From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #132 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 9 2006 Volume 15 : Number 132 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThoma] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThoma] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [2fs ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThomas <] World Cup [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuchi] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuch] Re: Eb's Chevy Nova goes nuclear! [2fs ] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuch] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Capuch] RE: World Cup ["Michael Wells" ] RE: [My Name Is Eb] RE: fegmaniax-digest V15 #128 ["Michael Wells" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThomas] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [Benjamin Luk] Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:41:10 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Capuchin wrote: > But, in the end, libertarianism requires socialism because socialism is > the only value system that is sustainable without coercion by violence. You do a great job delving incorrectly into the entomology of Libertarian [-s -ism]. Libertarians are strong proponents of personal responsibility, something no Socialist/Communist would ever want anything to do with as there's not only no reliance upon, but no place for intrusive Gov't (something both Socialists and Communists demand by their very nature). "The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud." - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:54:21 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again But, to clarify, if you support your lower-case "l" libertarianism, then you're probably a lower-case "d" democrat, meaning you support rule by majority popular vote, which equates to mob rule; a governing method which never, ever works. FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > >> But, in the end, libertarianism requires socialism because socialism is >> the only value system that is sustainable without coercion by violence. > > You do a great job delving incorrectly into the entomology of > Libertarian [-s -ism]. > > Libertarians are strong proponents of personal responsibility, something > no Socialist/Communist would ever want anything to do with as there's > not only no reliance upon, but no place for intrusive Gov't (something > both Socialists and Communists demand by their very nature). > > "The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics > based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the > right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. > Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from > force and fraud." > > -f. > - -- FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | ferraatu (AIM) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:12:01 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, FSThomas wrote: > > But, to clarify, if you support your lower-case "l" libertarianism, then > you're probably a lower-case "d" democrat, meaning you support rule by > majority popular vote, which equates to mob rule; a governing method > which never, ever works. No time now to reply in detail...but the reduction of "democracy" to "majority popular vote" is a rather impoverished (and all-too-common) throttling of the ideal. The ideal of democracy is ensuring that all people's voices get a hearing - not that that the 50% plus one tyrannize everyone else. The deeply flawed US elections system, though, tries to persuade us that 50%+1 *is* "democracy." It's not. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:12:47 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Looks like a well-known cartoonist has been sitting in on the feglist... < http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2006/6/9/Non_Sequitur_pan.142.g.gif > - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:51:20 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again 2fs wrote: > Looks like a well-known cartoonist has been sitting in on the feglist... Wiley's brilliant. - -- FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | ferraatu (AIM) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:04:28 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Eb's Chevy Nova goes nuclear! Rex writes, > Yeah, that's always puzzled me. Once someone's figured out how to make > something, and basically as long as its component parts exist, anyone else > can follow their footsteps. I don't even know why developing nuclear > weapons is called "research". We know how to make these things. You > wouldn't need a scientific research program to figure out how to build a > Chevy Nova. I've never done so, and I doubt I ever will, but if I got it > into my head, I'm damned sure I could. Creating nuclear weapons or a nuclear power plant requires more than a physics book and a centrifuge. It requires an array of difficult-to-attain physical materials, a basic industrial base, an amount of intellectual capital, and a cadre of highly-trained professionals. It requires access to information and technology which is carefully regulated by most of the world's nuclear regimes. It requires a sequence of production that is actually quite breathtaking -- you must not only acquire the nuclear materials, you must refine them, test them, and make sure every part is just...perfect. And that's not even mentioning the delivery system. There's a reason that "rocket scientist" is a common appellation for smartness. I am not saying that it's impossible -- clearly, it is not. But it is not an easy process, and it is very, very difficult to do "from scratch." In other words, a country would probably rely on a network of relationships with other entities. And that is why it is possible to retard or thwart the development of a nation's program. You would have a much harder time building your Chevy Nova if the government denied you access to junkyards; you'd have to rely on independent dealers and your own ingenuity. And then, where do you get the gas? Etc. Look at Iraq for example. Generally, full of some smart and committed people. But Iraq bought their Osiris reactor from France (Thanks, Chirac!), and the Israelis bombed the shit out of it, dealing a serious blow to their nuclear program. Not to mention the fact that many of their scientists were forced to work under large amounts of stress and fear -- never a recipe for success. - --Quail, who actually taught classes at Three Mile Island PS: A note -- I am *not* getting involved in this political discussion. This is science, baby, science. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:23:24 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again 2fs wrote: > No time now to reply in detail...but the reduction of "democracy" to > "majority popular vote" is a rather impoverished (and all-too-common) > throttling of the ideal. The ideal of democracy is ensuring that all > people's voices get a hearing - not that that the 50% plus one tyrannize > everyone else. The deeply flawed US elections system, though, tries to > persuade us that 50%+1 *is* "democracy." You've got to draw the line somewhere, and inevitably someone gets marginalized. Whether it's 49%, 35%, or 10%. Case in point: the gay marriage amendment they put forth down here in GA during the last election cycle. It passed with somewhere around 80 or 85% majority. Was I surprised? No. Outside of Atlanta, Georgia is, by and large, a very conservative, Bible-thumping state. What has happened, though, is that a group has been marginalized, possibly with rights being impugned (if getting "married" is a right, and I'm not sold that it is). If major rights decisions were made on a simple majority rule (such as the referendum here in Georgia, or even worse, the system that California uses), would emancipation ever have happened? Or would voting rights have been granted to women? Or blacks? Doubtful. If you want to truly protect rights, the republic is the way to go. Whoever started teaching the "America is a democracy" crap in schools should be bitch slapped. - -- FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | ferraatu (AIM) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:25:51 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: World Cup Well, less than two hours to go ... I'm really excited! About a month ago I finally managed to get tickets for one of the matches. On June 17, which fittingly happens to be my birthday, I'll see the Czech Republic play Ghana here in Cologne. But tickets or no, the mere event is exciting enough. The mood in Germany has been crazy for the last few weeks. I'm hoping for a great tournament and maybe, hopefully, the fourth championship for Germany. Enjoy! - -- Sebastian Hagedorn http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > Capuchin wrote: >> But, in the end, libertarianism requires socialism because socialism is >> the only value system that is sustainable without coercion by violence. > > You do a great job delving incorrectly into the entomology of > Libertarian [-s -ism]. Entomology of Libertarianism? There are INSECTS involved? (OK, that was low. But you mean etymology.) OK, I'm going to address these two things at the same time: This: > Libertarians are strong proponents of personal responsibility, something > no Socialist/Communist would ever want anything to do with as there's > not only no reliance upon, but no place for intrusive Gov't (something > both Socialists and Communists demand by their very nature). And this: > But, to clarify, if you support your lower-case "l" libertarianism, then > you're probably a lower-case "d" democrat, meaning you support rule by > majority popular vote, which equates to mob rule; a governing method > which never, ever works. OK, let's try to be clear here. I hope you can understand these broad concepts and separate them from your preconceived notions (which are kind of shockingly narrow). Socialism is the belief system that values social equity. You can have all kinds of other values and still value social equity. As I wrote before, you can value liberty and social equity (in which case you become a libertarian socialist, aka anarchist) and you can just as easily value social equity and not give a hang for liberty (in which case you become a Stalinist or something similar). Democracy is a word that describes any social structure or institution that is driven by the people. The lamest and palest form of democracy is simple majority rule. We know this also as the "dictatorship of the majority". However, an institution that is guided by the consensus of all interested and involved individuals is also inherently democratic. A libertarian organization would necessarily be democratic because anything else would mean dictatorship and coercion. In fact, libertarianism demands the highest level of democratic decision-making in order to preserve the liberty of all people. > "The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics > based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the > right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. > Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from > force and fraud." And who defends those without property from the force of those with property? If you do not have the things you believe you need to live a productive, fulfilling life, then you are not free. You are a slave to those masters who hold the keys to your future. Private property (and by this I mean real property, not personal property) is contrary to liberty. Those who have not must find some way to please those who have in order to survive. It's servitude and slavery. If I want to stay sheltered this summer, I have to find some way to pay the rich man who owns the house in which I live. If I want to eat, I have to find some way to pay the rich man who owns the fertile farmland and the rich man who owns the distribution trucks, etc. And I have to pay all of those people with money which only comes from finding people who already have it and convincing them that I can serve them in a pleasing way. So I find a rich cock and suck it for a few coins. I have no choice in the matter. I am a slave. I have no liberty because I have no property. My only means of attaining property is by servitude. I work for my freedom from the masters. Life under capitalism is indentured servitude for the vast majority. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:58:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > 2fs wrote: >> Looks like a well-known cartoonist has been sitting in on the feglist... > > Wiley's brilliant. Wait. Are you now agreeing that there's a difference between the moral right and the legal right? Or did you agree with that all along, but still somehow hold that the legal right supercedes? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:06:12 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Eb's Chevy Nova goes nuclear! On 6/9/06, The Great Quail wrote: > > > PS: A note -- I am *not* getting involved in this political discussion. > This > is science, baby, science. Which suggests that bombing the fuck out of a country (or threatening to do so) probably isn't the best or most effective way of inhibiting its development of nukes. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > You've got to draw the line somewhere, and inevitably someone gets > marginalized. Whether it's 49%, 35%, or 10%. That's absolutely false. You can have total voluntary participation and full concensus decision-making. You don't turn on a dime and you end up doing a lot of things in very small groups or on your own, but nobody gets exploited or coerced. > Case in point: the gay marriage amendment they put forth down here in GA > during the last election cycle. Um, didn't we already concede that the US electoral system is bullshit painted up like democracy? > If major rights decisions were made on a simple majority rule (such as > the referendum here in Georgia, or even worse, the system that > California uses), would emancipation ever have happened? Or would > voting rights have been granted to women? Or blacks? > Doubtful. You're absolutely correct. But do you think slavery would have been tenable if there weren't massive state subsidies to the slave owners in the form of free security and publicly funded slave return service? State enforcement of property rights is absolutely necessary for slavery to persist. And that applies to wage-slavery just as well as chattel-slavery. > If you want to truly protect rights, the republic is the way to go. > Whoever started teaching the "America is a democracy" crap in schools > should be bitch slapped. Well, democratic ideals were the impetus for the founding of the Republic. And we've failed to progress toward democracy and have instead declined into the dictatorship of the majority. However, our value of democracy has allowed us to create great democratizing technologies such as telecommunications (including, of course, Ye Olde Internette) and very fast, largely unhindered global travel. Of course, democracy is the antithesis of tyranny, so things like the dictatorship of the majority (and the rule of law that gives the dictatorship force) is finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of control. So while our institutions are not becoming more democratic, we, as a culture, are (in some ways). For instance, the corporations and legislatures are pushing hard to maintain and even expand the exclusive dominion over data, but the public is undermining that tyranny with technology that is all about individual power. The world is, as I type this, wresting control of the means of production (and distribution) from the hands of the elite few and putting it in the hands of the people individually. When we can go back and do the same with land (as was the case for millenia -- no elite few controlling access and claiming exclusive dominion), we will be well on our way to both liberty and democracy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, FSThomas wrote: > If you want to truly protect rights, the republic is the way to go. Whoops. I forgot to reply to this one line. I set it aside, then wrote nothing. I wanted to point out that a state can be a republic and still be democratic. It can also be a republic and lead by a dictator who believes that he is enacting the will of the people. A republic is any state that claims to derive its power from the political power of the people. Democracy doesn't even require the existence of a state. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:22:31 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: World Cup Sebastian: > I'll see the Czech Republic play Ghana here in Cologne. Enjoy, Sebastian! I can only imagine. I got nice midfield tickets for the Chelsea v. MLS All-Stars here in August, but it's not quite the same ;) On the bright side we open our new stadium Sunday, which will be fun. >I'm hoping for a great tournament and maybe, hopefully, the fourth championship for Germany. A long shot with Ballack hurting, you think? I'm going to go out on a limb and say Brazil or maybe an in-form England. Sleepers? USA, Australia, Ivory Coast. Should be great tourney. The DVR is all cleared off and ready to roll! Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:31:10 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: [My Name Is Eb] RE: fegmaniax-digest V15 #128 MRG: > If you are in or around BANES in August, I am plotting a formal gig on > 17th August and a jam session on 13th August. Please e-mail me off-list > if you want to take part - Dolph, Michael Wells, Brian Hoare, I'm > talking to you! Bugger, that overlaps our vacation. That hasn't stopped me from looking at flights, though. Hmm. Just scored front-row tix for Leo Kottke. Yeah, me! Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:45:34 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: Signs of the times Quoting fegmaniax-digest : > > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:57:24 -0700 > From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" > Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again (Or the > worst thread hijacking EVER) > On 6/5/06, Jeff Dwarf wrote: >> 2fs wrote: >> > Anyway, it's not democracy - it's the realpolitik, >> > baby. (There. We're only *one step away* from being >> > back to discussing R.E.M.) >> It's a sign of the times > And now we can segue to talking about Prince. > - -Rx > > > Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:33:49 -0700 > From: Eb > Subject: Re: My name is "Eb", and I've hit the shed again (Or the > worst thread hijacking EVER) > >>>> Anyway, it's not democracy - it's the realpolitik, >>>> baby. (There. We're only *one step away* from being >>>> back to discussing R.E.M.) >>> >>> It's a sign of the times >> And now we can segue to talking about Prince. > No...that was a segue to Petula Clark. Eb * I thought you meant this one, but I could only find it en francais, mes gars: The Belle Stars - Sign of the times Morceau hors classement ! Ce morceau n'est l` qu'` titre de consultation ! Annie : 1983 Auteur(s) : Barker / Joyce / Hirst / Matthias / Owen / Parsons / Shone Label : Stiff records Rifirence : 105247 Paroles : As I lie here Thinking of you I realize that nothing is new Lying in my bed Thinking of you I realize Nothing is new You say you love me But want some sex I say youre lying Nothing has changed REFRAIN : This is a sign of the times Piece of more to come This is a sign of the times Time to be alone (bis) Were strong in bed Youre weak in love You give me nothing More than a shove I walk alone now Thinking of you I realize now Nothing is new (refrainx2) Why do we go [ ?] But it seems to me that you dont really care I realize now Nothing is new Time to walk my life Without you I sit alone now Wondering about you Im living my life What do you do ? You say you want me But need success I want your love boy, want nothing less (refrainx2)  (refrainx3) ________ (merci TrypholTourneson) - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paroles en attente d'une autorisation des ayants droit. Nous nous engageons ` en retirer l'affichage en cas de demande de leur part. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Programme : Ce morceau n'est pas dans le programme giniral Eighties Durie : 2 m 54 s Comment puis-je icouter cette chanson ? - Mike Godwin PS Surely it was H L Mencken? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:57:41 -0700 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On 6/9/06, Capuchin wrote: > Private property (and by this I mean real property, not personal property) > is contrary to liberty. Those who have not must find some way to please > those who have in order to survive. It's servitude and slavery. If I > want to stay sheltered this summer, I have to find some way to pay the > rich man who owns the house in which I live. If I want to eat, I have to > find some way to pay the rich man who owns the fertile farmland and the > rich man who owns the distribution trucks, etc. And I have to pay all of > those people with money which only comes from finding people who already > have it and convincing them that I can serve them in a pleasing way. So I > find a rich cock and suck it for a few coins. I have no choice in the > matter. I am a slave. I have no liberty because I have no property. My > only means of attaining property is by servitude. I work for my freedom > from the masters. Life under capitalism is indentured servitude for the > vast majority. Thank you, Comrade Lenin! Unfortunately, people are selfish cocks and if you replace these "capitalist masters" all you get in return is corrupt communist masters. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:49:46 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: World Cup On 6/9/06, Michael Wells wrote: > > Sebastian: > > I'll see the Czech Republic play Ghana here in Cologne. > > Enjoy, Sebastian! I can only imagine. I got nice midfield tickets for > the Chelsea v. MLS All-Stars here in August, but it's not quite the same > ;) On the bright side we open our new stadium Sunday, which will be fun. > > >I'm hoping for a great tournament and maybe, hopefully, the fourth > championship for Germany. Not surprisingly Whiteboy McYankee here had failed to realize this was happening, but I work with some soccer fans who apparently can't miss it... to the point where they found an old TV with some rabbit ears but couldn't find a place with decent reception inside so they've literally run an extention cord out of the building an placed the TV showing the matches OUTSIDE on the sidewalk... in the RAIN (and yes, it's kinda weird that it's raining in LA right now in and of itself), facing into the office, volume cranked, with like cardboard on top of it to sheild it and the reception is STILL for shit. So I'm thinking: 1) Should I tell then that they can probably stream much more watchable versions of this on their Computer Devices with less risk of electrical shock and humiliation? 2) Why is it that utterly insane behavior is completely acceptable in the name of sports fandom, whereas as in any other area it would get a fellow branded as anything from a "geek" to a "danger to himself and others"? - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:58:46 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V15 #131 Er, hi guys and guyesses! I thought that this was a list discussing an English songwriter and his life and works. Are there really no other fora on which all you loquacious new Worlders could air your views on politics and international relations? - - Mike "tedious" Godwin still playing Ed Harcourt, "Rain" PS No, I don't understand why he hired an American band. Maybe all will become clear on June 25th. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:59:13 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Capuchin wrote: > Wait. Are you now agreeing that there's a difference between the moral > right and the legal right? Or did you agree with that all along, but > still somehow hold that the legal right supercedes? No dice, exactly. I respect the guy's insight and style. The moral crossroads is accurate. Of course I can see dilemma w/right and wrong, law obeying/breaking; it's part of life and I don't think I ever said exactly that. You would have to admit, however, that the vast majority of decisions aren't of the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't variety. *Choosing* to enter a country illegally is not one of those tough moral dilemmas; especially not when there's a defined process for applying for entry. Wiley cracks me up, though. http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/06/07/ - -- FS Thomas | Interactive Developer | fsthomas-at-ochremedia.com 404.758.8616 (home/office) | 404.274.1632 (mobile) | ferraatu (AIM) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:05:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Capuchin wrote: > >> Without a police force, you have no mechanism for enforcing property > >> relations. The only strategy, then, to allow you to have is to make sure > >> there are no have-nots. > > > > And socialism does that? :) > > Socialism IS that. Socialism is the system of belief that values social > equity as an ideal. Hence, a socialist is a person who wants to do what > is necessary to make sure people do not go without the things that they > believe they need. Without the things they BELIEVE they need, or without the things they ACTUALLY need? > Now, a person can be socialist without being libertarian. While that's > not ideologically inconsistent, it's really unpleasant. The upshot of > such an unholy mix of values would be that haves and have-nots are > eliminated by handing down the "needs" from on high. As a result, there > are no have-nots because the individual does not decide what it is > possible to have. Yeah, pretty shitty if you value liberty even the > tiniest bit. And unforunately this is the form socialism almost always takes. > But, in the end, libertarianism requires socialism because socialism is > the only value system that is sustainable without coercion by violence. In theory. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:05:26 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: [My Name Is "Eb" And] Re: [My Name Is Eb] Re: My name is "Eb", and I've shit the bed again Capuchin wrote: > Entomology of Libertarianism? There are INSECTS involved? (OK, that was > low. But you mean etymology.) Frickin' spell check. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #132 ********************************