From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #124 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, May 13 2005 Volume 14 : Number 124 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: Bob [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Bob [Tulloch ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff [Benjamin Lukoff ] Fripp & Zep [James Dignan ] A Robyn Cover I'd Like To Hear: The Late B.P. Helium ["Stewart C. Russell] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] Re: election stuff ["Nora B." ] NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - 2004-11-14 - Maxwell's, Hoboken, NJ (Minidisc AUD / FLAC) [wojizzle for] Re: Fripp & Zep [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: election stuff [Capuchin ] RE: election stuff ["Marc Alberts" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:46:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: >>>> So, yeah... right-wing nutter. >>> Oh well, I can see this isn't going anywhere (left-wing nutter). >> Sure. I mean, it can't very well go anywhere when you just stop dead. > > Why argue with someone who thinks you're a nutter? I was just using the terminology given. If you think of the term "nutter" to be related to, say, "nut job" or the phrase "off his nut", then the nut is just a brain and so a "right-wing nutter" is someone who's ideas align with the right wing. But anyway, you chose the word. You asked a conditional question, "If folks with this quality are right-wing nutters, what am I?" Well, the answer is that you're one of those folks. If you want to call them nutters, then fine. I just answered your question. You want a better answer, ask a better question. No offense intended. >>> I am *so* not a right-wing nutter in the generally accepted sense of >>> the phrase that I can only imagine the horror with which you must >>> regard TRUE right-wing nutters. >> >> Again, I think the only difference is intellectual honesty. >> And I hold intellectual honesty in high regard. > > thank you for calling me intellectually dishonest. I don't see why you'd thank me for that. I don't hold such a thing in very high regard and if I'm right about that state of affairs, then I'm very sorry. I mean, I DO think you're not being intellectually honest. I think that if you honestly consider the necessary conditions for the sustenance of the systems you support, either you'll find that they contradict some of the human values you think you hold or you'll find that those values flatly contradict those of the left and you are, in fact, on the right all the way down the line. But this whole message is about the superficial terminlogies of my judgment. If you want to address these issues of honesty and coherence, we should probably stick to analysis of the systems and beliefs themselves. Anyway, that's the intellectually honest thing to do. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Fine then, but of course social issues aren't bullshit and they make up > an important part of one's political identity. In fact, social issues > are why, though according to people here I'm right-wing, I tend to vote > for the Democrats, not the Republicans. And that's totally consistent with my argument from the start that Democrats are right-wing and only pay lip-service to the left as a tactic of populist rhetoric. > I won't speak for others, but your supposition is incorrect. I don't > like corporate INTERFERENCE either. But should we damn capitalism for > the misdeeds of people like those at Enron and WorldCom? Yes. They were acting rationally within the framework of the system. The system rewarded the majority of them for their behavior just as it rewarded slave owners in the nineteenth century and continues to reward landlords today. > Lesson: don't buy and hold unicorn-horn processors, flip 'em quickly. Exactly. The short-term benefit is the "rational" consideration and the long-term effects (creating a system whereby one can profit from duping the public and, therefore, a system that does not value critical thinking in the bulk of the population, for example) are completely ignored. > I have absolutely no problem with government getting involved in things > like this. The point is that nobody CAN know the effects of some of these things and the enormous power that the private parties pushing these dangerous things can wield makes it appear as though approval is good for everyone and approval implies safety. > In fact, I feel misrepresented. I'm all for government getting involved > in things like (reasonable) regulation, setting standards of weights and > measures, etc. Standards for weights and measures and stuff like that doesn't require government at all. It doesn't even require any kind of imposed authority. It just requires cooperation. That kind of thing is the realm of the public agency, not government. > Translated: I'm not a nutter, libertarian, Republican, or otherwise. If I'm to take "nutter" to mean "crazy person" (as I think you did from your previous post), then I'm pretty offended by this. Anarchists are not necessarily crazy people. You don't need the state to do anything but punish. People can handle everything else on their own. With an appropriate social structure that encourages critical thinking, broad consideration, and the value of the spirit of all things, there's nothing to punish and no need for the state or, indeed, any externally imposed regulation of any kind. > Neither do I want to see the US go socialist. Again, who's going to be > making the decisions here, and on what basis? Either way, the ruling elite will be making decisions on the basis of what benefits them the most. The ruling elite will be a minority and usually the same minority, either way. This minority is exactly the set of people that seek power over others. They do it now through money and they'll do it in other systems through political control or whatever. The only difference between the system we have today and a system that is ostensibly socialist is how the type of abuse of power that will be tolerated. Right now, prison and poverty are tolerated. In a socialist system, at least one of those will not be tolerated. And opulence, while still existing, will be a social stigma for the majority rather than a badge of honor. Those are both good things. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:18:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Bob The Great Quail wrote: > > But I know Plant's > > always had his ear to the ground about new music - > > One of my most surreal concert-going experiences was when > I saw the reconstituted Led Zeppelin in the 90s and they > plated the Cure's "Lullaby." Well, they _had_ hired an ex-Cure to be the other guitarist (Porl Thompson). I would hope since that's his song -- the tune anyway -- that Page let him be the more primary guitarist on it. Porl even kept working with Plant through recording Dreamland, though I guess he's not on the new one. I seem to recall Plant saying that his two favorite bands of the 1980s were The Cure and R.E.M., though I can't remember where (it would have been around the time Now & Zen came out; maybe in Rolling Stone?). I remember a couple metalheads I knew being really pissed that Plant would have apparently liked my record collection better than theirs. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:53:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > Yes. They were acting rationally within the framework of the system. > The system rewarded the majority of them for their behavior just as it > rewarded slave owners in the nineteenth century and continues to reward > landlords today. Oh dear. I *am* a landlord. Does that make me a bstard? > > Translated: I'm not a nutter, libertarian, Republican, or otherwise. > > If I'm to take "nutter" to mean "crazy person" (as I think you did from > your previous post), then I'm pretty offended by this. Anarchists are not > necessarily crazy people. You don't need the state to do anything but You call *me* a nutter and are offended that I call you one back? > punish. People can handle everything else on their own. With an > appropriate social structure that encourages critical thinking, broad > consideration, and the value of the spirit of all things, there's nothing > to punish and no need for the state or, indeed, any externally imposed > regulation of any kind. I'll believe it when I see it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 01:00:50 +0100 (BST) From: Tulloch Subject: Re: Bob Jeff Dwarf wrote: I seem to recall Plant saying that his two favorite bands of the 1980s were The Cure and R.E.M., though I can't remember where (it would have been around the time Now & Zen came out; maybe in Rolling Stone?). I remember a couple metalheads I knew being really pissed that Plant would have apparently liked my record collection better than theirs. I remember reading an interview with John Entwhistle where he said that it was fun playing heavy metal but he couldn't stand listening to it, likening it to being able to withstand the smell of your own farts but not being able to put up with other people's! . - --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger - want a free & easy way to contact your friends online? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:17:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Oh dear. I *am* a landlord. Well, then your support for absentee ownership is self-serving. That makes perfect sense. If you were forced to admit that such a thing was anti-social and demeaning to human values, you'd have to find some productive way of generating income. > Does that make me a bstard? It makes you a hurtful, destructive person, at any rate. I'll avoid the invective and stick with words I can support. >>> Translated: I'm not a nutter, libertarian, Republican, or otherwise. >> >> If I'm to take "nutter" to mean "crazy person" (as I think you did from >> your previous post), then I'm pretty offended by this. Anarchists are >> not necessarily crazy people. You don't need the state to do anything >> but > > You call *me* a nutter and are offended that I call you one back? I'm only offended if you mean nutter to be what I stated above here and clearly noted that. Without an adjective attached, the former usage of the word (as in, "right-wing nutter") doesn't really apply and I had to grasp for a meaning. I took it to be the one you inferred in your previous post. And note that I didn't call you a nutter, I noted that you fit your own definition of a "right-wing nutter" in my estimation. >> People can handle everything else on their own. With an appropriate >> social structure that encourages critical thinking, broad >> consideration, and the value of the spirit of all things, there's >> nothing to punish and no need for the state or, indeed, any externally >> imposed regulation of any kind. > > I'll believe it when I see it. Well, see, that's exactly the problem. Optimism is a prerequisite. So long as people think they're going to get screwed all the time, they're going to work to keep from getting screwed and act out of that fear and suspicion. In fact, the situation quickly becomes "screw or get screwed" and everybody loses. I think that's basically the motto of the libertarians and other capitalists I know. If you're going to play the game that involves ALL of human values (rather than just the economic), then you recognize that screwing people over has social consequences (fear, distrust, suspicion, insecurity, doubt) and those degrade the human experience more, in aggregate, than the individual cases of screwing that might happen if everyone just lived out of kindness, generosity, and mutual aid. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:37:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Oh dear. I *am* a landlord. > > Well, then your support for absentee ownership is self-serving. That > makes perfect sense. If you were forced to admit that such a thing was > anti-social and demeaning to human values, you'd have to find some > productive way of generating income. Like working? Which I also do? (My net income from being a landlord is about $0.) By the way, I'm not going to admit being a landlord is antisocial and demeaning to human values. For one thing, as you point out, I *am* a landlord, and to admit being such is antisocial and demeaning would involve a contradiction and make me a hypocrite (which I'm not). For another thing, I simply don't agree being so is necessarily antisocial and demeaning (though it, like everything else, has the potential to be so). You still haven't convinced me. > > Does that make me a bstard? > > It makes you a hurtful, destructive person, at any rate. I'll avoid the > invective and stick with words I can support. I'd like to know exactly how my owning a duplex in Seattle and renting it out to two couples is being hurtful and destructive. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:25:54 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Fripp & Zep > > I'm not sure who said it, but there's a woman recorded on a Robert > > Fripp album who states, "Rock'n'roll is about fucking." > > >Always assumed it was Sara Lee. I also recall some bit about how one >should "feel rock 'n' roll in your pelvis." ISTR it was one of the Roche sisters. >Zeppelin's reputation as pussy-crazed headbangers both oversimplifies >their actual music (much of which is rather more complicated, >thoughtful, and just plain musical than that) and stereotypes its >makers. Plus, of course, he's in his fifties rather than his twenties...probably a bit more sane these days! mehh. I always thought Zep jumped the shark back in Seattle. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:40:00 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: A Robyn Cover I'd Like To Hear: The Late B.P. Helium E6er The Late B.P. Helium covered 'Alright Yeah'. I can't think of a better person to cover Robyn. And Of Montreal have extended their tour! They will be in Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton at the end of August!! Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 19:34:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff [OK, I haven't mentioned this before, but please stop sending me two copies of all of these messages. You don't have to do it and it makes more work for me. Clearly I'm on the list, so if you send something to the list, you don't have to also send it to my address directly. Thanks.] On Thu, 12 May 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Like working? Which I also do? (My net income from being a landlord is > about $0.) Then why do it? Is it emotionally fulfilling or something? Do you just like controlling some aspect of the lives of others? > By the way, I'm not going to admit being a landlord is antisocial and > demeaning to human values. For one thing, as you point out, I *am* a > landlord, and to admit being such is antisocial and demeaning would > involve a contradiction and make me a hypocrite (which I'm not). Being a hypocrite, I think, is a necessary part of wanting to live in a better world than the one in which you live. If you're not a hypocrite, then you're content with the status quo and you can live the life you think people should live. I often say, "If you're not a hypocrite, your standards are too low." [I give eddie props for this insight, actually. When asked about his automobile use on this very list, he wrote, "Are you calling me a hypocrite? Tell me something I don't fucking know." I think those words changed my life.] > For another thing, I simply don't agree being so is necessarily > antisocial and demeaning (though it, like everything else, has the > potential to be so). You still haven't convinced me. I didn't try to convince you, so that's not surprising at all. > I'd like to know exactly how my owning a duplex in Seattle and renting > it out to two couples is being hurtful and destructive. If you'd like to know, I'll give you my opinion. (All you had to do is ask -- no need to get all passive-aggressive.) You wrote that your "net income from being a landlord is about $0" and I joked about why you'd do it. But, of course, it's not the income, but the equity that is your principle benefit in the deal. It's REALLY income, of course, but you don't see it that way because instead of going into a bank account as a liquid asset it goes against a mortgage as a real asset. Is that right? And since your net income is non-negative (albeit zero), that means the folks that are renting your duplex are paying the mortgage and maintenance on the building just fine without your help... only they don't get the real asset. So folks that could otherwise afford to buy can't because you won't sell. You just take the money that they'd be spending and put it toward your own assets. Now, put tens of thousands of people like you in a city. Say a young couple moves to town. They want to find a nice place to live. There's a building for sale in which they could live. But they can't afford it. Why not? Well, it's worth more than they can pay, of course. But why is it worth so much? Well, it's worth so much because that is what the market will bear. Alright, fine. Why will the market bear such a high price? The potential buyers in the market include real estate speculators and existing and would-be landlords. When they look at buying a house, they estimate things like "return on investment" and when they can "flip it" to turn a profit. When the young couple is looking to buy a home, their "return on investment" isn't economic at all. Their return on investment is the quality of life they will experience: how they relate to the structure and its neighborbood; the people and the place, the opportunities it will provide for personal and spiritual growth and the memories they will create in that environment. The price they're willing to pay for those things is essentially fixed. Turns out that the speculators and landlords take this fixed economic price into their minds and use it in their calculations for the value of the property. So they can rent out the property at that price. SOMEBODY will give up the equity of home ownership for the value of those non-economic returns. The landlords, then, deprive a person of equity and give nothing in return. The couples in your duplex could be paying the mortgage directly, but instead, they pay it to you and you reap the equity while giving them nothing but the use of something that you weren't going to use anyway. Landlords drive up the cost of home ownership and turn other people's income into their own equity while adding no value. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:44:39 -0700 From: "Nora B." Subject: Re: election stuff The Prophet Jeme spaketh: > Let's say I build luxury yachts. I do so for some manufacturing firm that > pays me a wage (as little as possible, of course). That wage is not > enough to buy a luxury yacht and, in that sense, I will NEVER reap the > fruits of my labor. However, the rich men who own the manufacturing firm Hmmm, so those rich men should get nothing in return for investing the high quality capital goods and materials require to construct this luxury yacht. Without those materials the yacht isn't a luxury yacht. Without capital investment, even minimal capital investment for a non luxury boat, your labor is without worth because you are unable to create anything. Oh wait, I forgot capitalism is evil. The only economic system that has worked on a large scale in the history of humanity is baaaadd!!! BAAAADD! Capitalism isn't perfect but it works. Government should work to alleviate and limit it's excesses. > Personally, I HATE the notion of working for monthly coupons. I much > prefer a system by which people work because they love doing what they do > (or the shit just needs to get done and somebody's got to do it -- sort of > like how the dishes are washed at my house) and the exchange of goods and > services is mediated by good will and respect. But you're not supporting > that, either. I would like apologize for calling Jeme a robot in the past. Jeme is obviously Dr. Pangloss made flesh. The best of all possible worlds...my ass! > Personally, I think equity in a private organization should be limited to > those who work within the organization. Absentee ownership is not only > unnatural and fictitious, it's hurtful. Thanks for the wisdom Jemey! I'll go sell off my portfolio post-haste! :-P Nora, Yale grad and spoiled child of privilege!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 00:31:42 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - 2004-11-14 - Maxwell's, Hoboken, NJ (Minidisc AUD / FLAC) http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=41576&hit=1 - ----- Forwarded message from DIME ----- A new torrent has been uploaded to DIME. Torrent: 41576 Title: Robyn Hitchcock - 2004-11-14 - Maxwell's, Hoboken, NJ (Minidisc AUD / FLAC) Size: 601.32 MB Category: Singer/Songwriter Uploaded by: woj Description - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Hitchcock November 14, 2004 Maxwell's Hoboken, NJ Recorded by: woj Source: SP-CMC-2 > SP-SPSB-2 > MZ-R50 (minidisc, line in, SP stereo) Transfer: MDS-JE530 > optical > Delta Dio 2496 > CD Wave > Cool Edit 2000 (normalization, patching) > CD Wave (tracking) > wav > flac 1.1.1 (level 8) > flac Thanks to MagicAleX for the patch! Disc 1: 01. introduction 02. September Cones 03. Victorian Squid 04. Across The Universe [The Beatles] 05. The President 06. Mother Nature's Son [The Beatles] 07. Aquarium 08. I Saw Nick Drake 09. Museum of Sex [incomplete] 10. Sleeping With Your Devil Mask 11. Dark Princess 12. Dominoes [Syd Barrett] 13. A Globe Of Frogs 14. We're Gonna Live In The Trees 15. Be Here Now [George Harrison] 16. Sometimes A Blonde 17. I Got The Hots 18. Tired Of Waiting [The Kinks] Disc 2 01. Not Dark Yet [Bob Dylan] (between-song audio patched from alternate source) 02. I Something You 03. The Devil's Coachman 04. Chinese Bones 05. Clean Steve 06. Queen Elvis (take 1) 07. Queen Elvis 08. Satellite 09. W Sucks 10. A Day In The Life [The Beatles] 11. "this is the encores" 12. Ted, Woody and Junior 13. Demons And Fiends 14. Only The Stones Remain 15. "i'm back" 16. She Belongs To Me [Bob Dylan] 17. When I Was Dead 18. "i'm going to leave you with this one" 19. Full Moon In My Soul - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:41:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Fripp & Zep James Dignan wrote: > mehh. I always thought Zep jumped the shark back in > Seattle. Pah! Everyone knows that was really a red snapper. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:00:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: election stuff On Thu, 12 May 2005, Nora B. wrote: > The Prophet Jeme spaketh: >> Let's say I build luxury yachts. I do so for some manufacturing firm >> that pays me a wage (as little as possible, of course). That wage is >> not enough to buy a luxury yacht and, in that sense, I will NEVER reap >> the fruits of my labor. However, the rich men who own the >> manufacturing firm > > Hmmm, so those rich men should get nothing in return for investing the > high quality capital goods and materials require to construct this > luxury yacht. Without those materials the yacht isn't a luxury yacht. > Without capital investment, even minimal capital investment for a non > luxury boat, your labor is without worth because you are unable to > create anything. Oh wait, I forgot capitalism is evil. The only > economic system that has worked on a large scale in the history of > humanity is baaaadd!!! BAAAADD! This was not an example of how or why "capitalism is evil", but an illustration of how the system preferred by Benjamin doesn't satisfy his own requirement that one reaps the fruits of one's own labor. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of capital and the role of the financier and whether or not such things have a net positive or negative effect, we can do that some time... soon, even. But right now, I don't want the discussion forked in ten different directions, so I'm going to have to not fork it this time. If this thread dies, though, Nora, and you still want to know how I answer your comments, feel free to bring it right back up and I'll address it then. > I would like apologize for calling Jeme a robot in the past. Jeme is > obviously Dr. Pangloss made flesh. The best of all possible worlds...my > ass! Um, yeah... I don't see where you get that at all. Certainly I don't believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds. I do, however, believe that we can make this world better and that the best approach is to live in the world you want to make. >> Personally, I think equity in a private organization should be limited >> to those who work within the organization. Absentee ownership is not >> only unnatural and fictitious, it's hurtful. > > Thanks for the wisdom Jemey! I'll go sell off my portfolio post-haste! If you want to talk about how it's hurtful, we can do that, too. I didn't give any justification for my statement and clearly you disagree. If you want to know why I think it's hurtful, I'd be happy to explain. Do you? Or are you just being snotty? > Nora, Yale grad and spoiled child of privilege!!! I'm sure that's working out great for you. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:34:59 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: election stuff Jeme wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, Nora B. wrote: > > The Prophet Jeme spaketh: > >> Let's say I build luxury yachts. I do so for some manufacturing firm > >> that pays me a wage (as little as possible, of course). That wage is > >> not enough to buy a luxury yacht and, in that sense, I will NEVER reap > >> the fruits of my labor. However, the rich men who own the > >> manufacturing firm > > > > Hmmm, so those rich men should get nothing in return for investing the > > high quality capital goods and materials require to construct this > > luxury yacht. Without those materials the yacht isn't a luxury yacht. > > Without capital investment, even minimal capital investment for a non > > luxury boat, your labor is without worth because you are unable to > > create anything. Oh wait, I forgot capitalism is evil. The only > > economic system that has worked on a large scale in the history of > > humanity is baaaadd!!! BAAAADD! > > This was not an example of how or why "capitalism is evil", but an > illustration of how the system preferred by Benjamin doesn't satisfy his > own requirement that one reaps the fruits of one's own labor. Actually, it does no such thing, unless your definition of "the fruits of one's own labor" is stilted to the point where you would decry the existence of electricity because perpetual motion machines weren't possible. In general, the term "fruits of one's own labor," to be equitable, would be considered to be the marginal productivity said worker adds to the product produced. If the value said worker produces is less than what it would take to get a boat, it is not remotely rational to assume that his labor should bear such fruits. Thus to set the bar at that level, what you have done is define a key term in Benjamin's system in a way no one in Benjamin's system would rationally accept. This hardly provides for an example where Benjamin's system doesn't satisfy his own requirements. All it really proves is that your conception of what an equitable economic exchange is really is out of whack. Marc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #124 ********************************