From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #164 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, April 19 2007 Volume 16 : Number 164 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: virginia tech reap [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: rights [2fs ] re: Nick Drake family tree ["Michael Wells" ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [kevin ] Re: Guns [2fs ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [kevin ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [2fs ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... ["Michael Sweeney" ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: virginia tech reap - --On 19. April 2007 10:00:07 -0400 FSThomas wrote: > The latter is the one that really, really kills me. Redistributing > wealth (dispersing your quoted 90% to the other 96% of the population) > would infer that the 4% didn't earn it in the first place; Correct. > that they > have no right to it, Correct. > that their labors warrant no more compensation than > any other person in the society, no matter what profession. Correct. > You're right, we have a weird society. A constitutional republic (not a > f*cking democracy!) based on the capitalist system; not a socialist > regime. It doesn't have to be a "socialist regime". It's called "social democracy". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:33:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: rights On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > 3.) Collective bargaining > > Differ on this one. Unions' times have passed. Wages shouldn't be > dictated by a collective, but rather what the market can bear. Uh...so what does the "market" do when clearly heads of corporations have the power to compensate themselves mightily while paying workers diddly? More specifically, what do workers do? Why, they form unions, of course - under the assumption that their influence *in the labor market* will thereby be increased. Let's say a store in your area is the only one to sell a certain essential item. It's difficult to impossible to set up a new store to compete (let us stipulate: the community's desperately poor, say). The citizens feel the prices are higher than they should be. Individually, each one can do little but grouse. Collectively, though, they could organize a boycott - and, say, a carpool to a nearby city to buy the item cheaper in bulk. The store starts losing money, because the community has found a way to get around its overpricing. In other words, unions are workers' way of gaining more steering power over the market - power that otherwise is fairly clearly in management's hands. 4.) Cheap medical attention > > Costs are out of control on some treatments, true. This is due > mostly > to rising malpractice insurance rates, due largely in part to frivolous > lawsuits. "Largely in part"? To "frivolous" lawsuits? Find some objective statistics indicating that high insurance costs are due primarily to lawsuits (frivolous or not), and then define "frivolous" for me. I'm pretty sure some male cattle just defecated nearby. > as the science proves there is a problem, but ultra right > > wingers ( and extreme left wingers too ) really piss me off as they > > are so fucking unable to see any other perspective other than their > > own . > > I don't know about where you are, but it's unseasonably cold here at the > moment. > This may be the stupidest thing ever said on the feglist. "Global warming" (as anyone who looks into it for more than three seconds will find out) refers to the overall trend. It does not mean that always and everywhere it will be warmer; in fact, it specifically indicates that weather will become more variable, less predictable, and more extreme: i.e., cold spring weather in Georgia will be *more* common. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:34:35 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: re: Nick Drake family tree re: Nick Drake family tree: > 5. Winter Is Gone (Traditional, arr: Nick Drake) > 8. Strolling Down the Highway (Bert Jansch) > 15. If You Leave Me (Dave Van Ronk) Wow! This is something to look forward to. MRG, did you know about the Jansch cover? Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:39:29 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -----Original Message----- >From: Sebastian Hagedorn >Sent: Apr 19, 2007 8:25 AM >To: Fegmaniax! >Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... > >--On 19. April 2007 10:28:02 -0400 The Great Quail >wrote: > >>> No one is innocent. >> >> Comments like this are what remind me what a weird, disconnected crank you >> can be. Why don't you send this exchange to the families of the dead? I'm >> sure they'd have something to say about your smug ideology. > >But it's just catholicism (and probably pietism etc.)! Only children are >innocent, everyone else is a sinner. It's also the B-side of the Sex Pistols single of Sid singing "My Way." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:59 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > > something like 4% > > of the population own around 90% of the wealth > > ... > > > der commander > > Commrade sounds more appropriate. > > You slight us for not having a womb-to-tomb imperial government and > deride us for not actively redistributing wealth. Providing healthcare is hardly "imperial government" except in bizarre paranoid fantasies in which granting people the "freedom" to suffer their illnesses unto death ("freedom" in quotes because they're not free to choose otherwise) is preferable to the horrible slavery of allowing them - on the grounds that health is a *public* matter, not an individual one - to be treated, or even receive preventive care. Funny how many employers are now arguing in favor of some serious healthcare reform, because the old system (in which they're obligated for competitive reasons to offer healthcare) is putting them at a severe competitive disadvantage to corporations in nations whose corporations don't have to bear such a burden. How much does it cost employers in sick leave when its workers can't receive care, come to work sick, infect other workers, miss work due to illness, or develop disabling or debilitating diseases that prevent them from working, disabilities that might have been prevented had they been able to see doctors earlier? How much would it cost all of us if the bubonic plague made a comeback, and one person (who couldn't afford health insurance, and didn't know he'd contracted it) ended up spreading it ultimately throughout the nation? Almost certainly the US's relatively high numbers of uninsured people (hence, those who do not have their health regularly checked) would mean a highly infectious disease would spread more rapidly than in a similar society *with* healthcare. Short version: health is not an individual possession but something of public interest. The latter is the one that really, really kills me. Redistributing > wealth (dispersing your quoted 90% to the other 96% of the population) > would infer that the 4% didn't earn it in the first place; that they > have no right to it, that their labors warrant no more compensation than > any other person in the society, no matter what profession. You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. Anyone who inherits money hasn't earned it - not on their own behalf. And that's not even getting into the question of whether someone has *earned* money just because a social system is set up to allow them to receive it. Other social systems might limit such; ours encourages it. Neither is "natural." As for your last sentence: apparently the only possibilities you can envision are our current setup or some hypothetical scenario in which *everyone* gets paid exactly the same ("their labors warrant no more compensation than any other person in the society"). Very, very few folks would suggest such a society. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:50:43 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Guns On 4/19/07, kevin wrote: > > > There's a libertarian party *website*? I find it hard enough to believe > there's a libertarian *party*...reminds me of an old joke from a firesign > theatre radio show: The anarchists held a convention in St. Louis, and > everyone who showed up was kicked out of the movement. Did they ever have that procrastinors' convention? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:54:28 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >Not my kind of leftism, pal. >But today's leftists prize diversity, rights for minorities, alternative >lifestyles, public media. etc. etc. etc. This whole "Though Police" idea is >wrong, and SHOULD BE BANNED. > >Erm, just kidding on that last bit. > >-Rex What the whole debate boils down to is that you have opposing camps arguing over whether the proper function of the apparatus of the state is to be an advocate for the powerful or the powerless. People are going to fall on the side that best serves their interest, unless they're not thinking clearly enough to see where their interests lie. And that sounds to me like that phrase-we're-not-supposed-to-use-any-more, class struggle. And ultimately I don't see any way clear of it. But I do think things are getting a little too grim around here. Anybody heard any good Don Imus jokes? np Mogwai : Rock Action ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:07:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, FSThomas wrote: > Michael Sweeney wrote: >> Ferris wrote: >>> How fucking fascist. >> Isn't it ironic (doncha think)? > Sweet. > >> From Wikipedia: > > "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a > mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests > inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of > national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial > attributes." > > Now I know y'all love to draw lines between The Right and fascism, but > it's just as easy (possibly even more so) to flip it the other way > around and pin the moniker on the Left. I'll stick to the definition of > the word as given, though, and try not deviate too far. Ah, Wikipedia! You'll note that this article has been submitted for Wikipedia mediation because there are a couple (literally, two, I think) of Wikipedia editors who adhere to absurd and unsupportable ideologies (Mises, so-called "anarcho-capitalists", etc.) who keep changing it to fit their cause. Primarily, their goal is to make it appear as though the left is fascist. If you'll read the (lengthy) discussion on the Wikipedia talk pages among the editors, you'll see how ludicrous their views are. At one point, they start insisting that any state control of the economy is socialist in nature. That particular argument ends abruptly when someone points out that feudalism is, by their definition, socialism. Hence, socialism goes back 3000 years. The Roman Empire was socialist! It's all really dumb. So be careful whom you choose as your sources for this stuff. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:29:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > Just a drive-by to make one small, but very important point: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > > Without going into the whole "what's a 'militia'?" pissing match, I will > > note that the phrase "well regulated" is also in the Second Amendment. > > Even if you argue that a single, private individual can constitute part > > of a "militia," you must concede that said militia is supposed to be > > "well regulated." > > In 18th century military parlance, "regulations" are guns. > > "Well-regulated" means having lots of the equipment you need. "A well > regulated militia" is one that's got plenty of firepower. Do you have a source for that useage of "regulations"? It doesn't appear in the OED. Doing my own driveby, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:08:05 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... You know what Cap said about giving wackjobs a hug? If Ferris ever posts that he's leaving the list and moving to a shack in Montana, someone give him a hug, okay? Anyway: On 4/19/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > "Individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the > state" could be translated as Government for its own sake, no? That the > rights/interests/needs of the individual are inferior to that of the > State? Personal rights are being encroached upon from all sides in this > country, but the biggest infringement is from expansive federal > government. A federal government attained and maintained through > invasive taxation. Oh puh-lease: if your life is so wonderful peachy that *taxes* are the biggest infringement upon your freedom, maybe you should sell the yacht, get rid of your portfolio, and simply make less money. Please explain to me how 'the government" infringes upon your "personal rights" (which ones?) more than, say, poverty does. Or the needs of your employer. Or the need to feed your cat, for that matter. What rights that you would otherwise exercise are being infringed upon by the government? And what's "invasive" taxation? First, read this < http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_the_life_of_joe_middle-.html>: it's pretty commonly distributed and a bit hackneyed, but it still points out the extent to which we, every day of our lives, benefit from services various levels of government provide. Not to mention that without government, the money your employers pay you would be worthless. "A type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, > or racial attributes." A dissolution of individuality, or > compartmentalizing of society based on some classifier, correct? Unity > based not on a national aggregate, but on subsets of the population? > This is something the Left does all the time. Pitching Black v. White. > Rich v. Poor. Gay v. Straight. Us v. Them. It's race-baiting. It's > wealth-baiting. Whatever. Because if it weren't for the left, those things wouldn't exist, right? No one on the right even recognizes them. Wait a minute: you're really Stephen Colbert, aren't you. This whole thing is a big gag - seeing how many people you can get to actually believe you believe these things, right? The problem the Left runs into in this situation is that, at heart, the > concept of the individual rubs against the grain of their doctrine. If > you recognize the individual, you then have to recognize the concept of > individual rights. Property rights (eminent domain, the growing tax > disparity, etc.), gun ownership (crap! there it is again), and, as Don > Imus found out recently, free speech all come back into play when you > recognize the individual. "The growing tax disparity"? Between whom? Poor people often pay *more* of their total income into taxes - because sales taxes and similar flat fees eat up a higher proportion of the total cost. Plus which the ability to itemize deductions - particularly once you own property - is far better than the standard deduction. Outside of those earning too little even to pay taxes, the actual percentage of income paid to taxes is often only marginally higher among the wealthy...and in some cases is actually lower, depending upon the source of their income and what sort of deductions they're allowed. Not to mention that the Bush administration's tax-rate changes consistently have reduced the amount the wealthy pay in, by reducing the highest marginal rate. So what's this "disparity" you're talking about? And there are those who'd argue that health, jobs, and other things are individual rights as well - rights which are, of course, not granted in this country, rights which are goals of leftists. I've only rarely met these cardboard cartoon leftists you keep talking about - - the ones who want some sort of megastate that restricts you from...doing what, exactly? Firing off guns on Main Street at high noon? Looking at a few lines regarding the issue from different sources: > > "There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between > the State and the Individual; between the State, which demands, and the > individual, who attempts to evade such demands." > > In that case would the individual would be the one seeking, say, a > smaller, less invasive government? This assumes that the individual only ever wishes to evade the state - rather than relies upon it, or expects some protection from it. But the main thing you're forgetting here - and the reason Der Kommander brought this up a few days ago - is that in a representative democracy, the government or the state is not properly conceived of as a separate, independent entity. It *is* us, the citizens, we individuals, being represented by freely elected people we've chosen. That's the ideal: we fall well short. But apparently you don't believe it's possible, at all. I'm more optimistic, even if I remain cautiously cynical. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:13:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >(Ayn Rand) Aside from all this generally getting too grim and/or irritating, I gotta say that if you really want to lose me quoting Ayn Rand is an ideal way to do it. I mean, puh-lease. Sure, I read a bunch of that stuff when I was 14 and it seemed pretty impressive at the time, but then again, I was 14. If I wanna read reactionary prose poetry these days I'll stick to Celine - I mean, he may have been a anti-semitic Nazi sympathizer but at least he could write. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:24:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, The Great Quail wrote: >>> What is *not* a legitimate use for these guns is killing innocent >>> people. >> >> No one is innocent. > > Comments like this are what remind me what a weird, disconnected crank > you can be. Why don't you send this exchange to the families of the > dead? I'm sure they'd have something to say about your smug ideology. I think you misunderstand me, sir. My comment was meant to point out that killing is bad no matter who gets it. This distinction between the "innocent" and the "guilty" is a false dichotomy that only serves to support more killing. To quote one of my favorite films, "There aren't good guys and evil guys... there's just... a bunch... of GUYS." Anytime somebody says, "Those folks were innocent and don't deserve to be killed", they're implying that some folks DO "deserve" to be killed and I simply do not support that. Indeed, I think the whole concept of "deserving" is nonsense. > But then again, you are the one who was posting to the effect that the > United States had it coming while they were still searching for the > bodies in the rubble of 911. Actually, what I wrote was that I can see how some people were willing to give it to the USA, considering certain policies and attitudes. And if you are NOT willing to look and see WHY people do what they do and instead fall back to some lazy, self-centered worldview that calls people "crazy" or "broken", you'll never be able to address causes and always be running around treating symptoms (which tend to escalate when the causes are unchecked). So don't twist my words and make it appear as though I support the killing of anyone at all. That's not what I wrote and not the case. > Stop pretending to care, Capuchin. You only care about yourself -- and > some ideological, utopian, crypto-fascist, imaginary construct of the > "world" and how it "should" be. Have you no ethics, sir? If you do, then you also have an "imaginary construct of the world and how it should be". In fact, if you didn't, you wouldn't be chastising me right now (presumably to get me to conform to your "world" and how you think it "should" be). You don't state your normative judgments, but you act on them. To me, that's dishonest -- either intellectually or socially. If you don't air your views in the purest form you can, you are not giving yourself the best opportunity to be corrected by the scrutiny of others. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:23:56 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Nailguns This FAQ just arrived in my mailbox and I thought I'd add it to the gun discussion. In Canada we had a school massacre a few years back even though we discourage gun use, so the banning of weapons is not even enough to stop tragedies like the one in Virginia. Suicidal guys can't be stopped from taking others with them it seems. Blaming the parents of this killer is just wrong, I would imagine that his Korean parents did all the right things. This guy was just jealous of the rich kids and had a dark imagination. I just feel sorry for all the decent people whose lives were snuffed out by this crazy bastard. Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC T H E M O S T U S E F U L F A Q E V E R . BY T.G. GIBBON - - - - - The Nailgun Engineering Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) 1. What is the Nailgun Engineering FAQ? The NEF is a resource to help our readers better understand their options in the nailgun market and to get the most out of products they may already have by answering the questions most commonly asked by our readers. The NEF provides information about the engineering of the nailgun itself as well as engineering projects that can be done with a nailgun. 2. What is a nailgun? A nailgun is a modern hand-held device for driving nails into building materials that is both safer and quicker than primitive methods such as rocks, shoes, dictionaries, and the skulls of heretics. 3. I have heard there is more than one kind of nailgun, is this true? Yes. The two main varieties of nailgun are combustion and pneumatic. Combustions are very similar to real guns. In these the driving force is provided by a center-fire dummy cartridge in a chamber at the back of the tool which is struck by a firing pin and a barrel directs the explosion's motive force to the nail perched at the business end of the gun. Pneumatics have a tube hooked-up to a tank of compressed air. Depression of the trigger results in a release of highly pressurized air which forces the nail into the material. Less common nailguns include the surly spitting man and the make-believe varieties. These last two are not recommended by the operators of the NEF. 4. What happens when I die? Your subjecthood will cease. The constant internal narrative "I" which has propelled you from suckling at your mother's teat through collective showers in gym to phi beta kappa, marriage, three divorces and two children will be silenced forever. Nothing will ever happen to "you" again, and you won't even be around to notice. Your body will decay and return to the base elements out of which it arose. Your internment ceremony will be poorly attended but one ex-wife will weep for you. 5. Should I decide to build a birdhouse, is true love possible? True love is only possible once you have decided to build a birdhouse. The best birdhouses use solid wood and not particle board or plywood although some of the composites coming on the market today do show promise and offer the possibility of skipping the tar-paper and water-proofing steps that often trip-up beginners. Love exists only where a refuge is offered for the fragile things of the universe. Also one must be willing to accept that this house, of love or of birds, may never be inhabited. One should also note the birds commonly in your area and make the birdhouse appropriate to those species. Birdcages, however, as noted in literature and popular entertainment, are not acceptable substitutes for birdhouses. 6. Is there a god? No. 7. You mentioned combustion and pneumatic nailguns and others, but isn't there also a tensioned-spring activated nailgun? There is a product similar to nailguns that is operated with the tensing and releasing of a spring, but it is for brads, not nails. Information about this brad-gun can be found in the Ultimate Brad FAQ. It is also important to note that social justice can only arise when the security and liberty of the masses are accepted as the primary aims of society. Disengaging the "profit" motive and the workers' control of the means of production are vital steps in this direction. 8. Is it cruel to bring children into this world? Yes and no. It is selfish and they will suffer. But suffering is the only route to enlightenment, and is a process of some satisfaction. One cannot have the rose without the thorn, the butter without the fat, nor the bull without the horns. If you prepare your children as best as possible for the torturous vagaries and random miseries of life you will position them to enjoy their moments of drunken collegiate idleness to the fullest. And what more can a parent hope for? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:27:15 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Rex wrote: >Well, you DON'T tote on Superman's cape. I believe that was "tug." Michael "Can't believe I'm using my ever-limited memory to correct a Croce reference" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag3 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:33:30 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza >>on the way _Fight Club_ in particular >> works: I think a viewer that takes it straight (pun intended) as a macho >> fantasy is truly missing the point. > I always thought the scene that illuminates the whole movie is the bit where Edward Norton is sitting on the toilet with what looks for all the world like an Ikea catalogue. Paranthetically I thought I'd die laughing whe I saw my first "What Would Tyler Durden Do?" bumpersticker. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:34 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... - -- kevin is rumored to have mumbled on 19. April 2007 08:54:28 -0700 regarding Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free...: > What the whole debate boils down to is that you have opposing camps > arguing over whether the proper function of the apparatus of the state is > to be an advocate for the powerful or the powerless. People are going to > fall on the side that best serves their interest, unless they're not > thinking clearly enough to see where their interests lie. Except for the perverse few who are "powerful" and still advocate that the state should help the powerless. I am relatively rich (e.g. I just bought a condo), and I still think there should be higher taxes for people like me (but also for those who are much richer than me, of course). It's terrible that people live in poverty when others are so wealthy. But I don't consider it my personal job to do something about that. In my very European eyes that's the job of the state. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > What rights that you would otherwise exercise are being infringed upon > by the government? Government primarily exists to enforce property relations. Every hungry person is a victim of the government impinging upon their freedom. Same goes for every homeless person. There are as many homeless people in the USA as there are people whose income exceeds US$200,000 annually. Who is suffering more from government interference? > This assumes that the individual only ever wishes to evade the state - > rather than relies upon it, or expects some protection from it. This is why "anarcho-capitalism" is nonsense. Without a VERY powerful state, you don't get money, property, or any of those other things on which capitalism depends. I mean, how in Hell are you supposed to exploit labor if laborers aren't subjugated by the police? > But the main thing you're forgetting here - and the reason Der Kommander > brought this up a few days ago - is that in a representative democracy, > the government or the state is not properly conceived of as a separate, > independent entity. Well, clearly, Jeffrey, your "democracy" is not compatible with the concept of the individual. When the majority rules, the minority suffers and the individual is the smallest minority. Sure, 95% of the wealth is controlled by 4% of the population. But even if 95% of the wealth is controlled by ONE PERSON, it would be an infringment on their rights as individuals to restrict their ability to exert that control in any way they like. Clearly, the only political system consistent with individualism is absolute monarchy where all property is the property of the Crown and people work in order to receive sustenance from their benefactor. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #164 ********************************