Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

by **robertdreed** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:26 am

Back here taking care of my stroke-ridden father, I guess. I hope that isn't too self-referential for your liking. But regardless, I'm still going to do it anyway. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/9/06 4:45 am

by **rothbardian** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:01 am

Gee, I was about to post a response to "Dreams End" and a couple of others...but I'm still back on the original themes and this thread has gone off in some other direction. If someone is interested or wants to get back to the other subjects, I'm game. Otherwise I think I'll hold off.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:33 pm

Fascinating, rdr. Because when I was in Atlanta, we were organizing AGAINST labor pools. Here's why. The Labor pools, first off, did not pay nearly as much (this was 15 years ago, but adjusting for inflation, etc.) Secondly, they made the men pay for everything...transportation, special "equipment" if needed, they found all kinds of ways to subtract from the wage. They were evil places. Dickensian, really. I knew the men who went there...stayed for hours hoping for a job. We picketed right outside starting at about 4:30 a.m. Our hope was to get some minimum standards for the places. In doing a bit of cursory research on day labor pools I see that the complex factor of immigrant labor makes it tough to extrapolate my experience to the present day. While one finds articles about day labor centers, you find many about street corner sites and the wages are less and exploitation far higher. Here's a story, for example, about a day labor center run cooperatively by its 120 members. It works well, the wages are about 10 dollars an hour, but it cannot nearly handle the demand. It also gets into how neighborhoods turn against these places. (This was San francisco, not Sacramento) <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/15/BAG3C7LGOU1.DTL">sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7LGOU1.DTL</a> But so much of this has not become about immigrant labor that, though that's another issue we could get into...but as rothbardian pointed out, we've strayed off topic...I will hold off. As for the war on drugs as social control...well, of course. We agree on that. The difference is (sort of returning to the "slavery" topic) is that I think they have a reason for wanting that social control and don't just do it for its own sake. Ever wonder what the unemployment rate might be if we counted all those non-violent offenders being locked up? That's one way to relieve that pressure, as well as for prison corporations to make money (what's the incentive for getting the prisoners out into society, ready to be "productive" if you get paid PER prisoner) and prison labor to exploit. But my primary point is that, either the poor are primarily lazy or there are other factors that keep them from escaping poverty. Since I doubt laziness is a product of recessionary/depressionary economic periods, the laziness theory doesn't really work too well. And we know for a fact that "full employment" is considered inflationary and a bad thing. Too many workers and not enough jobs means an upward pressure on wages...also considered a bad thing. Your individual stories, if nothing else, are countered by my own experiences. Since anecdotes are selective in the first place, then I guess we can call that approach a draw. As for mental illness, I'm not sure you know a whole lot about that. First off, unless people are running around with signs on their necks identifying them as schizophrenic, that's a tough diagnosis for a cab driver to make. There are a range of mental illnesses that can result in "bizarre" behavior. Secondly, dual diagnosis, that is, mental illness in connection with mental illness is not only very common but also REALLY hard to sort out what's causing what. In general, those with mental illnesses are likely to "self-medicate". <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But the drug addicts I know are pretty much doing what they want to do.<hr></blockquote> That may be the problem, really. You are generalizing so much from your own particular experience. EVERY (or most, anyway) drug addicts says they can stop when they want...that it's their choice. That's practically a cliche. More importantly, there is a much larger, less visible segment of society that aren't there flamboyantly opining to cab drivers. In fact, I've found that one of the most useful skills a homeless person has is to stay out of sight. Sorry if you find talk of gender and racial discrimination in the job market to be condescending. There are so many studies that support this reality. Usually once a year or so you'll read the latest study with a white person and black person applying for a job with essentially the same resume with predictable results. Same is true with mortgage and loan applications. Or are you not familiar with "redlining"? Yep, it's so prevalent they have a name for it. Your continued mistake in this whole thing is to assume that because I mention these barriers I am suggesting they are insurmountable to every individual. No, they are not. I'm looking at a broader societal picture. When the economy worsens and social supports are withdrawn you find more people in dire straights. This is not due to increasing laziness. And overall, the statistics show that the number of people living in poverty is increasing. So that alone counters all the anecdotes you can throw into this discussion. Evidently, however, somehow you manage not to run across all the people who simply don't make it out and only run into those few who do. Maybe it's your social circles. You've accepted the "war on drugs" and its impact, so we have agreement there. When you add current prisoners and former prisoners into the mix, that alone is a rather large number of people with limited job prospects. Over 1/3 of the African-American population are on probation, parole or in jail. Over his lifetime, an African-American male has about a 30% chance of ending up in jail. That alone shows how at least one segment of society is "controlled". Think of the ripple effects of that statistic. But of course, we know there are lots of "working poor" who aren't black. We know that the rural poor have no chance of getting the kinds of jobs you are promoting. We know that people in areas with no mass transportation to speak of have similar issues. We know that sometimes women make a rationale choice to avoid work so as to not lose their welfare benefits and healthcare benefits. We know that many people who are unemployed are no longer on the rolls because their unemployment benefits have been exhausted. The bottom line is, I guess I just know a lot more pissed off working class folks than you do.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:41 pm

I doubt you see these folks in your cab too often: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Rural Poverty: Myths and Realities by Julie N. Zimmerman As debates on welfare reform have made clear, new approaches to low income households have become an integral part of public discourse. With the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act (HR 3734), poverty programs are moved from a federal safety net to state-directed efforts focused on actively moving individuals "from welfare to work." However, implementing these programs holds particular implications for rural areas where poverty rates are higher, those living below the poverty line are more likely to be already employed, and local governments possess fewer resources. In his piece from the Population Reference Bureau, William P. O'Hare discusses several myths about poverty which tend to be part of public debates around poverty and reforming poverty programs (1996). And while these myths do not hold for the nation as a whole, given the distinctiveness of poverty in rural areas, they are even farther removed from reality in rural areas. Following are five myths about rural poverty. In the next issue of Rural Development News, six more myths about rural poverty will be discussed. Myth: The majority of the poor live in inner-city neighborhoods.* While poverty rates are highest in inner cities, only 23 percent of those in poverty live there. Overall, poverty rates in rural areas have been and continue to be consistently higher than those found in urban areas, which includes inner cities. In this case, rural areas have the second highest poverty rates of 16.3 percent when compared to urban areas (RSS Task Force 1993:32). In 1990, there were 9 million people in rural areas living in poverty; nearly one in five rural residents. In 1993, in the North Central region, the rural poverty rate stood at 13.6 percent, whereas the poverty rate for urban areas was only 11.4 percent. Myth: Poverty in rural areas looks much like that found in urban areas. While poverty exists in both urban and rural areas, the characteristics of those living in poverty in these two places are distinctly different. Not only do rural areas have consistently higher rates of poverty than urban places, but those living in poverty in rural areas are more likely to be white and living in two-adult households. Rural areas also have higher rates of persistent poverty and they are dispersed over a larger geographic area. Still, compared to their urban counterparts, those living in poverty in rural areas are more likely to be working. Myth: The poor live off government welfare. Given the public debates over welfare reform, one would assume that this was indeed the case. However, the majority of those living in poverty do not receive government welfare assistance. Such assistance accounts for only one-quarter of the income of adults living in poverty (O'Hare 1996). For rural areas, participation rates in social service programs are even lower. Myth: Homelessness is an urban problem. Homelessness in rural areas is often overlooked because it is thought of as an urban issue. An accurate count of the homeless is difficult if not impossible. Estimates of the rural homeless vary from 6.9 percent (Census 1992) to 18 percent (NRHA 1996:3) of the total homeless population. As shelters are a rarity in rural areas, those without a fixed place of residence find shelter in places such as doubling-up with other families, living in abandoned homes, or living in their vehicles at camping facilities. Research suggests that the characteristics of the homeless in rural areas differ from those in urban areas. For example, they are more likely to be white, more likely to be working, and more likely to be two-parent families (Wright and Wright, forthcoming). Myth: Poor families are trapped in a cycle of poverty that few escape.* The population of individuals and households living in poverty is actually a dynamic group. For many, `spells' of poverty are temporary, lasting less than a few years (O'Hare 1996). On the other hand, rural areas have higher rates of persistent poverty than urban areas. Persistent poverty refers to places with poverty rates of 20 percent or more in each census 1960-1990. Persistent poverty tends to be found in particular regions such as Appalachia and the South. In the North Central region, areas of persistent poverty are located primarily in North Dakota, South Dakota and Missouri. <hr></blockquote> gonna need a lot more bars.

by **rothbardian** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:37 pm

I think I'll post my comments about 'socialism' now, but I certainly have a lot of thoughts about this other topic also. The general malaise in North America, economic or otherwise, is a deliberate, calculated result of this 'freak job' cultic crime syndicate (Bush/Cheney/Kissinger/Rockefeller et al), for the most part. I thought that was the general understanding among a lot of RI fans. The PTB needs to get rid of this 'shining city on a hill' if it is going create a viable one-world community (and from there very quickly to a world dictatorship). So therefore...the 9/11 thing, the huge 'world war' effort (Iran is next if the PTB has it's way), the systematic looting and destruction of our economy, the deliberate counterfeiting of the dollar on the part of the Federal Reserve, the sum total of our nation's staggering drug problem which is virtually all a courtesy of drug kingpin Bush Sr. and his sidekicks, the horrendous government education system deliberately designed to 'dumb down' America... ...I experience this firsthand with my children in elementary school. Black literacy in America, for example, has dropped from 80% in 1950 to about half that...and I can tell you it's not due to lack of money, it's the rotten methods. It's unbelievable. Don't even get me going. Maybe some other post. Just the huge, deliberately bloated, massive, oversize government we have that, at this point, consumes about 50% of the nations yearly wealth production...creates a terrible and staggering 'squelching' effect on the economy. I experience it first hand: Why go out there and try to double the income from my business...when about 75% of that extra is taken away from me? And remember, small business owners like me are the no.1 source of employment in the nation. You multiply my dilemma out across the land..and you start to get an idea of where a major contribution to poverty is coming from. But I can see there is a huge gulf fixed between me and a few of you I'm reading here...when it comes to economic ideas. If you're interested, rummage around sites such as <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/">www.lewrockwell.com/</a> or <a href="http://www.mises.org/">www.mises.org/</a> to get a fuller look at freedom-oriented economics. They rip the lid off the PTB. That's for sure. Although...in speaking and corresponding with some of them, I've realized that because of their public prominence they typically avoid direct references to certain issues, for the sake of personal security. These folks are operating in and around government circles and have seen some of their associates disappear, be marginalized or worse. Anyway... To "Dreams End" regarding the socialism issue: I think I am at a loss as to what you are not understanding about the PTB's huge dominance and ownership of the media...and the media's wall-to-wall, 24/7 preaching and propagating of the socialist gospel and political correctness regimen...and the subsequent elementary observation that....the PTB supports and promotes socialism. The same goes for the entertainment industry (Hollywood) as well as academia. All heavily controlled by the PTB and all consistently preaching socialism. To say that somebody like a Rockefeller doesn't love socialism...is like saying Hugh Hefner doesn't love women. Just as Rockefeller loves socialism for what it gives him...Hefner loves women for what he perceives they can give him. Interestingly, a feminist might argue that Hefner in fact hates women. And I think you're arguing that somebody like a Rockefeller should, by all rights, hate socialism. But I would say you're only getting it half right. For example, I happen to agree with feminists that Hefner, in effect, hates women, because he uses them, abuses them, objectifies them, and dumps them at will. But he also 'loves' women. Rockefeller hates socialism, but in a different way he loves it, supports it and finances it. Socialism is the 'whore' or the vehicle upon which the PTB are riding to the pinnacles of world power. But you are saying that because their view of socialism incorrect and inappropriate, they don't get to call themselves 'socialists'. OK, whatever. Meanwhile what do we do about their cynical utilization of this socialism concept? Totalitarians like Gorbachev love socialism...and call themselves socialists. I can admire you self-confidence in contradicting the claims of a long line of mass murderers who have all insisted on calling themselves socialists (Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, Roosevelt, Castro etc.) but being as they are some of the most powerful individuals in modern history, you may have lost the battle over semantics. You were saying that I had incorrectly labeled various people as 'socialist'. To the contrary. These people refer to THEMSELVES that way, and you have great concern about whether certain 'power elites' label themselves correctly or whether I label them correctly. As I said- I don't care what 'power elite' advocates (like you?) call themselves or want to be called. I am just hoping and praying for your ideas and your elitism to fail...whatever your or their label is. You pose the question of why the PTB would overthrow Allende (and other 'socialists' like him) if they really believe in socialism. The PTB don't 'believe' in socialism per se. They use socialism. If Allende fails to cooperate with this bizarre cultic international PTB crime syndicate (Bush/Kissinger/Rockefeller/ Rothschild/whoever) he's a 'goner'. Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein were just a couple of brutal dictators and didn't claim to be socialists (that I know of) so these 'overthrows' have nothing to do with being for or against socialism. The PTB loves socialism, supports socialism, can't get enough of socialism. It is their VEHICLE to power. Indeed, it is a vehicle that they have THEMSELVES conceived, designed and built...for the specific purpose of grabbing power. This is where the story of Karl Marx comes in. By the way, apparently it is very important to you that he not be labeled a 'socialist' even though, contradictorily, you claim you don't CARE what label 'power elites' have (you lost me a little bit on that one). So I guess I agree with the second half of your position: As I've said before, being a 'Joe Citizen', I make no distinction between your brand of coercion or any other brand of coercion... because it's still 'coercion'. That's why I was puzzled by your 'horror' ("What on earth are you talking about? I'm not planning to set myself up in power over anybody.") over being viewed as someone who would willingly engage in coercion. I don't mean to be needlessly antagonistic but, literally along with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Clinton and Bush...you believe in coercion, you support coercion, you need coercion. Your philosophy requires coercion. Your demurring on this point is puzzling. Apparently though...you're willing to give assurances that you would only use coercion for good. You'll have to pardon me and my young son (and the rest of my family) if we say: "Thanks but no thanks." So now if I have graciously turned down your offer of coercion, what would you then do?? Shoot me? That's why I was a bit nonplussed at you castigating me for not paying attention to the "or" in the Dictionay.com definition. For YOU it is very important to distinguish between different types of coercion: You were very carefully pointing out to me that "centralized government" is something completely different from "collective ownership" or "local control". I couldn't agree less. What if, for example, I don't WANT to join your collective? What if I want to have my own business? What if I want to live free and independently? Again, I guess you'd have to shoot me. Whether someone like YOU comes to my door with a gun, to coerce me into joining your collective...or a neocon/Trotskyite socialist comes to my door with a gun, to take my son...you're both committing the same terrible injustice, no matter HOW carefully you bestow your various labels upon yourselves. Then you trot out this old 'bogeyman' ( a favorite of Orwellians everywhere) that 'warlords' would be running amok, and the rich would hire private armies etc. This is an old classic coming from all kinds of coercion-advocates: "We need to place you under coercion, otherwise someone else may come along and...uh...place you under coercion." It's a 'protection racket' and an amazingly bizarre and spectacular contradiction. 'The-sky-is-going-to-fall' alarmism is a cynical contrivance of the PTB. They are going to keep us 'safe' from harm supposedly. But they DIDN"T keep us safe during the 20th century, nor in the 21st. I just have to repeat myself because it seems as though my key points are being overlooked: "No libertarian claims that ALL conflict can be eliminated...ONLY THE MEANS TO MASS PRODUCE IT." The 'mass production' issue is one of the keys. Take the US Civil War for example. Would that have been anywhere near as large a conflict if the prosecutors of the war had to use their own money...and could only hire voluntary mercenaries? That's not to mention that the whole underlying cause of the war was a corrupt government that had colluded with corrupt PTB insiders to impose a 50% tariff on southern merchants. (It had nothing to do with slavery, by the way. Lincoln was against the Emancipation Proclamation and had to be forced to sign it. He had repeatedly made statements that he supported slavery indefinitely.) The greatest likelihood is that there would have been no conflict at all...because the luciferian, masonic PTB creeps who concocted this tariff wouldn't have had any coercive and/or central government to collude with...and slavery was on it's way out anyway and would have resolved peacefully the way it did in Great Britain. The same goes for any other 20th century war. Take WW2. You will search in vain for a REAL reason for us having fought the Japanese. US and Western PTB's simply wanted to stop a Japanese rise to economic prominence. The German side of it was just as contrived. RI regulars (hopefully) should know all about Prescott Bush's arming of Adolf Hitler. Bureaucrats have little hesitation and much motivation in starting wars-- it's not their money and it's not their skin. If Cheney, Rumsfeld and Sean Hannity had to do their own fighting, there wouldn't be an Iraq war. That's why a world run by coercive 'governments' is vastly inferior. In that regard, I couldn't quite make out your response to my assertion that without all those centralized governments, the 20th century would have been far, far more peaceful. You used the expression "kind of" or "sort of" and then made some comments about 'moneyed classes' and...something about Mexico(?). Let me repeat my statement in the form of a question: Do you or do you not recognize the simple common sense that if we could 'redo' the 20th century and remove coercive/centralized governments...we would remove the ability to MASS PRODUCE wars, death and destruction on a worldwide scale? If 'yes'...then you agree with me that the world would be a better place without coercive/centralized governments. I have a post regarding Karl Marx ready to go but I don't want to muddy the waters. I'll hold off a bit on that, unless somebody wants to see that stuff. Frankly, I was surprised any RI veteran would not have been aware of his Illuminati connection. I'm really puzzled by that. Anybody could click around the Internet within 5 minutes to come up with six months worth of research material. But there appears to be no information about Marx's satanism here at RI. It could simply be that this is a subject that hasn't been covered yet. With all due respect though, I'm starting to wonder if there is a liberal slant here at RI that causes some topics to be marginalized. I really don't know that for a fact and the overall contribution of RI is fantastic. All these little Joe Citizens on the message board coming up with their little discoveries about PTB shenanigans...are literally helping to save the world. One little thing I've noticed so far is (unless I've missed it) no mention or treatment of the 'Svali' subject, a former minion of the PTB who has spectacularly interesting insights into their inner workings. Is she being shunted off simply because she is a professing Christian? I hope not.

by **scollon** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:09 pm

Two points The Anglo American empire is the most privatised part of the world by far, Britain more than the USA, they hate social ownership (socialism). Secondly Libertarianism is a great idea if you assume that people are basically good. If coersive social laws were removed, would people and corporations behave better ? My feeling is that they wouldn't and in fact life would get very nasty indeed with gangsters controlling society. I don't think many people living in modern Europe would want to see the example of this 'shining city on a hill' repeated in their country. The reason for the recent French and Dutch anti Europe election result was a strong desire not to see an extreme American free market system in the EU. Not that it will make any difference, Europe will become as neo-liberal, ant-socialist and right wing as the UK and USA. The system will be a very radical economically privatised system with strong central social and political control, the worst of both worlds in my opinion. Otherwise known as Public Private partnership /corporatism / fascism as we have in Britain today. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/9/06 2:11 pm

by **robertdreed** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:32 pm

You offer extraordinary counterpoint to my remarks. I grant some of your points, have only minor differences with some of the others, and I'm not even sure yet what's left over. That's what I call a dialectic. I don't have time to respond in detail, and actually at this point I think the best thing is to table this particular debate, for now. That way, the topic can return to the original subjects of what the future holds in terms of possible ways to sustain the human population of the planet without social and ecological catastrophe.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:03 pm

Since you pointed to Allende in your post, roth, I think it illustrates...well, your ignorance. We are fortunate that government documents oulining their reasoning (and Kissinger was directly involved, so we definitely see the PTB in action) behind the destabilization campaign and coup. They are quite similar to actions taken in Venezuela today. First off, the CIA tried to prevent him from coming into office in the first place. Secondly it was his actions that alarmed the U.S. and also the model that Chile might become for South America. You see, it's not that Allende CALLED himself a socialist. It was that he WAS a socialist. A real one. He nationalized major industries, such as copper (which particularly pissed off copper giant ITT, who played a role in fomenting the coup). He enacted land reform, which is always unpleasant for the big landowners. The PTB were protecting their investments. In fact, by the time of Allende's inauguration, the US owned the vast majority of hard-currency earning industries in the country. Here is a story by Greg Palast, based on revelations of then US Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry. Please read it. You'll see the same thing over and over again in many countries. <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=36">www.gregpalast.com/printe...m?artid=36</a> Here's just one quote. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Korry, who served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, told how US companies, from cola to copper, using the CIA as an international debt collection agency and investment security force.<hr></blockquote> Honestly, I can't really figure out what roth, on the one hand, and rdr on the other think about why these elites act as they do. The record on Chile and so many other countries is clear. Whenever a country presents a threat to US corporate interests, it's off to the chopping block. This isn't just speculation...we can NAME THE FREAKING CORPORATIONS THEMSELVES. ITT was a big one for Chile. so was Pepsi, evidently. So, we'll try to review once more. 1. Rockefeller was not a socialist. Just as George Bush is not a Christian. Except that George Bush calls himself a socialist and none of the Rockefellers ever called themselves socialists. 2. rockefellers and the like ARE quite happy to restrict the free market if it benefits their interests. But when you KEEP your loot, that is called "monopoly capitalism" not socialism. 3. Your examples of "the media's wall-to-wall, 24/7 preaching and propagating of the socialist gospel and political correctness regimen"...er...you didn't provide any examples. You simply label everything that you disagree with as "socialism". I can assure you that the media giants are also not socialists. And while there is merit to not getting ALL of one's news from Fox, CNN isn't much better. But I don't see much promotion of socialism on any of these channels. "political correctness"? that's a joke, right? THAT'S what you think socialism is? Telling people what words to use to describe minorities? 4. For the record, I have labeled NO ONE as socialist. You have done all that and you've done it incorrectly. The reason it is important to me, however, is that anyone doing ANYTHING vaguely protective of the poor and working class in the U.S. is labeled "socialist" so people like you will automatically think them part of the same "plot." It's sloppy thinking and is serving the very purpose you think you oppose. I can't even COUNT how many countries have been overthrown under the pretense of "fighting communism". It's moved on to "fighting terrorism" but it's the same game. Just about every group even slightly left of center in this country has been called "socialist" by John Birchers like yourself. It's actually become a parody. 5. You want to rid the world of the PTB? Starve them. Take their loot. Nationalize the oil industry. Nationalize health care. Nationalize the pharmaceutical companies. Tell the Enron's, Exxon's and Raytheon's to go to hell. Take them AWAY from the evil ones who own them. Sound good? Congratulations, you're a socialist. Want these resources to stay in private hands? Congratulations, you're a capitalist. It's really that simple. But don't go saying WHICH private hands get to have the loot. That's fascism...and you don't wanna go there, do you? I'd love to hear what it is YOU think the PTB is protecting when they overthrow countries like Chile. If it's not their capital, their investments, their ability to exploit cheap labor and extract cheap resources, why, exactly, do they bother. What did Allende do, in your opinion, that rubbed them the wrong way? I just can't even fathom an analysis of world events that doesnt' take wealth and capital into account as the primary motivating factor in world events.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:38 pm

"Honestly, I can't really figure out what roth, on the one hand, and rdr on the other think about why these elites act as they do." You're going to have to be more specific about what you think that I think before I can compose a cogent response to your statement, DE.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:31 am

I think I don't know what you think. I think. I see the preservation of capital, cheap labor and unimpeded access to resources as a primary motivation in most of US foreign policy. That is to say, to prop up capitalism and it's need for constant growth on behalf of some insatiably greedy corporate mega-powers. This explains so much about why these "PTB" do what they do, all the way back to colonialism. It's not mysterious, or sexy...but it sure works as an explanation for much of the U.S. neo-imperialist adventurism over the last century. Is that your take? Is it possible to have capitalism (a new phenomenon, relatively) WITHOUT building "empires" (a very old phenomenon)? Will nations ever really "trade" fairly, or will war for resources always be the way? Is that war for resources about the need for the resources or the need to continue growing and amassing wealth? Seems to me that under capitalism, games as illustrated in Chile in the 70's will be par for the course. We need (want) more copper. You have it. We'll take it.

by **robertdreed** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:12 am

Those are good questions, DE... I'm not sure what I think of the role of capitalism at the level of attempts to corner the market in raw materials. Resources like copper have typically been more subject to cartelism than anything resembling a free market, at the highest levels. At the level of control of raw materials, I'm sympathetic to the ideas of Henry George, who had some unique insights about the nature of what constituted "the commons" and what constituted "free enterprise." George rejected the idea that natural resources- the bounty of the earth- should be held in private hands. But he supported the idea that those who used those resources to build useful products should be able to profit from their ideas and labor. In some ways, it's a paradigm that acknowledges the value of socialist principles. But it has little or nothing in common with the ideas of Marx. It isn't a complete economic theory- George didn't have much to say about finance capital, currency systems, mercantile imperialism, etc. He focused on the inequities associated with the concentration of natural resources in private hands, and the nature of "land rent"- the profiteering from simple ownership of real estate, which worked against those- the "tenants"- who were actually engaged in using the real estate for livelihood and productive activity. I wish that I was more skilled in understanding economics. I could unpack his ideas better, critique them better, and explain them better. They're a mixed bag, but I think he has some valid answers in his thinking, ones that have been ignored not so much because they're impractical, but because they're impolitic. If you know what I mean. Here are a few websites on Henry George, including some abridged versions of his foundational work, Progress and Poverty: <a href="http://www.progress.org/books/george.htm">www.progress.org/books/george.htm</a> <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jgeorge.htm">www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...george.htm</a> <a href="http://www.henrygeorge.org/">www.henrygeorge.org/</a> <a href="http://www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm">www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm</a> <a href="http://unitax.org/progress/">unitax.org/progress/</a> <a href="http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/hgeorge.html">www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/hgeorge.html</a> I think this on-line version of Progress and Poverty is unabridged, for those who are up to it: <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP.html">www.econlib.org/library/Y...grgPP.html</a> I'm of the opinion that there are some extremely intelligent people on this website, with a variety of different skill sets and intellectual strengths. Not being comfortable with my level of knowledge in the discipline of economics, I'm looking forward to hearing the comments of others on the merits and drawbacks of Henry George's ideas. All I can say is that from what I've read, I think he's on to something. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/10/06 1:35 am

by **rothbardian** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:57 am

To Dreams End (also Scollon- as you were also making some interesting comments): I am trying to figure out where we may be misunderstanding one another. First of all, I have no argument about Allende being a socialist. I referred to him as a socialist in my post so...(?). I agree that the PTB is plundering the world. I don't know how you saw anything differently in my post. I also don't understand your complaint when you claim you need to "restate" that Rockefeller is not a socialist (?) I very carefully explained that guys like Rockefeller don't 'believe' in socialism...they just want to abuse the concept. You call me a "John Bircher"? Here I am describing a world according to classical liberalism (also known as libertarianism) and you refer to me as a Bircher? What is that about? Ironically, the John Birch Society was funded by the Rockefellers. (Just 'google' John Birch/Rockefeller and it will show right up). The Birchers backed the entire WilliamBuckley/neocon/PTB/Trotskyite 'Cold War' scam as well as the JFK/lone gunman thing....so count me out of that. And about political correctness...no, I wasn't joking. After having been the recipient of 8 million annoying and condescending lectures on political correctness (from PTB-owned news/movies/TV/academia) I am a highly qualified expert on the subject. It certainly is clear to me that PC is extremely useful and important to socialists because it is used to constantly remind us 'little people' that we need ceaseless nanny-like guidance and monitoring in how we behave or address or refer to/with a huge array of different groups/peoples/creeds. It therefore has the very distinct and clear effect of pressuring people to come into the 'collective'. The obvious implication is that, left to our own devices, the little people aren't moral enough to make their own way through life and need magical, mystical coercion-perpetrators (socialist government bureaucrats) to put us on a leash. We all need to be baby-sat. Again, I'm puzzled because typically only left liberals and socialists promote PC and they're all coming through the mainstream media...so how do you miss the implication? For me, part of the problem in discussing these things with someone like yourself is that a WHOLE LOT of people are running around calling themselves 'socialist' but every time I complain about "this socialist did this or that" you sternly rap my knuckles and inform me that THAT isn't socialism---- If Trotskyite socialists mass-murder 100,000 Iraqis...they aren't really socialists. If Mao kills 50 million people...that's not practicing socialism, so he's not really a socialist. If Marx calls himself a socialist and bigotedly denounces Christianity and all personal property, but it doesn't jibe with your definition or your chosen source (Dictionary.com)...even Karl Marx doesn't get to be a socialist. What makes this additionally complicated and stressful is that, as the 'little guy' I am on the receiving end of a hundred different people (who call themselves socialists or liberal or Trotskyites ad nauseum) coming at me from a hundred angles...all pushing for me to give up my freedoms, give up my independence because (as the whole PC regimen clearly implies) I NEED to be in a collective. I can't be trusted on my own. Only the lazy, dimbulb bureaucrat in charge of the collective can be trusted to make a huge array of decisions for me. -I need to give up my finger nail clippers before I get on the airplane because I am not to be trusted. -I need to give up my personal responsibility as to whether I wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. I am after all, just a big baby. -I need to give up the idea of my child being taught pride in his American heritage at the government school (apparently there's nothing but shame in my boy's heritage) This same huge array of people calling themselves socialists are telling me I need to give up 40/60/80 % of the fruits of my own labor, I need to give up my son for some war. I need to give up all my personal information and have it placed on a tiny strip on my driver's license...for the sake of the greater good. I need to allow 'the collective' to rifle through my email at will...for the good of the collective. I need to allow huge chunks of America to be sucked up in to 'the collective'...huge chunks of forest lands, the highways etc etc....even though the collective (the government) is REALLY, REALLY lousy and lazy at ownership. They let chaotic fires sweep through causing terrible damage, loss of life, loss of property...because they won't allow proper thinning. The Collective is so lousy at ownership of the highways that citizen groups have to step in and "adopt-a-highway". I am surrounded, I am drowning, I am inundated from the media, academia, the movies, the newspaper, every sugar-coated morning talk show...to give up my freedoms, my belongings, my independence, my son...into the great gaping chasm of the Collective. All these people are calling themselves liberal-socialists or democrat-socialists, socialist-socialists, Trotskyite socialists and you say they're all wrong...or you say that you don't see where any of this is happening (alrighty then).....but apparently if YOU came to my door to pressure me into joining the collective...mysteriously ONLY NOW could I say that socialism was in play (?). Looking at the broader picture of geo-politics, I guess I have to say I don't understand what it is that YOU don't understand about the danger (as well as the injustice) of coercive/centralized government: If a predatory group comes into a certain part of the world and there are these 'convenient' centralized control mechanisms (centralized government) wherein all the power and control resides...how do you not see that this makes the job of the evil predatory groups...a hundred times easier? And on the other side of the coin, how do you not see that by removing centralized government, you pull the plug in a very dramatic and dynamic way, on any predatory group's OPERATING BASE-- they no longer have free money (through taxation) to fund the raping and pillaging, and they no longer have massive numbers of soldier/slaves (though the draft). For example, the Bush/Kissinger/Whoever crime syndicate which is latched parasitically onto the US government was able to use US military personnel and my tax dollars to have their little 'revenge war' against Noriega, in Panama some years ago. You were proposing that to fight the PTB, governments should nationalize things...but that's what Allende did. It didn't work...because the centralized control mechanisms of 'government' provide any predatory group with an operating base...AND a convenient centralized target. I also gave you the example of the Civil War but you had no comment. How dramatically would wars, death and destruction decrease throughout the world if predators had to pay for their own wars and rely only on hired voluntary mercenaries? How much would the dangers therefore decrease, how much better would the world be? There are some other misguided notions out there. You argue that any group that has wealth would almost certainly hire armies and go raping and pillaging. There's an inherent problem with that idea: Any outfit that is making enough money to become wealthy would have an overwhelming tendency to stick with the 'program'. If somebody sets up a chain of restaurants across the nation and is making big bucks, he'll be unlikely to risk upsetting a good thing to go raping and pillaging. You might argue that I am contradicting the entirety of history...but actually, even though it's true that the PTB largely operate like the 'old world' (Attila the Hun and robber barons etc) there has been unprecedented wealth accumulation here in the US in the leftover pockets of freedom, on the part of straightforward entrepreneurs...and those pockets of freedom deserve credit for the good they've allowed to happen. I would argue that a business that doesn't set up shop next to the government's feeding troughs full of tax dollars, needs to be clearly distinguished from a completely bogus outfit like Halliburton. And in a world according to freedom, the types of predatory groups we now see, could not operate dynamically because they would have no opportunity for their hallmark parasitism. It would be MUCH more difficult to get off the ground. And meanwhile back at the ranch...libertarianism by no means 'rolls over' for any bad guys. It totally accounts for and plans on...community security/national security (there is a lot more to say about that though). And there are many private communities that privately hire their own judges..and have sterling success. Look at the NFL (football). Their (field) judges make judgement calls that effect millions and billions of dollars...without a hitch. And not a single instance of dirty pay-offs that I know of...and no pompous, arrogant activism (i.e. changing the rules on a personal whim- towards right OR left). These judges have the highest motivation to make the best judgement calls possible...unlike government bureaucrat/judges who seem to enjoy thumbing their nose at the community...and have developed ridiculous airs and courtroom culture ("All rise, for His Royal Majestic Magnificence.") You also mentioned a long list of services (transit, food safety, air traffic controllers etc) that you apparently assume could not be provided in the market place. I strongly disagree, but that's another conversation.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First of all, I have no argument about Allende being a socialist. I referred to him as a socialist in my post so...(?).<hr></blockquote> So....I was explaining how the PTB....you know...killed him. For being.....you know.....socialist. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I also don't understand your complaint when you claim you need to "restate" that Rockefeller is not a socialist (?) I very carefully explained that guys like Rockefeller don't 'believe' in socialism...they just want to abuse the concept.<hr></blockquote> Well, you'll have to help me here in two ways. first off, so you are saying that the Rockefellers aren't preaching real socialism, just "abusing the concept". So, is your gripe with real socialism or with Rockefellers' "abused version". the second thing is that I've never, in my life, seen anything put forward by a Rockefeller that even CLAIMED to be socialist. So some links would be helpful here. In any event, we now agree that the Rockefeller's are not socialists in reality, so that their globalist agenda is not reflective of socialism. The only difference we have on this point is that I don't find any evidence of any of the Rockefellers pretending that their programs are socialistic. So, again, links helpful... So, I guess we should pause here. You agree that the Rockefeller agenda is not actually socialist. Yet you also condemn real socialism...or, at least, you condemn things that YOU call socialism. So maybe if you would take a second to give us YOUR definition of socialism, since you completely ignore mine (and I could give a much fuller one...dictionary.com was my attempt to be as mainstream as possible.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr> You call me a "John Bircher"? Here I am describing a world according to classical liberalism (also known as libertarianism) and you refer to me as a Bircher? What is that about? Ironically, the John Birch Society was funded by the Rockefellers. (Just 'google' John Birch/Rockefeller and it will show right up). The Birchers backed the entire WilliamBuckley/neocon/PTB/Trotskyite 'Cold War' scam as well as the JFK/lone gunman thing....so count me out of that.<hr></blockquote> I'm sure that'll be news to Welch. However, despite your dubious claim, I compared you to Bircher's because they tell us that the Rockefellers were key in the plot to turn the world into a one-world socialist government. One example: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thanks to Robert Welch's defiant courage, the John Birch Society stands uniquely alone in identifying the true cause of our imminent danger as a semi-secret international cabal whose members sit in the highest places of influence and power worldwide. The American branch of this power elite is most visibly manifested in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which for many years was headed by David Rockefeller, with its members holding key positions in government, the military, business, labor, education, finance, and the media. The CFR's international cousin is the Trilateral Commission, the membership of which is comprised of top officials from government, business, labor, and academic circles in the U.S., Japan, and Europe. In 1966, when Robert Welch felt sure of his facts about the existence of an organized plot above communism to bring about world tyranny, he wrote an illuminating essay, "The Truth in Time," in which he first used the term "Insiders" to refer to those who hold places in "an inner core of conspiratorial power." It was in this essay that Robert Welch also for the first time made the electrifying statement that "the communist movement is only a tool of the total conspiracy." From a monumental array of evidence he concluded that non-communists had -- from communism's very beginnings -- financed, guided, and controlled communism's phenomenal rise to worldwide power and influence. Article on Robert Welch, founder of the JBS <a href="http://www.jbs.org/artman/publish/article_224.shtml">www.jbs.org/artman/publis..._224.shtml</a><hr></blockquote> For a look at Robert Welch doing his best rothbardian (as in our poster, not Rothbard the actual economist) impression (though clearly, it is the other way around) try this: <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/conspiracy/truth.htm">www.thenewamerican.com/fo.../truth.htm</a> Oh, and I did Google "john birch/rockefeller". That's how I found the above links. No evidence so far of Rockefeller actuall funding Welch to PRETEND to be his enemy. Well, no credible evidence, anyway. There was some mention that was footnoted to Eustace Mullens. Please, please, please try to claim that Mullens is a credible source.... Nah, that would be too easy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Again, I'm puzzled because typically only left liberals and socialists promote PC and they're all coming through the mainstream media...so how do you miss the implication? <hr></blockquote> So now we have 3 sets of evil ideologies? We have socialism, left liberalism and Rockefeller fake socialism. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And about political correctness...no, I wasn't joking. After having been the recipient of 8 million annoying and condescending lectures on political correctness (from PTB-owned news/movies/TV/academia) I am a highly qualified expert on the subject. It certainly is clear to me that PC is extremely useful and important to socialists because it is used to constantly remind us 'little people' that we need ceaseless nanny-like guidance and monitoring in how we behave or address or refer to/with a huge array of different groups/peoples/creeds.<hr></blockquote> I guess now is the time to reveal the true history of the term "politically correct." When I was in college in '84 at an Ivy league, no less, the term was used to gently poke fun at those campus activists who were adopting activism as a fad and who would, no doubt, be in a corporate boardroom in a few years. It meant "insincere political activist". Those on the true left are not really too enamored of PC as well, but for different reasons. Not because we find it a violation of free speech, because, as a good libertarian such as yourself is aware, "reminders" are an example of free speech, and carry no enforcement power, state or otherwise. But the opposition I have for PC and for liberals in general, well meaning as some may be, is that they focus on these surface issues, and get divided into single issue politics along racial and gender lines (not that there is no validity to these) and forego the larger picture of class structure and the role of the "elites" to use the non-leftist term for the highest rung of the capitalist class. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>For me, part of the problem in discussing these things with someone like yourself is that a WHOLE LOT of people are running around calling themselves 'socialist' but every time I complain about "this socialist did this or that" you sternly rap my knuckles and inform me that THAT isn't socialism----<hr></blockquote> Well, I've yet to see who this "LOT" is. One or more of the Rockefellers seems to be your favorite...and I don't see them calling themselves socialist. Find me a quote. But there really IS, in my view, a fairly high level, not even always secret agenda to advance globalism in the guise of a sort of warm and fuzzy, world peace, New Agey kind of way. Ideologically, it is mush and is thin cover for the globalist agenda it serves. There are darker strains as well, and I've written about them quite a bit. I don't nearly have it all figured out, but you'd agree with much that I've written. So Rockefeller gets no pass from me...it's just that he's not a socialist. And this is important because socialism is about restricting the power of individual and corporate wealth and "Rockefellerism" is about advancing it. What's interesting is that I looked up Rothbard. If he's not the guy who developed modern conceptions of libertarianism, he sure represents it in its classical form. Socially, extremely "liberal" and economically extremely conservative. So maybe you and I should get together and do a few lines of coke and hire some sexy prostitutes to read passages from Ayn Rand aloud. But he is NOT the source of your theories about a central power that "paid" Marx to "develop" socialism. That whole line of thought, as I see upon reading up on Robert Welch, came out of the Birch Society...though they didn't originate all of it. It's all there, the Illuminati, Rockefellers, etc. For those interested in Rothbard, here's a link: <a href="http://www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp">www.mises.org/content/mnr.asp</a> Large number of full texts there. Oh, and I chose this link for a reason. You see, Mise, mentor to Rothboard and a strong critic of socialism (as an ECONOMIC SYSTEM...he got that part right) but also a Jew, he fled Vienna to escape the Nazi onslaught. His first position in the US was a post at the National Bureau of economic research and the position was funded by a grant from.... the Rockefeller foundation. <a href="http://praxeology.net/LeMonde.htm">praxeology.net/LeMonde.htm</a> What other morsels here? Oh, I didn't say Marx wasn't socialist (though communist would be the accurate term, but if I can't get you to see the difference between socialism and Rockefellerism, that distinction will have to wait.) What I said was he did not "invent" socialism, as you claimed, nor did he get paid to do it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What makes this additionally complicated and stressful is that, as the 'little guy' I am on the receiving end of a hundred different people (who call themselves socialists or liberal or Trotskyites ad nauseum) coming at me from a hundred angles...all pushing for me to give up my freedoms, give up my independence because (as the whole PC regimen clearly implies) I NEED to be in a collective. I can't be trusted on my own. Only the lazy, dimbulb bureaucrat in charge of the collective can be trusted to make a huge array of decisions for me. -I need to give up my finger nail clippers before I get on the airplane because I am not to be trusted. -I need to give up my personal responsibility as to whether I wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. I am after all, just a big baby. -I need to give up the idea of my child being taught pride in his American heritage at the government school (apparently there's nothing but shame in my boy's heritage)<hr></blockquote> Well, where do you live? Maybe I should move there. I don't know very many people at all who call themselves socialists. The only "trotskyites" you keep talking about are the neo-cons, only one of whom was actually a trotskyite and none of whom espouse anything resembling socialism today. As for your list of grievances, there is simply no getting through your head that "socialism" has nothing to do with 1. airport security 2. bicycle safet or 3. the fact that you evidently are in the one public school in the nation not forced to say the pledge of allegiance...which was, by the way, written by a socialist. In general, I've found all school history texts I've run across to be a whitewash of history. Literally, if you get my meaning. If you want to read what history looks like written by a socialist, I suggest "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's not perfect, but that's what a socialist history text would look like. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This same huge array of people calling themselves socialists are telling me I need to give up 40/60/80 % of the fruits of my own labor, I need to give up my son for some war.<hr></blockquote> Which people calling themselves socialists are calling for you to give up your son for war? Are you now suggesting that BUSH is a socialist? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Collective is so lousy at ownership of the highways that citizen groups have to step in and "adopt-a-highway". <hr></blockquote> To pick up trash. That individualists think they have the right to toss out on the roadside. The highway adopters do not repair or maintain the highways. Here in Tennessee, the process of apportioning contracts for highways is quite corrupt. But of course, who benefits is PRIVATE CORPORATIONS...not some mythical collective. All about the $$$... <blockquote>Quote:<hr> All these people are calling themselves liberal-socialists or democrat-socialists, socialist-socialists, Trotskyite socialists and you say they're all wrong...or you say that you don't see where any of this is happening (alrighty then).....but apparently if YOU came to my door to pressure me into joining the collective...mysteriously ONLY NOW could I say that socialism was in play (?).<hr></blockquote> First off, don't worry...I won't be coming to your door and I don't have a collective. You are thinking of the Borg...and I'm not a Borg, though I do admit that Seven of Nine is pretty hot. Secondly, as I've said repeatedly, who are all these people calling themselves socialists of any type? You seem to have them swarming where you are. I guess maybe if you live in Berkely. Why don't you try Iowa. Not many socialists in Iowa, I reckon. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You were proposing that to fight the PTB, governments should nationalize things...but that's what Allende did. It didn't work...because the centralized control mechanisms of 'government' provide any predatory group with an operating base...AND a convenient centralized target.<hr></blockquote> It didn't work because they killed him. And power was much more fully consolidated under Pinochet (absolute icon of the anti-communists of the time) than it was or would have been under Allende. It wasn't JUST the killing of Allende, it was the destruction of the economy and the completely bogus "grassroots" movement bought and paid for by the U.S. government and a couple of major corporations. And on the Christian side, the liberation theology movement's attempt to build Christian "base communities" in south America (no central power structure there and a different sort of socialism) were condemned as "communists" and raped and murdered by U.S. financed death squads. It was their challenge to the wealth/power structure that got them killed, whether or not they held any actual power. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any outfit that is making enough money to become wealthy would have an overwhelming tendency to stick with the 'program'. If somebody sets up a chain of restaurants across the nation and is making big bucks, he'll be unlikely to risk upsetting a good thing to go raping and pillaging.<hr></blockquote> You really DO need a new history book. Thought you knew something about Rockefeller? Ever hear the term "robber baron"? Welcome to 19th century America. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I would argue that a business that doesn't set up shop next to the government's feeding troughs full of tax dollars, needs to be clearly distinguished from a completely bogus outfit like Halliburton.<hr></blockquote> Knew we'd find something to agree on. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> And there are many private communities that privately hire their own judges<hr></blockquote> Yeah, that idea would have been popular here in the south 40 years or so ago. But don't you worry, the state judges managed to represent their local community values just fine. "Would the jury now please go pretend to deliberate before we hang this Negro?" Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 1/11/06 9:33 am

by ir » Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:05 am

I am not so old, and in the last time I voted in the elections in Israel, I voted for Mapam (United Workers Party) a socialist party with long and solid history in Israel. I think the party made it into the Knesset and it was OK, small but had a clear voice and was pretty active. However, since then, around 1988, the term "Socialist" in Israel has gradually, but very fast, turned into a curse or a stigma, much like in the USA. I can't believe how fast people are forgetting, and how they are willing to "go with the flow". There is a lot of violence attached to this huge "re-education" effort, subtle and not so subtle smearing and threats. All of it, in the name of "freedom of thought" of course, while the "socialists" are assigned the guilt of social control...crazy world. upside down... ---

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:46 pm

Yeah, the demonization of "socialism" helped, in large part, by the John Birchers, is a much older process here in the U.S. This is why Rothbardian's claims of this larger number of people claiming to be "socialist" is so stunningly bizarre. In Europe, this is not the case. And being a "socialist" is an option, just like being a Democrat or Republican here. But there is really no way to be a truly "socialist" country within a completely capitalist dominated world. Personally, I guess my own "utopia" is a bit of a mixed economy. With all the industries vital to health and wellbeing of a population being controlled in some democratic fashion (as opposed to be an elite of wealthy corporations) but I think I'm perfectly fine with having other goods and services within private hands. I like to play video games with a friend of mine every so often (so what if I'm almost 40?). I don't imagine we need state control of video game creation! I'd invite people, as a bit of an aside, to learn a bit about the "open source" and "free" software movements. For example, I'm using a Linux based operationg system and the free Mozilla browser. These actually illustrate both libertarian and socialist concepts at work. The socialist part is that they are "free" in terms of cost. And while Linux can't compete with all the features of Windows, this is because there are many things (hardware drivers, multimedia protocols) that are proprietary and the companies will not share the info about them with Linux developers. It is not a technical limitation of Linux. But HOW Linux and other open source software is developed is fascinating. Folks who love programming decide to get involved in some aspect. Contributions are accepted from anyone, but as you demonstrate interest and skill, you can easily take on more responsibility. So the hierarchy that develops is completely created based on merit and is only relevant to the task at hand. Back to the socialist side, ALL such software is shared to the world and is allowed not only to be used by anyone but to be MODIFIED by anyone and improved and the new version passed on. You can even SELL your own modified version if you want, but you aren't allowed (by licensing) to do so without allowing all others access to your code. The results are quality and available to the masses. And all done without profit motive. It's people coming together who love what they do and wanting to provide a service to the world. It's so "bad" that Eric Hufschmidt has a whole section on how Linux is some sort of communist plot. Worth a read for the giggles: "Linux: A replacement for Windows or a marxist Fantasy" <a href="http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html">members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html</a>

Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Re: Bob...

Strong/Illuminati/global warming/coercive government

Re: Strong/Illuminati/global warming/coercive government

Re: Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Re: Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Dream's End

Re: Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

rdr's opinions

Re: rdr's opinions

resources and economics

socialism vs. classical liberalism

Re: socialism vs. classical liberalism

when and how did the word "socialist" become a cur

Re: when and how did the word "socialist" become a

Who is online