHEEHAN DEATH BROKER INFORMATION
Jack Sheehan: enemy of the people of Iraq. Enemy of the people of the United States. When young American troops die in the Middle East, it is to augment the profit, ego and power of people like Jack Sheehan.
When we protest Bechtel next week, we are protesting Jack Sheehan, among many others. This man should spend the rest of his life rotting away in prison for war crimes.
- Joined Bechtel in 1998 after a career in the US Marine Corps, retired general. Spent 35 years in the military. Served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and Commander in Chief U.S. Atlantic Command. After leaving active duty, served as Special Advisor for Central Asia for two secretaries of Defense.
- Senior vice president, manages Bechtel's petroleum and chemical operations
- Sits on the Defense Policy Board, specifically to advise Donald Rumsfeld. Claims this is not a conflict of interest. Received his nomination for this board from Rumsfeld.
- Acquired $643,633,530 in defense contracts in 2001. In 2002, acquired $1,030,847,151 in defense contracts.
- Sheehan speaks on finding creative solutions to Saudi oil dominance: "As you know the real issue in the Mid East is, the swing production capability that exists out of Saudi Arabia. If you create that capability in international marketplace then you lessen international dependence on Saudi oil. I think that that, like Tony’s point, has to be put in a much larger strategic framework and discussion. If you just deal with it as, how do I take this Saudi swing production off the marketplace and replace it with Russian’s Caspian, then I think you are sub-optimizing your bigger problem." But, Jack, I thought the real issue in the Middle East was terrorism and weapons of mass destruction!
Jack Sheehan: enemy of the people of Iraq. Enemy of the people of the United States. When young American troops die in the Middle East, it is to augment the profit, ego and power of people like Jack Sheehan.
When we protest Bechtel next week, we are protesting Jack Sheehan, among many others. This man should spend the rest of his life rotting away in prison for war crimes.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
He looks like any number of Nazi officers you might see in history books.
Then, you consider he acts so much like the fascists and nazis of old that it is appropriate.
What a sick piece of shit.
Then, you consider he acts so much like the fascists and nazis of old that it is appropriate.
What a sick piece of shit.
Will this modern day fascist pig be at Bechtel next Thursday? I wonder what his schedule is. Maybe we should call for an appointment?
For my part, i hope they'll *both* be there. Bechtel, here we come again. :-> -X
You should introduce yourself to the people at SF Indy. They know too little about you and are confused. See - they call guys like the President a nazi, but they call people who advocate pushing Israel into the sea merely refugees or oppressed.
When Palestinian schools teach kids that jews are not human and should be destroyed, it seems pretty close to nazism to me.
When Palestinian schools teach kids that jews are not human and should be destroyed, it seems pretty close to nazism to me.
our protests have only begun!!!!!!
now comes the long entrenched protest battle
where we stop the occupation of iraq
stop the occupation of palestine
and stop the occupation anywhere US or capitalist-led paramilitaries are violating innocent people
STRATEGIC SHUTDOWNS
FROM NOW UNTIL VICTORY
now comes the long entrenched protest battle
where we stop the occupation of iraq
stop the occupation of palestine
and stop the occupation anywhere US or capitalist-led paramilitaries are violating innocent people
STRATEGIC SHUTDOWNS
FROM NOW UNTIL VICTORY
stop paying you to stay out of the house, and you've got nothing to fall back on -
You'll have to get a job.
That'll cut back on your demonstration work. You'll have to find another hobby.
Have you thougth about stamp collecting? Maybe jogging - you can work off some of that hatred...
You'll have to get a job.
That'll cut back on your demonstration work. You'll have to find another hobby.
Have you thougth about stamp collecting? Maybe jogging - you can work off some of that hatred...
I am a tall skinny white guy and I am not a nazi !!
I can tell you the main difference between myself and the charming Mr. Betchel. The fact that I have grown up surounded by souls who desire more from life than to be fabulously wealthy. I cannot even comprehend how capatilists think and I freely admit that, therefore I will never know how Mr. Betchel justifys having so much more than so many others. I do understand karma and equinimity however and those are universal rules of engagement, they are just not as instintaneous as murder, pillage and rape. Mr. Betchel will get his just rewards lets just sit at home watchin cnn and hope he doesn't take the american republic with him !?!?!
I can tell you the main difference between myself and the charming Mr. Betchel. The fact that I have grown up surounded by souls who desire more from life than to be fabulously wealthy. I cannot even comprehend how capatilists think and I freely admit that, therefore I will never know how Mr. Betchel justifys having so much more than so many others. I do understand karma and equinimity however and those are universal rules of engagement, they are just not as instintaneous as murder, pillage and rape. Mr. Betchel will get his just rewards lets just sit at home watchin cnn and hope he doesn't take the american republic with him !?!?!
Where's the economic data?
It's the fourth one down. The U.S. is the only one that does so well for so many...
For more information:
http://www.daveswow.com/archivedetail.php?...
"Jack Sheehan's skull is barely covered by his death white skin, a fitting expression for a thin-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy."
If this guy's skin were brown, would SFIndymedia choose to comment on that?
e.g. - "Notice his black skin and thick lips - an appropriate symbol for evil and death and cannibal of humanity"
Just wondering. Typical liberal hypocrisy in action.
If this guy's skin were brown, would SFIndymedia choose to comment on that?
e.g. - "Notice his black skin and thick lips - an appropriate symbol for evil and death and cannibal of humanity"
Just wondering. Typical liberal hypocrisy in action.
dave i think you are right about the intro to this article, the thing about 'death white skin' is purely sensationalism. BUT in responce to your responce to jason about capitalism, what makes you think that 'capitalism is the most effective means of allocating resource to peoples [ NEEDS ]'? the wants i understand, but the needs of people are something very often mis-interpreted by individuals, and generally grossly inflated. and of course if the needs of people are so little understood, how depraved and in excess the wants must be.
the stance you take that amassing wealth allows for technological advances which improve standards of living is again questionable. i have asked that very question many times in conversations with engineering friends of mine, and they seem to agree that mass production is not neccesary for tech. innovation. rather the opposite is often found, mass prod. leads to main streaming and a decreased focus on innovations.
im affraid im not an economist, or business major, and cannot comment on your second paragraph beyond stating that i see very rich people, more so than Stewart getting richer all the time. And the government is hand in hand with it, Powell jr. and the FCC, our Bechtel friend here and Cheney.
in your third paragraph you enter into an argument which lacks clarity of thought, i dont think you are unintelligent, but if you cant imagine a better system than our current one, than you have lost imagination, or have settled for this system so long ago you dont want to have to second guess your self now. as an answer to your question of jason, why not a system of self-production and consumption, such that any individuals reliance on any other individual is constantly minimized (this would be anti-productionism) there would be no economy to consider, and a government would act to defend the individuals from aggressions posed by other groups. the technology would not be based on mass production/consumption but rather, just as artists produce art for its own sack so too scientists (i speak on my own behalf) would research and 'innovate' on thier own dime, or as groups arise for common persuits that 'groups' dime. the persuit of intellectual enlightenment would be a personal experience for the enjoyment of the whole in a way entirely different than that experienced now. can you dave build a car? i wouldnt think so, but if you had to get to Washington D.C. from Great Neck Virgina in 8 days without one (or plane, train, or other multitiered engineering problem), you could probably think of a way to build something that would do it. unless you have completly sold your imagination, and naturally innovative mind over to the forces of society. i care nothing for prosperty at a social level. i care about my prosperity, i care about jasons prosperity, i care about your prosperity, as long as it is at the expence of our own sweet and sleepless nights deep in thought, and bloody nuckled self enterprises.
the stance you take that amassing wealth allows for technological advances which improve standards of living is again questionable. i have asked that very question many times in conversations with engineering friends of mine, and they seem to agree that mass production is not neccesary for tech. innovation. rather the opposite is often found, mass prod. leads to main streaming and a decreased focus on innovations.
im affraid im not an economist, or business major, and cannot comment on your second paragraph beyond stating that i see very rich people, more so than Stewart getting richer all the time. And the government is hand in hand with it, Powell jr. and the FCC, our Bechtel friend here and Cheney.
in your third paragraph you enter into an argument which lacks clarity of thought, i dont think you are unintelligent, but if you cant imagine a better system than our current one, than you have lost imagination, or have settled for this system so long ago you dont want to have to second guess your self now. as an answer to your question of jason, why not a system of self-production and consumption, such that any individuals reliance on any other individual is constantly minimized (this would be anti-productionism) there would be no economy to consider, and a government would act to defend the individuals from aggressions posed by other groups. the technology would not be based on mass production/consumption but rather, just as artists produce art for its own sack so too scientists (i speak on my own behalf) would research and 'innovate' on thier own dime, or as groups arise for common persuits that 'groups' dime. the persuit of intellectual enlightenment would be a personal experience for the enjoyment of the whole in a way entirely different than that experienced now. can you dave build a car? i wouldnt think so, but if you had to get to Washington D.C. from Great Neck Virgina in 8 days without one (or plane, train, or other multitiered engineering problem), you could probably think of a way to build something that would do it. unless you have completly sold your imagination, and naturally innovative mind over to the forces of society. i care nothing for prosperty at a social level. i care about my prosperity, i care about jasons prosperity, i care about your prosperity, as long as it is at the expence of our own sweet and sleepless nights deep in thought, and bloody nuckled self enterprises.
Travis you raise good points.
I will reiterate that I am a capitalist and a conservative because I, like you, care about all the people. I am convinced that our system is the best, and that 'tweaks' in regulation and fiscal policy are the best ways to handle problems as they arise - as opposed to changing systems entirely.
I may have lead you astray a bit, by choosing people involved in technology in my examples. What I was trying to say was people have gotten rich because they provided something that other people wanted or needed. (cars, food, medicine, harry potter stories, etc.)
Now, I have read a lot about the history of economics, including the transition of mankind from hunter/gatherers to production societies; as well as alternative forms of economies, such as socialism, communism, the utopian experiments (like New Harmony, in my home state of Indiana) and am convinced that none are superior to market capitalism. So, I am not comparing our system to imaginary ones, but to real alternatives. (did you go to my website and read that economic data)
I'll throw out two quick things to ponder and then get back to my boring work...
First - food production. In your self-productive idea, the bulk of our day would be spent in producing food for ourselves. Mankind, through inter-dependent relationships has improved on this by specialization. some guys became miners, fishers, bakers, and smiths - then they traded their services (or a commodity) for the product of the farmer. In your jack-of-all trades example, no man could devote himself to physics or art because he'd have to be his own farmer, etc.. The quality of life would be nowhere near today's levels. (on recent censuses, the occupation 'farmer' was not even presented as a choice, because we are down to needing only 2 farmers / producers for every 100 eaters / consumers.)
Secondly, an interesting study was done regarding the efficiency of capitalism (vis a vis some kind of centrally managed allocation system, like communism.) The economists traced the movement of a day's worth of tin from one mine as it moved through the economy, becoming whatever tin becomes in the end (parts, vitamins?, etc..) The number of decisions it took to allocate that tin from point A to it's end points was 40,000! Now, under the market capitalist model, it's pretty safe to assume that at each decision, the decision maker was maximizing profit - doing the best thing that could be done with the tin at that point. I cannot conceive another way of managing this astounding use of natural resources, other than the free market. (for failed examples - see the economic disasters, including those on the environment, of the former communist bloc countries.)
I will reiterate that I am a capitalist and a conservative because I, like you, care about all the people. I am convinced that our system is the best, and that 'tweaks' in regulation and fiscal policy are the best ways to handle problems as they arise - as opposed to changing systems entirely.
I may have lead you astray a bit, by choosing people involved in technology in my examples. What I was trying to say was people have gotten rich because they provided something that other people wanted or needed. (cars, food, medicine, harry potter stories, etc.)
Now, I have read a lot about the history of economics, including the transition of mankind from hunter/gatherers to production societies; as well as alternative forms of economies, such as socialism, communism, the utopian experiments (like New Harmony, in my home state of Indiana) and am convinced that none are superior to market capitalism. So, I am not comparing our system to imaginary ones, but to real alternatives. (did you go to my website and read that economic data)
I'll throw out two quick things to ponder and then get back to my boring work...
First - food production. In your self-productive idea, the bulk of our day would be spent in producing food for ourselves. Mankind, through inter-dependent relationships has improved on this by specialization. some guys became miners, fishers, bakers, and smiths - then they traded their services (or a commodity) for the product of the farmer. In your jack-of-all trades example, no man could devote himself to physics or art because he'd have to be his own farmer, etc.. The quality of life would be nowhere near today's levels. (on recent censuses, the occupation 'farmer' was not even presented as a choice, because we are down to needing only 2 farmers / producers for every 100 eaters / consumers.)
Secondly, an interesting study was done regarding the efficiency of capitalism (vis a vis some kind of centrally managed allocation system, like communism.) The economists traced the movement of a day's worth of tin from one mine as it moved through the economy, becoming whatever tin becomes in the end (parts, vitamins?, etc..) The number of decisions it took to allocate that tin from point A to it's end points was 40,000! Now, under the market capitalist model, it's pretty safe to assume that at each decision, the decision maker was maximizing profit - doing the best thing that could be done with the tin at that point. I cannot conceive another way of managing this astounding use of natural resources, other than the free market. (for failed examples - see the economic disasters, including those on the environment, of the former communist bloc countries.)
For more information:
http://www.daveswow.com/
Travis,
Again, I commend you on being a civilized and reasonable debater - not always the case here on SFIndymedia.
What kind of research do you do?
Again, I commend you on being a civilized and reasonable debater - not always the case here on SFIndymedia.
What kind of research do you do?
dave, if we begin to work line by line in this discourse, we will exponentially use up the space allocated for this discussion room, and probably most of our day. therefore i suggest that we choose a subject and stick with that, i like where your going with the focus on economics as related to social systems, and as i said before i will be the one getting the most out of this i think, for my interests are in physics, cell and developmental biology with little to no economic back ground.
you may have led me slightly astray with your use of tech. as an example of supply and demand leading to greater 'prosperity' and improved 'quality of life', but even with what youve championed now, i stand by my answer. What your saying in essence is founded on a difficult problem, a falisy infact, which came first the chicken or the egg. I see this often in questions concerning evolution and development (generally in discusions with fundamentalists). is it that people like you and myself actualy NEED cars, medicine, or harry potter stories? or are these wants?, and how does a want form in the mind of the farmers kid, such that his hard days dollars go to that instead of new shingles over the kitchen. what im saying is that until we sit and question everything (what you alluded to in your opening as 'changing systems intirely') we will not be able to ellicit the difference between a desire (want) put into our heads by grandpa's bed time stories, and an ACTUAL NEED, as dictated by nature.
i will continue to respond over the rest of the day, please do not respond to this until i have completed my retort.
you may have led me slightly astray with your use of tech. as an example of supply and demand leading to greater 'prosperity' and improved 'quality of life', but even with what youve championed now, i stand by my answer. What your saying in essence is founded on a difficult problem, a falisy infact, which came first the chicken or the egg. I see this often in questions concerning evolution and development (generally in discusions with fundamentalists). is it that people like you and myself actualy NEED cars, medicine, or harry potter stories? or are these wants?, and how does a want form in the mind of the farmers kid, such that his hard days dollars go to that instead of new shingles over the kitchen. what im saying is that until we sit and question everything (what you alluded to in your opening as 'changing systems intirely') we will not be able to ellicit the difference between a desire (want) put into our heads by grandpa's bed time stories, and an ACTUAL NEED, as dictated by nature.
i will continue to respond over the rest of the day, please do not respond to this until i have completed my retort.
i agree that people have gotten rich from supplying something to people, but to elevate those things wether it is transportation, steal, oil, or computer based tech. to the level of a need is incorrect. these things are all wants and im suggesting easilly 'fed' to peoples weaknesses. i dont think you imagine that pandering to peoples weaknesses is a good foundation for an economic system, but capitalism is intrenched in this... if changing this facet of capitalism is your idea of 'tweak-ing' via regulation, then i commend you for your boldness. but if you dont see this as a main focus of 'system-change', then you do not 'care about all the people', but rather care about providing for the misdirected desires of the people. dont think that im dogmatic in suggesting that i know what desires are founded in need, and which are hallucinatory founded in pop culture, but i think the litmus test surrounds us each daily (the farther from a city the better) in nature and understanding her ECONOMY of need.
again im sorry, and request that you not respond until i have completly finished.
again im sorry, and request that you not respond until i have completly finished.
first. you are correct, the 'standard' of living would not be what it is now, i consider this 'standard' we live in now, (and which id imagine you would accept as being progressive) to be retarded in light of the balance seen in natural systems. this is a philosophical framework issue i would like to talk with you about perhaps in the future. but here, dealing with the nitty grit as we are, you are most correct, much of my day would be spent on trying to produce a (personal) surplus, to endure non-growing seasons, or perhaps i like to eat rice year round despite the climate i have decided to live in which will only produce one crop/yr. BUT you are incorrect in assuming that this limits my abilities to innovate, i speak from personal experience, i grow my own crops of vegtables now, (i purchase none) (i havent the land required to produce my own grain/meal, yet) in a hydroponic system i devised as a result of my constrained area, this was not a kit i purchased from a vender, i.e. specialist, rather i used bamboo, and fittings that i limited to AT MOST, one degree of seperation from the source. (which makes me a little skeptical of the 40,000 decisions/tin stat. quoted earlier, i would like to see just what they were looking at.)
i currently am squating land to live in, and limit my inpact on that resource, because i can, this again is a philosophical foundation that we ought to consider/question (later), hence the 'intelectual' neccesity of complication of thinking, rather than specialization of individuals into less than self-sufficient parts to the social whole. in this place, both physically and philosophically that i live you as a human being (mammalian animal) would have all your 'needs' met. food you grew yourself, a house you built with your own hands of resources you at worst were willing to allow one degree of sepration from. society as i see it places a greater value on only what perpetuates dependance on that system. i am social, in that i have many friends i am willing to travel long distances to see, i make it a point to have a reason to visit these friends, often it regards difficult problems i have incountered in attempting to live as i do. and here i take most exception to what you have read, and how you have organized your thoughts concerning capitalism, the economy, social history, and personal fulfilment, for i find my most deeply felt enjoyment of life in doing what you suggest, and what all your 'readings' have suggested is not possible. i, with my perhaps 4 hours(day light)/day of personal time, live a life of research, into the physics of genetic responce to environmental pressures on developmental structures. this is not as you can see an 'imaginary system'. this is however a system which has at its source a different world view than your system, or any of the other systems you are probably used to carring on conversations about in this discusion room. i suggest no social system by which to organize an economy, in fact economics in the sence of a symbolic currency is a moot point here as you can easily see. i suggest anarchy, despite all its negative conotations, and its very poor showing throughout history, believe me though, it is a functional system with a vast underground.
if you wish to respond, i conclude.
i currently am squating land to live in, and limit my inpact on that resource, because i can, this again is a philosophical foundation that we ought to consider/question (later), hence the 'intelectual' neccesity of complication of thinking, rather than specialization of individuals into less than self-sufficient parts to the social whole. in this place, both physically and philosophically that i live you as a human being (mammalian animal) would have all your 'needs' met. food you grew yourself, a house you built with your own hands of resources you at worst were willing to allow one degree of sepration from. society as i see it places a greater value on only what perpetuates dependance on that system. i am social, in that i have many friends i am willing to travel long distances to see, i make it a point to have a reason to visit these friends, often it regards difficult problems i have incountered in attempting to live as i do. and here i take most exception to what you have read, and how you have organized your thoughts concerning capitalism, the economy, social history, and personal fulfilment, for i find my most deeply felt enjoyment of life in doing what you suggest, and what all your 'readings' have suggested is not possible. i, with my perhaps 4 hours(day light)/day of personal time, live a life of research, into the physics of genetic responce to environmental pressures on developmental structures. this is not as you can see an 'imaginary system'. this is however a system which has at its source a different world view than your system, or any of the other systems you are probably used to carring on conversations about in this discusion room. i suggest no social system by which to organize an economy, in fact economics in the sence of a symbolic currency is a moot point here as you can easily see. i suggest anarchy, despite all its negative conotations, and its very poor showing throughout history, believe me though, it is a functional system with a vast underground.
if you wish to respond, i conclude.
Sorry I have to be bried - busy day etc.
The first problem I see with your proposal is that you assume that people are misled into believing they need the things our economy offers, and that they'd be happier growing their own food etc. Well, that may be true for you, but I'm guessing that most people, given the choice, would rather not farm their own food - opting instead to produce some other service and exchange a part of their wage for food. By my estimation, my wife and our two kids can eat for a week for as little as a few hours worth of my work. The extra 6.5 days per week I can spend on other tasks, including production, is more attractive to me than the satisfaction of growing all my own food. As evidence of my contention that people opt for my system, I point merely to the fact that few people have foregone all modern luxuries for your self-satisfying independent living approach.
Additionally, you raise questions regarding what a good life is, and are we therefore correct in our means of pursuing it. As to the first, I think we can all agree that - assuming no painful infirmaries - a LONG life is better, by definition, than a SHORT life - all other things remaining equal. Now, in your world of independent living, live would be very shorter because no man can be his own doctor to much degree of success. I myself sit before you wearing contacts, on three medications, and bearing the scars of two surgeries. These and other medical products which I have purchased on our open market are the causes of the continually rising life expectancy in the U.S.
In summary, your approach to life is one which a man is fee to choose - in order to maximize his own happiness - in our society; a society which itself enables individuals like you to choose your level of interaction or independence.
The first problem I see with your proposal is that you assume that people are misled into believing they need the things our economy offers, and that they'd be happier growing their own food etc. Well, that may be true for you, but I'm guessing that most people, given the choice, would rather not farm their own food - opting instead to produce some other service and exchange a part of their wage for food. By my estimation, my wife and our two kids can eat for a week for as little as a few hours worth of my work. The extra 6.5 days per week I can spend on other tasks, including production, is more attractive to me than the satisfaction of growing all my own food. As evidence of my contention that people opt for my system, I point merely to the fact that few people have foregone all modern luxuries for your self-satisfying independent living approach.
Additionally, you raise questions regarding what a good life is, and are we therefore correct in our means of pursuing it. As to the first, I think we can all agree that - assuming no painful infirmaries - a LONG life is better, by definition, than a SHORT life - all other things remaining equal. Now, in your world of independent living, live would be very shorter because no man can be his own doctor to much degree of success. I myself sit before you wearing contacts, on three medications, and bearing the scars of two surgeries. These and other medical products which I have purchased on our open market are the causes of the continually rising life expectancy in the U.S.
In summary, your approach to life is one which a man is fee to choose - in order to maximize his own happiness - in our society; a society which itself enables individuals like you to choose your level of interaction or independence.
dave i believe what i had written was entirely too long winded for the responce it provoked, perhaps it was a long day at work for you true, but i see from your arguments that either you dont care to continue today, or have decided to stop critical analysis of your suroundings. again you have used the falisy of working from what is evident to inforce what ought to be, in fact four times by my reconing, despite a discusion with deffinant promise for hashing out a unified coherent philosophy for life and a good critique on our current institutions. if you continue to come to these discussion rooms drop me a line some time, and be warry of using poor reasoning in your arguments, ill jump on you like a cat on a mouse.
I'm a little insulted by your assertion that I'm using poor reason. I'm having problems understanding your positions - maybe because your posts are so long or unfocused? Not trying to offend you - just telling you that I need to re-read your stuff to try to understand it better. Take care.
Dave I agree with you in general but in this forum you are a voice in the wilderness. The Romans recongnized 2000+ years ago "that which you subsidize you will get more of". To subsidize mediocrity, as socialism does, is to guarantee that it becomes pervasive. True socialist countries have never been able to compete with capitalist nations in science, culture, standard of living, medicine or nearly any other area (save military build-up). The only "socialist" countries that come close (France, Sweden etc) do so by mixing capitalism with socialism. The hard working capitalists produce huge amounts of commerce which is then looted by the socialist governments and redistributed to the masses wallowing in mediocrity and government encouraged self-entitlement. "Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the others", Winston Churchill
Thanks Richie,
I enjoy debating the people on this forum. The Churchill quote is one they especially should remember, because they're main weapon is pointing out capitalism's faults. This succeeds in winning over malcontents and people disposed to riot and protest, and this is perhaps a good and healthy thing in our democracy.
However, they'll never succeed in persuading a majority (I hope) because, despite capitalism's weaknesses, their proposed alternatives are even worse.*
*That is, if you can understand their proposals. I'm still trying to understand Travis' system wherein everyone is independently producing everthying they need to meet their own needs. I say that's worse than market capitalism, but Travis says I'm just not challenging my surroundings. Oh yah - he also says he's gonna jump on me like a cat on a mouse if I don't use reason, so watch my back, Richie. Thanks.
* One more for Travis - if we're supposed to challenge ourselves, you should read about some of the old economists - those whose ideas were discussed more heavilly before we figured out that capitalism reigns supreme. I've given you a link to a guy, who like you I'm guessing, seemed to think that there just wasn't enough stuff on earth for everyone...
I enjoy debating the people on this forum. The Churchill quote is one they especially should remember, because they're main weapon is pointing out capitalism's faults. This succeeds in winning over malcontents and people disposed to riot and protest, and this is perhaps a good and healthy thing in our democracy.
However, they'll never succeed in persuading a majority (I hope) because, despite capitalism's weaknesses, their proposed alternatives are even worse.*
*That is, if you can understand their proposals. I'm still trying to understand Travis' system wherein everyone is independently producing everthying they need to meet their own needs. I say that's worse than market capitalism, but Travis says I'm just not challenging my surroundings. Oh yah - he also says he's gonna jump on me like a cat on a mouse if I don't use reason, so watch my back, Richie. Thanks.
* One more for Travis - if we're supposed to challenge ourselves, you should read about some of the old economists - those whose ideas were discussed more heavilly before we figured out that capitalism reigns supreme. I've given you a link to a guy, who like you I'm guessing, seemed to think that there just wasn't enough stuff on earth for everyone...
For more information:
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biograph...
People often overlook the fact that Churchill was elected to Parliament as a liberal early in his career. As he grew older and wiser he saw how government policies shaped the will and direction of the people and the nation as a whole. Hence his famed quote "a man of twenty who isn't a liberal has no heart, a man of forty who isn't a conservative has no brain". He truly was, an is, one of the most fascinating people in recent history.
No more so than his partners in crime, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo and Roosevelt.
You are so clever. I will say that knowing the name "Tojo" puts you in the 99th percentile in history of the socialists on this webpage. Good job!
The British people - and all of Europe, arguably - are free today because of people like Churchill who refused to surrender to Hitler, even when many of his countrymen wanted their government to sue for a peace - a piece which Hitler was ready to give them.
You're revising history. To equate Churchill with the rapists of Nanking or the perpetrators of the Holocaust is typical of the exagerations I read from the leftists at SFIndymedia. Why don't you go get a speaking gig at Columbia or Berkely? Those people will eat your stuff up.
The British people - and all of Europe, arguably - are free today because of people like Churchill who refused to surrender to Hitler, even when many of his countrymen wanted their government to sue for a peace - a piece which Hitler was ready to give them.
You're revising history. To equate Churchill with the rapists of Nanking or the perpetrators of the Holocaust is typical of the exagerations I read from the leftists at SFIndymedia. Why don't you go get a speaking gig at Columbia or Berkely? Those people will eat your stuff up.
Add to Hitler's partners in crime millions of socialist workers who helped round up those evil capitalst Jews and herd them and shoot them.
I'd like to remind everyone that the people at SFIndymedia are racists. See their comment regarding Sheehan's "death white skin" and "thin-lipped" features.
Where is Dr. King when I need him?
Typical liberal hypocrasy.
Where is Dr. King when I need him?
Typical liberal hypocrasy.
Thank you for providing needed alternative news source to the public. The main stream media has no guts to report the truth.
This is the place I go to show my friends the misguided rantings, racist attacks, intolerance and the lies of socialists.
>The British people . . . are free today
The British people are not free. They live in a virtual panopticon, their speech and news is censored and they are not permitted to defend themselves from criminals.
To equate Churchill with the rapists of Nanking or the perpetrators of the Holocaust is typical of the exagerations
Two words: Hamburg, Dresden
The British people are not free. They live in a virtual panopticon, their speech and news is censored and they are not permitted to defend themselves from criminals.
To equate Churchill with the rapists of Nanking or the perpetrators of the Holocaust is typical of the exagerations
Two words: Hamburg, Dresden
You forgot he was also the Butcher of Gallipoli.
How could he brutalize innocent Germans like that? It's not their fault they rounded up and killed millions of people! If Churchill had any morals, he would have let them have their concentration camps and apologized for trying to stop them from living in a Jew-free world.
You national socialist workers are so smart!
You national socialist workers are so smart!
The people Churchill slaughtered in Dresden and Hamburg were overwhelmingly civilian, almost all of them old people, women and children. By your logic, bin Laden (or whoever) was justified in slaughtering the innocent civilians in the World Trade Center, because some of their countrymen are war criminals. By the same logic, blowing up innocent Israeli civilians on busses, in pizza parlors and discos, is equally justified.
Is this what you mean?
Is this what you mean?
Dresden and Hamburg are not the moral equivelants of Nanking and the Holocaust. Rape and genocide were not state-sanctioned practices of the Allies.
Now, both sides in the war attempted to win by targeting cities which, obviously, included women and children. Given the fanatical nature of the populations of Japan and Germany, how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?
Would you have tried to win, or made peace and let Hitler keep Europe.
Now, both sides in the war attempted to win by targeting cities which, obviously, included women and children. Given the fanatical nature of the populations of Japan and Germany, how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?
Would you have tried to win, or made peace and let Hitler keep Europe.
If you had to choose, would you rather be raped, or burned alive?
>Would you have tried to win, or made peace and let Hitler keep Europe.
Personally, had I been around at the time, I would have nipped Nazism in the bud, by taking direct action.
Back when there were only seven of them, they met in a bar, and kept their treasury in a cigar box, the lot of them could have been beaten to death with bar stools in a single brawl, and Hitler never would have come to power.
This didn’t happen. Why not?
>how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?
I would have not encouraged Fascist expansionism by blockading ammunition shipments to the Spanish anarchists and their allies when they took up arms against Hitler’s stooge Franco in 1936. But in fact, this is exactly what Britain did. Why? To protect investments in Spain that had been made by members of the British ruling class.
See: Facts and Fascism by George Seldes, In Fact Inc. , New York, pp 57-58
CHAPTER V
WHO PAID FOR FRANCO'S WAR?
Fascism in Spain was bought and paid for by numerous elements who would profit by the destruction of the democratic Republican Loyalist government. There were generals who
wanted glory and others who wanted the easy graft money some of their predecessors had made. There was the established Church, and more especially the powerful Society of Jesus, which had suffered loss of property when King Alfonso was thrown out. There was the aristocracy, and there were other elements as there are in all fascist regimes, but more important than all these forces combined was the force of Money.
The Big Money conspired with General Sanjurjo and the Nazi government in early I936 to establish a fascist regime which would not only protect profits but insure bigger profits at the expense of the majority and end the heavy fear that the masses preferred the benefits which even a weak republic could obtain lor them.
Prominent among the owners of Spain and Fascism are:
(1.) The Duke of Alba . . . one of the holders of vast lands, in a nation where thousands starve to death and millions pray for two or three acres.
(snip)
(2.) Juan March. This multimillionaire crook is typical of one element of all fascist regimes . . . March has a penitentiary record as a common smuggler, and also a record as the holder of the state monopoly in tobacco.
(snip)
(3.) Rio Tinto. This is one of the biggest mining ventures in the world. Big British and Spanish capital is invested in it, and it is a truism that all big capital prefers a fascist regime, which it can own completely, to a democracy where elections change things -- and the tax rate. The British probably have the controlling interest in Rio Tinto. When Claude Bowers, American Ambassador to Spain, suggested to the British Ambassador that if Franco won Britain would have Hitler at Gibraltar and perhaps lose the control of the Mediterranean, "the lifeline of empire," the British Ambassador answered that "private interests at home are stronger than national interests." He meant that Rio Tinto and other Spanish mine, electricity, railroad and other stockholders in Britain preferred Fascism and even Hitler in Spain to the safety of Britain itself.
(snip)
>Would you have tried to win, or made peace and let Hitler keep Europe.
Personally, had I been around at the time, I would have nipped Nazism in the bud, by taking direct action.
Back when there were only seven of them, they met in a bar, and kept their treasury in a cigar box, the lot of them could have been beaten to death with bar stools in a single brawl, and Hitler never would have come to power.
This didn’t happen. Why not?
>how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?
I would have not encouraged Fascist expansionism by blockading ammunition shipments to the Spanish anarchists and their allies when they took up arms against Hitler’s stooge Franco in 1936. But in fact, this is exactly what Britain did. Why? To protect investments in Spain that had been made by members of the British ruling class.
See: Facts and Fascism by George Seldes, In Fact Inc. , New York, pp 57-58
CHAPTER V
WHO PAID FOR FRANCO'S WAR?
Fascism in Spain was bought and paid for by numerous elements who would profit by the destruction of the democratic Republican Loyalist government. There were generals who
wanted glory and others who wanted the easy graft money some of their predecessors had made. There was the established Church, and more especially the powerful Society of Jesus, which had suffered loss of property when King Alfonso was thrown out. There was the aristocracy, and there were other elements as there are in all fascist regimes, but more important than all these forces combined was the force of Money.
The Big Money conspired with General Sanjurjo and the Nazi government in early I936 to establish a fascist regime which would not only protect profits but insure bigger profits at the expense of the majority and end the heavy fear that the masses preferred the benefits which even a weak republic could obtain lor them.
Prominent among the owners of Spain and Fascism are:
(1.) The Duke of Alba . . . one of the holders of vast lands, in a nation where thousands starve to death and millions pray for two or three acres.
(snip)
(2.) Juan March. This multimillionaire crook is typical of one element of all fascist regimes . . . March has a penitentiary record as a common smuggler, and also a record as the holder of the state monopoly in tobacco.
(snip)
(3.) Rio Tinto. This is one of the biggest mining ventures in the world. Big British and Spanish capital is invested in it, and it is a truism that all big capital prefers a fascist regime, which it can own completely, to a democracy where elections change things -- and the tax rate. The British probably have the controlling interest in Rio Tinto. When Claude Bowers, American Ambassador to Spain, suggested to the British Ambassador that if Franco won Britain would have Hitler at Gibraltar and perhaps lose the control of the Mediterranean, "the lifeline of empire," the British Ambassador answered that "private interests at home are stronger than national interests." He meant that Rio Tinto and other Spanish mine, electricity, railroad and other stockholders in Britain preferred Fascism and even Hitler in Spain to the safety of Britain itself.
(snip)
Spare me the copying and pasting from the conspiracy theory books.
So, if you were Churchill, you'd have been hanging around bars in Germany to beat up the national socialists before they came to power? Gotcha. That's a solid plan. I gotta tell you - your buddies here at SFIndy will have a lot of trouble with your advocacy of pre-emptive attacks to prevent evil.
As for your Spanish policy, that'd been tough for Churchill as well, since he didn't become PM until after the fall of France...
You know, HB, if you had a time machine, you could probably manage history in this fashion you desire, but things don't work out that way in the real world. One day, Churchill woke up as PM of Britain and all of Europe was ruled by the nazis. At that point, you fight and fight to win. We're all better off for it, and it sucks that so many civilians had to die. I guess you can look at the current war in Iraq and say that we successfully averted the deaths of millions by proactive intervention, costing only a few thousand lives. I'm sure you have some problem with that too, though.
Lastly, you say the people of Britain are not free (you, as do most liberals, tirelessly find fault in every aspect of the world). Well, they're a helluva lot freer than they'd be under the rule of the third reich.
Don't you, as a liberal, think it odd that you are advocating preemptive strikes and condemning socialism (in Britain) on this webpage? Do you even have a position or do you just want to keep pulling obscure (to others perhaps, but not to me) history facts out like so many rabbits or pigeons from the hat of a bad magician?
So, if you were Churchill, you'd have been hanging around bars in Germany to beat up the national socialists before they came to power? Gotcha. That's a solid plan. I gotta tell you - your buddies here at SFIndy will have a lot of trouble with your advocacy of pre-emptive attacks to prevent evil.
As for your Spanish policy, that'd been tough for Churchill as well, since he didn't become PM until after the fall of France...
You know, HB, if you had a time machine, you could probably manage history in this fashion you desire, but things don't work out that way in the real world. One day, Churchill woke up as PM of Britain and all of Europe was ruled by the nazis. At that point, you fight and fight to win. We're all better off for it, and it sucks that so many civilians had to die. I guess you can look at the current war in Iraq and say that we successfully averted the deaths of millions by proactive intervention, costing only a few thousand lives. I'm sure you have some problem with that too, though.
Lastly, you say the people of Britain are not free (you, as do most liberals, tirelessly find fault in every aspect of the world). Well, they're a helluva lot freer than they'd be under the rule of the third reich.
Don't you, as a liberal, think it odd that you are advocating preemptive strikes and condemning socialism (in Britain) on this webpage? Do you even have a position or do you just want to keep pulling obscure (to others perhaps, but not to me) history facts out like so many rabbits or pigeons from the hat of a bad magician?
>Spare me the copying and pasting from the conspiracy theory books.
Those are history books, contemporary newspapers, and in Borkin’s case, the eyewitness account of a Nuremberg prosecutor.
>So, if you were Churchill, you'd have been hanging around bars in Germany to beat up the national socialists before they came to power? Gotcha.
That’s not what I said, and you know it. Grow up. You asked, “how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?” You did not ask, “How would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently, if you had been Churchill?
>As for your Spanish policy, that'd been tough for Churchill as well, since he didn't become PM until after the fall of France...
You asked what I personally, not Churchill, would do. So i told you.
>One day, Churchill woke up as PM of Britain and all of Europe was ruled by the nazis.
Churchill, and his family, were integral and influential members of Britain’s ruling elite, long before he became PM. He didn’t just “wake up” to find power in his hands. He was born with it.
>I guess you can look at the current war in Iraq and say that we successfully averted the deaths of millions by proactive intervention, costing only a few thousand lives.
You can say anything you want. Either way, American taxpayers have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians on their hands.
>Lastly, you say the people of Britain are not free (you, as do most liberals, tirelessly find fault in every aspect of the world). Well, they're a helluva lot freer than they'd be under the rule of the third reich.
In logic, of which you may have heard, that’s called a “false dilemma.”
See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm
>Don't you, as a liberal,
I’m not a liberal. I’m an anarchist. We consider liberals to be the Judas goats of fascism. By calling me a liberal, you are insulting me. You are a guest here. Insulting one’s host(s) is boorish at best. Do it again and I’ll throw you out on your ear. I can do that. Don’t push your luck. Already people are demanding that I show you the door. I haven’t done it yet, only because I happen to get kick out of watching you put your sophomoric foot in your mouth.
But like I said, don’t push your luck. As soon as I’m no longer amused, you’re out of here. Be polite, and you’ll last a little longer.
In the meantime, don’t post your URL again. It’s not allowed. We don’t advertise, not for free, not for pay, and certainly not for people who insult us. Do it again and you’re out of here.
Capiesc'?
Those are history books, contemporary newspapers, and in Borkin’s case, the eyewitness account of a Nuremberg prosecutor.
>So, if you were Churchill, you'd have been hanging around bars in Germany to beat up the national socialists before they came to power? Gotcha.
That’s not what I said, and you know it. Grow up. You asked, “how would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently?” You did not ask, “How would you, History Buff, have conducted the British role differently, if you had been Churchill?
>As for your Spanish policy, that'd been tough for Churchill as well, since he didn't become PM until after the fall of France...
You asked what I personally, not Churchill, would do. So i told you.
>One day, Churchill woke up as PM of Britain and all of Europe was ruled by the nazis.
Churchill, and his family, were integral and influential members of Britain’s ruling elite, long before he became PM. He didn’t just “wake up” to find power in his hands. He was born with it.
>I guess you can look at the current war in Iraq and say that we successfully averted the deaths of millions by proactive intervention, costing only a few thousand lives.
You can say anything you want. Either way, American taxpayers have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians on their hands.
>Lastly, you say the people of Britain are not free (you, as do most liberals, tirelessly find fault in every aspect of the world). Well, they're a helluva lot freer than they'd be under the rule of the third reich.
In logic, of which you may have heard, that’s called a “false dilemma.”
See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm
>Don't you, as a liberal,
I’m not a liberal. I’m an anarchist. We consider liberals to be the Judas goats of fascism. By calling me a liberal, you are insulting me. You are a guest here. Insulting one’s host(s) is boorish at best. Do it again and I’ll throw you out on your ear. I can do that. Don’t push your luck. Already people are demanding that I show you the door. I haven’t done it yet, only because I happen to get kick out of watching you put your sophomoric foot in your mouth.
But like I said, don’t push your luck. As soon as I’m no longer amused, you’re out of here. Be polite, and you’ll last a little longer.
In the meantime, don’t post your URL again. It’s not allowed. We don’t advertise, not for free, not for pay, and certainly not for people who insult us. Do it again and you’re out of here.
Capiesc'?
History Buff Anarchy man,
I'll not post my URL, that's a reasonable request.
It was you who orchestrated the false dilemma. I said something about the British people being free, and you said they weren't. That threw my point, that Churchill stood firm against compromising with the nazis, into the realm of and "or" operand.
You got pretty hung up on whether I was talking about you or Churchill. But I still have the same question - if a leader believes that a preemptive strike will save lives should he do it? To me, it sounded that way when you said that hitler should have been stopped when his associates numbered 7 or so. What do you mean by that?
I'll not post my URL, that's a reasonable request.
It was you who orchestrated the false dilemma. I said something about the British people being free, and you said they weren't. That threw my point, that Churchill stood firm against compromising with the nazis, into the realm of and "or" operand.
You got pretty hung up on whether I was talking about you or Churchill. But I still have the same question - if a leader believes that a preemptive strike will save lives should he do it? To me, it sounded that way when you said that hitler should have been stopped when his associates numbered 7 or so. What do you mean by that?
Do you have the power to remove the racist statement atop Sheehan's picture?
If so, how do you rationalize not doing so, and would you condone similar statements regarding an African American's features?
If so, how do you rationalize not doing so, and would you condone similar statements regarding an African American's features?
i for one very much enjoy this thread, and am glad, that despite your URL infraction dave, hist. buff has allowed this to continue.
concerning our direction earlier dave, you are right, life would be shorter, as dictated by nature (malthus was concerned with an aspect of his natural surroundings which is 1 of the 7 points that unified , is Darwinian evolution [a natural tendency toward geometric population growth]). this is not 'worse' than a longer life, death is not 'bad', it is both neccesary and produces a vector for population progression. by 'placeing' (as in artificially) a greater drain on resource post reproductive years for the population, 'you' short circuit what is found in natural systems. this i think is a major divide between our two philosophical starting points, i look to natural systems to ellicit balanced functions in a network of competiters [for resources lets say], and im sure youll correct me, you look to conceving a system, then implementing it via laws [again artifical] and regulations such to achieve a thing... production?
looks like hist. buff doesnt need me around to watch for logic, im glad to see at least a consciousness for it.
concerning our direction earlier dave, you are right, life would be shorter, as dictated by nature (malthus was concerned with an aspect of his natural surroundings which is 1 of the 7 points that unified , is Darwinian evolution [a natural tendency toward geometric population growth]). this is not 'worse' than a longer life, death is not 'bad', it is both neccesary and produces a vector for population progression. by 'placeing' (as in artificially) a greater drain on resource post reproductive years for the population, 'you' short circuit what is found in natural systems. this i think is a major divide between our two philosophical starting points, i look to natural systems to ellicit balanced functions in a network of competiters [for resources lets say], and im sure youll correct me, you look to conceving a system, then implementing it via laws [again artifical] and regulations such to achieve a thing... production?
looks like hist. buff doesnt need me around to watch for logic, im glad to see at least a consciousness for it.
>if a leader believes that a preemptive strike will save lives should he do it?
All leaders should die. Round ‘em up and herd ‘em off a cliff. Then we’ll have peace.
>To me, it sounded that way when you said that hitler should have been stopped when his associates numbered 7 or so. What do you mean by that?
I meant that ordinary working people should take responsibility for crushing the fascists because “leaders” can't be trusted to do it in time.
* * *
>Do you have the power to remove the racist statement atop Sheehan's picture?
They’re not racist.
>If so, how do you rationalize not doing so, and would you condone similar statements regarding an African American's features?
The guy has thin lips. He’s pale as a corpse. Surely you’re not saying these things are not true, are you? It has nothing to do with race. Many white people, myself included, do not have thin lips or look pale as a corpse. He does. Whether this reflect on his character or not is a separate issue. Personally, I have never seen evidence that physical characteristics are a reliable marker for behavioral traits. If they were, I'd say so. They're not.
All leaders should die. Round ‘em up and herd ‘em off a cliff. Then we’ll have peace.
>To me, it sounded that way when you said that hitler should have been stopped when his associates numbered 7 or so. What do you mean by that?
I meant that ordinary working people should take responsibility for crushing the fascists because “leaders” can't be trusted to do it in time.
* * *
>Do you have the power to remove the racist statement atop Sheehan's picture?
They’re not racist.
>If so, how do you rationalize not doing so, and would you condone similar statements regarding an African American's features?
The guy has thin lips. He’s pale as a corpse. Surely you’re not saying these things are not true, are you? It has nothing to do with race. Many white people, myself included, do not have thin lips or look pale as a corpse. He does. Whether this reflect on his character or not is a separate issue. Personally, I have never seen evidence that physical characteristics are a reliable marker for behavioral traits. If they were, I'd say so. They're not.
The BS in here is getting thick.
Dresden/Hamburg - strategic bombing of enemy infrastructure (industrial cities at the heart of Germany).
World Trade Center - mass murder of civilians without a military target in sight.
Bus bombing in Israel - murder of civilian non-combatants (but those dirty Jews deserve it right Comrades??)
No nation with any status in the history of the world has ever gotten there without stepping on someone else. There is, however, a bit of a moral diffence in the intentional targeting of civilians for terror and intimidation vs. truly collateral damage in a bombing campaign. Even the best intentioned nations can be led into unjust actions if it is in their national interst, but outright murder for a political statement is subhuman.
Dresden/Hamburg - strategic bombing of enemy infrastructure (industrial cities at the heart of Germany).
World Trade Center - mass murder of civilians without a military target in sight.
Bus bombing in Israel - murder of civilian non-combatants (but those dirty Jews deserve it right Comrades??)
No nation with any status in the history of the world has ever gotten there without stepping on someone else. There is, however, a bit of a moral diffence in the intentional targeting of civilians for terror and intimidation vs. truly collateral damage in a bombing campaign. Even the best intentioned nations can be led into unjust actions if it is in their national interst, but outright murder for a political statement is subhuman.
You are right on two points:
1) any references to physical attributes can only be racist if they are applied to non-whites. Such references toward whites can't be racist because they are the oppressors of humankind.
2) sure, all leaders should die and we can all live like sheep or cattle, leaderless herd animals......what an ideal world.....until a wolf comes along and begins to pick away at the herd with unopposed glee. Pacifism only works if EVERYONE joins in. The one non-conformist suddenly becomes KING!!! Especially if he has one of those nasty, evil guns!!
1) any references to physical attributes can only be racist if they are applied to non-whites. Such references toward whites can't be racist because they are the oppressors of humankind.
2) sure, all leaders should die and we can all live like sheep or cattle, leaderless herd animals......what an ideal world.....until a wolf comes along and begins to pick away at the herd with unopposed glee. Pacifism only works if EVERYONE joins in. The one non-conformist suddenly becomes KING!!! Especially if he has one of those nasty, evil guns!!
You are right on two points:
1) any references to physical attributes can only be racist if they are applied to non-whites. Such references toward whites can't be racist because they are the oppressors of humankind.
2) sure, all leaders should die and we can all live like sheep or cattle, leaderless herd animals......what an ideal world.....until a wolf comes along and begins to pick away at the herd with unopposed glee. Pacifism only works if EVERYONE joins in. The one non-conformist suddenly becomes KING!!! Especially if he has one of those nasty, evil guns!!
1) any references to physical attributes can only be racist if they are applied to non-whites. Such references toward whites can't be racist because they are the oppressors of humankind.
2) sure, all leaders should die and we can all live like sheep or cattle, leaderless herd animals......what an ideal world.....until a wolf comes along and begins to pick away at the herd with unopposed glee. Pacifism only works if EVERYONE joins in. The one non-conformist suddenly becomes KING!!! Especially if he has one of those nasty, evil guns!!
I'm swamped today, but wanted to quickly agree with Richie's last point.
Anarchy is an untenable and therefore temporary situation. Once everyone agreed to it, minutes would pass before people again began to ally themselves in order to take advantage of others. Then, in response, leaders would emerge to unite people in common defense schemes. Ultimately, we'd again have bands; then tribes with chiefs; then kindoms and kings, etc. That said, isn't our current system of lawful government obviously better? (although imperfect)
Anarchy is an untenable and therefore temporary situation. Once everyone agreed to it, minutes would pass before people again began to ally themselves in order to take advantage of others. Then, in response, leaders would emerge to unite people in common defense schemes. Ultimately, we'd again have bands; then tribes with chiefs; then kindoms and kings, etc. That said, isn't our current system of lawful government obviously better? (although imperfect)
Dear SFIndy reader, do you find either of these statements racist?
his "skull is barely covered by his death black skin, a fitting expression for a thick-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy."
his "skull is barely covered by his death white skin, a fitting expression for a thin-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy."
Please respond.
his "skull is barely covered by his death black skin, a fitting expression for a thick-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy."
his "skull is barely covered by his death white skin, a fitting expression for a thin-lipped profiteer of human misery and destruction. Fight the real enemy."
Please respond.
if you respond to me, ill respond to you.
I never suggested pacifism.
I apologize for my delay in responding.
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan. "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Hobbes is refering to man's social compact, without which, life would be as he describes. The law is part of the compact, as are manners, customs, and etiquette. You raise an interesting question as to whether laws are natural or unnatural. I've never studied what I've heard termed "natural law", but let us guess that it is an effort for law to reflect nature. We can say that in nature we find life, limited resources, human interaction, etc. From there we can agree on a few natural principles - people need food and shelter; individuals have rights, etc. Lastly, we can craft laws based on those principles. I am arguing that man's capacity to see that he is better off restraining his instincts and sacrificing some of his wants - in order that society benefit, is in his best interest. This use of cognitive ability is as natural as man's ability to innovate or imagine, etc.
The market capitalist system can be traced back to its natural principles - there are limited resources; many people who value those resources; people will work to better their environment; and, so, the limited resources should go to those who will best use them in the marketplace. Productivity is not the aim of the system, it is the basis of the system - what people put in. Satisfying human wants and needs - whether it be food, shelter, or Harry Potter novels, is the aim and the result of the system.
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan. "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Hobbes is refering to man's social compact, without which, life would be as he describes. The law is part of the compact, as are manners, customs, and etiquette. You raise an interesting question as to whether laws are natural or unnatural. I've never studied what I've heard termed "natural law", but let us guess that it is an effort for law to reflect nature. We can say that in nature we find life, limited resources, human interaction, etc. From there we can agree on a few natural principles - people need food and shelter; individuals have rights, etc. Lastly, we can craft laws based on those principles. I am arguing that man's capacity to see that he is better off restraining his instincts and sacrificing some of his wants - in order that society benefit, is in his best interest. This use of cognitive ability is as natural as man's ability to innovate or imagine, etc.
The market capitalist system can be traced back to its natural principles - there are limited resources; many people who value those resources; people will work to better their environment; and, so, the limited resources should go to those who will best use them in the marketplace. Productivity is not the aim of the system, it is the basis of the system - what people put in. Satisfying human wants and needs - whether it be food, shelter, or Harry Potter novels, is the aim and the result of the system.
Travis,
You've been quiet and I'm worried about you. Given your independence theory of economics, I fear you may have perished failing to grow enough food or trying to create your own medicines in your hut.
Please tell me you're just busy jumping like a cat on a mouse on people who you find unreasonable.
You've been quiet and I'm worried about you. Given your independence theory of economics, I fear you may have perished failing to grow enough food or trying to create your own medicines in your hut.
Please tell me you're just busy jumping like a cat on a mouse on people who you find unreasonable.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network