PDA

View Full Version : Results of Jihad



Bolverk
14th February 03, 05:24 PM
GLOBAL JIHAD
Islamists Leave 'Killing Field' of Civilians
Team finds remains of unarmed villagers in southern Sudan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 14, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The bones of scores of villagers litter a "killing field" left in the wake of an unprovoked attack by Sudan's militant Islamic regime in which as many as 3,000 unarmed civilians died, according to a team of fact-finders.

Dennis Bennett of the relief group Servant's Heart recently returned from Upper Nile Province where he and his colleagues heard local survivors tell of a massive attack they believe killed between one-third and one-half of the 6,000 people who lived in the villages of Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji and Yawaji.

A woman from Dengaji named Tangook told Bennett's team that her two children, approximately ages 4 and 5, were killed in the late April 2002 attack by Arab soldiers. Two days after she fled to a neighboring village, men from Dengaji went back to find the bodies.

"My children’s bodies were being eaten by birds," she said, according to a transcript of a video interview. "The soldiers burned all our houses and took all our belongings. When the men went back to the village looking for [salvageable] items, they found almost nothing left."

Bennett said the estimate of up to 3,000 dead was made in part by counting survivors who have returned to the villages and those in refugee camps. But he wants an investigation from an independent monitoring team that was established in an agreement with the Khartoum regime last October.

"It was a completely unarmed region of more than 6,000 unarmed civilians," Bennett told WND. "No rebel soldier was in the area and none had ever been there."

Villagers interviewed said many of the people are Christians and some are animists.

'Jihad is our way'

Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 5 million have become refugees.

Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October 2001 by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.

"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs."

Survivors in the Upper Nile villages said the attackers were members of the Sudan regular army from the Boing Garrison, commanded by Brig. Gen. Ibrahim Saleh.

Bennett said his team – which included Mel Middleton, president of Freedom Quest International and Glenn Penner, communications director of Voice of the Martyrs Canada – walked almost 30 miles each way in 115-degree heat to document the incident.

'Deliberate attacks' on civilians

The U.S. State Department said yesterday it has forwarded Bennett's findings to the international Civilian Protection and Monitoring Team, CPMT, assigned to report on violations of the March 2002 agreement between Khartoum and the rebel Sudanese People's Liberation Movement.

The agreement specifically barred both sides from attacking civilians. Bennett and his colleagues are urging the State Department to include details of the attack in the report to Congress mandated by the Sudan Peace Act, which was signed into law last October.

The Sudan Peace Act requires the U.S. administration to present a detailed report by April 21 of any acts of genocide or war crimes.

Last Sunday, the CPMT issued a report charging that since Dec. 31, government-backed forces had initiated "deliberate attacks against non-combatant civilians and civilian facilities" in Western Upper Nile province.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday in response to the report that the U.S. condemns "these unconscionable attacks and abuses against civilians."

The CPMT said many of the attacks focused on towns along a road under construction between Bentiu and Adok that would provide access to numerous oil facilities in the province.

In a similar campaign in the Western Upper Nile and Kordofan Provinces in 1997, militia and government forces raided villages to clear out the area for an oil pipeline project to Port Sudan. China's national oil company holds a majority stake in the pipeline.

Many human rights groups charge that Khartoum is using oil revenues to fuel its war effort. Bennett, with 20 years experience in international risk management and banking, said he was the first to probe the link between oil and jihad that is now documented and publicized by the rights groups. His research began in 1996 when he asked: If you're the government of Sudan and you're broke, how are you paying for your war?

On his recent fact-finding trip, Bennett said his team came within five miles of the Government of Sudan positions from which the attack was launched. Three Arab nomads spying for the government were caught in a village Bennett visited, which forced his team to leave secretly and walk most of the night to reach safety.

Early morning assault

In the April 2002 attack, heavily-armed government forces reportedly struck in the early morning as the villagers slept, launching a rampage of killing, looting and burning down houses. Residents said the attackers were armed with 60 millimeter mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, 12.7 millimeter heavy machine guns and AK-47 assault rifles.

In a videotaped interview, villager Tunya Jok said he witnessed his 4-year -old daughter being shot and killed as she fled from the soldiers.

Later, his 6-year-old son was captured and beheaded by the soldiers. The boy's body was thrown into a burning hut and his head planted upright, facing away from the dwelling.

Awtio, subchief of the village of Liang, said a young girl named Yata was captured by the soldiers and thrown into a fire.

Others fled into the bush and died there, he said.

Wol Majief, a woman from Dengaji, said she began to flee when soldiers started shooting, but four of her children were killed.

Teela, Anjota, Jotier and Berta were shot by the troops, she said.

Dengaji village chief Billy Worgo told Bennett's team, "Your coming here is good."

"This is the first time anyone from the outside has come to find out about this problem," he said. "This is very encouraging to us. Your visit makes us very happy."


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
14th February 03, 06:50 PM
Why should we allow this type of bigotry to continue. If we truly believe in equality and freedom, it is up to us to protect those who can not protect themselves. This can only be done by destroying the Islamo-Fascists quickly and desicively, or did we learn nothing from World War II at all.

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Edited by - Bolverk on February 14 2003 17:51:58

elipson
14th February 03, 07:30 PM
When people try and help, it ends up as Somalia....
I agree with what your saying, totally, just that its easier said then done.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

J Zen
14th February 03, 07:50 PM
What makes people think the war has anything to do with protecting ideals (i.e. freedom vs. terrorism)? Lets face it, the US government wouldn't even care to intervene if the issue has nothing that affects the economic & political interests of the America. The US is not the world police and frankly doesn't have the right or legitimacy to be one if its actions in the historic past are taken into account. Trying to act like one certainly will lead to far more troubles than it will solve in the long run.

Freddy
15th February 03, 07:35 PM
People shoud have a look at the American military's own allies- Saudi Arabia , Turkey and others. They are Islamic!???! They have some pretty bad human rights records.


"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

SamHarber
17th February 03, 03:18 PM
Actually, Turkey is a secular government. At least in theory.
I suppose its all to do with pragmatism. Robert Mugabe is killing hundreds of people who oppose him, the elections are rigged, white farmers are being thrown off their land, the dissenting population are allowed to starve, and what is the UK government doing about it? They've asked our cricket team not to play there. The only difference between the situation in Iraq and Zimbabwe is oil and WMD.
There are times when I despair of human nature. Have you heard about the peace protestors who are going to Iraq to act as human shields? I'm really trying hard to think of a witty punchline.

sanchin
17th February 03, 03:31 PM
I find it weird that the government is happy to allow a million people to demonstrate in London against a war in Iraq, yet got the police to bundle away the 'Free Tibet' protestors when the Chinese PM visited.

Maybe we're hoping to do a lot of business with China.....

Think I'm getting too old for this...

elipson
18th February 03, 01:24 AM
I'm curious about something. Lots of people say that the States should step in a help fix the problems of the world.
But hypothetically thinking, what would people think if Britian or France or someone had intervened in the US civil war??

Just curious what people think about this.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

The Wastrel
18th February 03, 09:57 AM
"American military's own allies"

What? The military has its OWN allies?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Osiris
18th February 03, 10:01 AM
Probably.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
18th February 03, 10:12 AM
Come on.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

magikchiongson
18th February 03, 11:51 AM
I think this article is more for the people who don't understand Jihad, who think the only reason why the U.S is being attacked is because its a big bully.

I'm pretty certain, that if we had a Muslim Nation bordering the U.S we would see these types of raids. The link between Islam and Violence being done in the Sudan is undeniable. I'm not anti-Muslim but I can't understand why we shouldn't ask hey wtf is going on here? What's up with your religion Mohhamed?

Sudan is a pretty messed up situation, Arab and Black Muslims have been raiding and taking slaves of Christians and Animists for centuries up to today. Yet I don't see liberal doo gooders protesting that, I don't see Jesse Jackson speaking out against it or anything. Maybe because Arab and Black Muslims can't give him any extortion money? (just a thought)

The Wastrel
18th February 03, 11:53 AM
wtf is going on here? What's up with your religion Mohhamed?

ROTFLMAO?!! You're almost okay now Magik.


**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Osiris
18th February 03, 02:07 PM
"Arab and Black Muslims have been raiding and taking slaves of Christians and Animists for centuries up to today. Yet I don't see liberal doo gooders protesting that, I don't see Jesse Jackson speaking out against it or anything."

Christians started the crusades. Christianity is not a religion. Its a weapon. As far as the bible is concerned, it may or may not be truth, but the bible isnt taught to christians. Christianity as it exists today needs to be wiped from the face of this earth.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

Bolverk
18th February 03, 02:33 PM
"Arab and Black Muslims have been raiding and taking slaves of Christians and Animists for centuries up to today. Yet I don't see liberal doo gooders protesting that, I don't see Jesse Jackson speaking out against it or anything."

Christians started the crusades. Christianity is not a religion. Its a weapon. As far as the bible is concerned, it may or may not be truth, but the bible isnt taught to christians. Christianity as it exists today needs to be wiped from the face of this earth.


Yes, it is true that the Crusades were started by Christians. But you do not address why. It was in reponse to the atrocities committed by Mohammedan tyranny. Many Christians were being killed and lands being taken by invading hordes. It is simple cause and effect, the Crusades were a simple response to violence being perpetrated by people in what is now the middle east.

Sincerely,


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Deadpan Scientist
18th February 03, 02:35 PM
But hypothetically thinking, what would people think if Britian or France or someone had intervened in the US civil war??


If?!

magikchiongson
18th February 03, 03:37 PM
True Bolverk, I'm a little surprised at people who conjure up the Crusades to somehow excuse what is going on with Fundamentalists Islam today. They tend to ignore the fact, that the Crusades were in response to the continued Islamic Assault on the Byzantine Empire. Much of the Middle East today used to be Bzyantine Christian Lands.

Also, Christians aren't Crusading anymore, but Muslims are still launching Jihads. Why is that? I"m not saying there's anything wrong with having a bumper sticker that says WWAD (what would Allah do?) that just means you're a pious Muslim, I do kinda wonder when Terrorists Start Invoking Allah when they go blow the snot out of something.

Osiris
18th February 03, 03:52 PM
"Also, Christians aren't Crusading anymore, but Muslims are still launching Jihads."

Theyre not?

Though Im not a Muslim, I have a lot more respect for them then I do for Christians. Theyre willing to die for what they believe in as opposed to letting god handle it.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

Osiris
18th February 03, 03:52 PM
"Also, Christians aren't Crusading anymore, but Muslims are still launching Jihads."

Theyre not?

Though Im not a Muslim, I have a lot more respect for them then I do for Christians. Theyre willing to die for what they believe in as opposed to letting god handle it.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

patfromlogan
18th February 03, 04:03 PM
For Christ's sake! Who gives a FUCK? They don't have OIL!!! If there was oil in this area of Sudan we'd be there pronto. The United States of America only gives a shit if it involves MONEY.

Look at our relations with friendly old genocidic Indonesia, or a dozen other countries.

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

J Zen
18th February 03, 04:05 PM
---It was in reponse to the atrocities committed by Mohammedan tyranny. Many Christians were being killed and lands being taken by invading hordes.---

Not simply just that, the attack on Byzantine certainly gave the crusaders the fuel to motivate the Christians to launch the crusade against the muslims, but it wasn't just a retaliatory strike. Even if the Muslims didn't threaten the political stability of the Byzantine empire, I highly doubt that the crusade wouldn't have happened. The crusaders would have agressively expanded to the Islamic world anyway - it's their nature to be war-like and even encouraged by the Christian doctrine. Christianity by nature is/was just as much a religion suited for war as Islam. Further more, it didn't help to have the church whom controlled most of the political power in the western world, full of popes who were over-zealous and power-hungry. Who felt theologically and politically threatened by the spread of Islam in North Africa & Asia Minor. Therefore, the crusade wasn't just a retaliation, but rather also a pro-active effort by the church to rid the entire world of infidels. It was just as much a religious war, if not more so, than a political war. The Christian doctrine of Holy War clearly states that it was a God-given duty for a devout christian to to root out all evil in the world, i,e. the pagans & the infiels. The Church must engage in war whenever it encounters peoples it considers evil (because the Church is the instrument of good). Thus, war is initiated by the Church, not the State, and is very religious in nature.

This in no way justifies the Islamic fundamentalism actions that continue today, but they sure have a good reason to hate the west when the western world's fair share of atrocious past actions are considered. Trying to place all the blame on the Islamic world is simply an attempt to avoid the harsh historical reality of what was going on. Lets face it, it's not like the Christian west were innocent victim or anything like that.

Osiris
18th February 03, 04:13 PM
"The Christian doctrine of Holy War clearly states that it was a God-given duty for a devout christian to to root out all evil in the world, i,e. the pagans & the infiels."

Unless youre black. Thats whats interesting about Christianity. When its spread, the conquered people get a watered down version that encourges them to sit on their ass and let god fight for them. This is clearly against scripture (psalms 82). This belief still exists within the black church today. People are too lazy to read the bible so they just pray a lot. Its absolute foolishness. Up in church people can "catch the holy ghost" but when the police start trippin theyre just catching beatdowns. If an enemy starts threatning the white christian establishment, then all of a sudden Jesus is ready for war. Quite interesting. BTW has anyone noticed how much Jesus resembles another savior god?

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

magikchiongson
18th February 03, 04:47 PM
First I don't really see the point of arguing about the Crusades, gawd how many years has it been since the last one? No Christians do not engage in Holy War anymore, ohh I'm sure you'll find your run of the mill whackos around the World fighting for Religion but nowhere near the amount of Muslims doing it. Osiris what the heck are you talking about man? I don't see any Cops beating down Black Folks at Church. Black People are lazy because bible told them to? I guess I'm confused....

Also, I think you forgot, the Sudan is an African Nation, so there are a lot of Black People there. Christians are being terrorized by Fundamentalists that's the point of the whole article/thread "Jesus is ready to go to War for them" if you must put it that way. The more pertinent issue here, is why don't the Left give a shyt about the Sudanese? When the violence is black on black, or Muslim on Black Christian where are the Peaceniks? Jesse Jacksons? Farakhans? and other liberals?

How come you don't care? Black folks are dying, not just getting beat on by "trippin" Cops. If you wanna make the argument directed at the Right that we don't care because there's no Oil there, that's fine, but how come Aparheid hating Libs aren't in an uproar about what's going on there now? No human shields for the Sudanese? The only people who are their now are CHRISTIAN Missionaries buying children who get raped and forced to labor on the fields by their Fundamentalists Masters.

Osiris
18th February 03, 05:04 PM
"I don't see any Cops beating down Black Folks at Church."

I didnt say at the church. I meant other places.

"Christians are being terrorized by Fundamentalists that's the point of the whole article/thread"

Whats your point?

"The more pertinent issue here, is why don't the Left give a shyt about the Sudanese? When the violence is black on black, or Muslim on Black Christian where are the Peaceniks? Jesse Jacksons? Farakhans? and other liberals?"

Theyre idiots. They play politics and nothing else.

You seem to have missed my point. My point is that there are 2 brands of christianity going around. The first is the form that encourges warfare. The second is the form that is the result of warfare. The conqueres entice people to fight by using the first form. As they expand, they spread the second form, which advocates weakness. That is why I have very little respect for christianity. The bible is used as a tool to promote either form. Christians are NOT encourged to do a serous study, ask questions, and analyze it for themselves. Also the whole truth has not been presented. The catholic church decides which books belong and which dont. They happen to have been involved in all types of acts that could only be described as evil. What used to be a religion has been tampered with for political purposes. What god would blatently plagerize from other religious works? Have you read the book of the dead? Quite interesting.

"The only people who are their now are CHRISTIAN Missionaries buying children who get raped and forced to labor on the fields by their Fundamentalists Masters."

This is encourged by the second form.

"Black People are lazy because bible told them to?"

Many do not act because they are seriously waiting for god to handle things. They sit and pray and nothing happens. Then they tell you about how god always answers prayers, but just takes a while.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

elipson
18th February 03, 05:04 PM
Stories like what goes on in Sudan dont make front page news.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Little Idea
18th February 03, 06:23 PM
The article is 99% fabricated propaganda.

Where are the pictures?

Wether you are talking about the 'Arabs' in the North or the tribes in the South, they all would have been called niggers in the US.

Are there atrocities in Sudan? Yes

Is it fundamentalist Islam against pious Christianity? Nope

It's a big mess resulting from poverty, lack of education, British Colonialism, political corruption, and basic human nature.

Osiris,

Its been discussed to death. . .
(granted, probably not on martial arts message boards)

Search Google: osiris jesus

magikchiongson
19th February 03, 09:16 AM
Lack of education or poverty doesn't mean I'm gonna invade the next town kill their men, run off with their women to force them to work my cocoa plantations. That's just rhetoric. That's like saying poor uneducated people are violent, that's not correct.

I kinda understand your point Osiris, I've meet these "God will take care of me," people in my life and they're the type to strap on two of their kids on a dirt bike speed around that tight corner with Buses coming the oppossite direction. When I ask them "Aren't you scared of getting into an accident?" They say "No, its in God's hands" I've also meet those meak lambs who just sit around and accept whatever life throws at them. I don't think its some sort of design to keep a conquered people down though, I think its just strange reaction to Christianity.

That's probably why Catholic Countries are poor countries, and Protestant type countries accomplished more.

Osiris
19th February 03, 09:22 AM
It at least sometimes by design. Its been in the black community since slavery.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 09:29 AM
Osiris,
You're basically correct about these two different forms of Christianity. Ecclesiastical religions (developed, specialized religions that arise with the state) have to serve these dual functions. They all have doctrines that discourage care for worldy things, for the conditions of this life, that promise reward for the endurance of suffering, for humility. Religions that pacify the underclass. Like Nietzsche's idea of the master/slave moralities.
It's interesting to hear a "black" person talk like this about religion. I'm sure you'd agree that they tend to be a very uncritical religious group.
It has always filled me with a kind of loathing to see black church services (not the same kind of loathing when I watch whites).I just get this sense of the abandonment of this life, of assimilation by superstition, of submission to the world.
I'm very intolerant of all forms of religion, and unapologetic about it. Unrelated question: why did you choose to go to a black college?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

magikchiongson
19th February 03, 09:48 AM
Hmm Its weird but Osiris is saying the same things that one of my personal heroes, who just happens to be black also. I'm guessing here, but I suppose Osiris is a non-religious person who believes that religion is used as a tool to control the Lower Classes. That's interesting, since I often hear it from Religious people who say that things like Welfare (Gov will take care of me, as oppossed to God will take care of me) control the lower classes. Same principle different tool, take away personal responsibility and self drive and you got a lower class that got owned.

Justme
19th February 03, 10:02 AM
Hmmm.. I don't know about the crusades. People now and then have a tendency to use religion to justify alot. IN MY OPINION, Osiris my opinion, God wants us to do the right thing. I am a Catholic. I love being a Catholic for alot of reasons I don't want to go into here. However, that said, I believe God approaches us each individually. That the beauty of being God. He can do that. We then collectively tend to muddle things up. Thats why there are so many religions, IN MY OPINION, we tend to confuse the truth. So what is the truth. Well, I think only God really knows, and we will find out when we meet him. Until then, I think we should take each event in OUR daily lives and try to do the right thing. Its really the only thing we can impact. I cannot change world politics or overall world strife. I can however be nicer to Squall (boy thats hard). I can try to talk nicer to Boyd.... Osiris if your ever coming to Cleveland let me know. I will buy you dinner (Squall says you come from a ghetto so you probably need food). You can push me around in my wheel chair. we can talk about chi. I love that topic it really gets the board moving.

Justme
19th February 03, 10:04 AM
Wastrel if I get beatup its your fault!!!!

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 10:15 AM
Hehehe. You've turned awfully funny Justme.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
19th February 03, 10:27 AM
Wastrel I am talking about my PM!!!!

Osiris
19th February 03, 11:43 AM
"I'm guessing here, but I suppose Osiris is a non-religious person who believes that religion is used as a tool to control the Lower Classes."

Not quite nonreligious. Close enough though.

"That's interesting, since I often hear it from Religious people who say that things like Welfare (Gov will take care of me, as oppossed to God will take care of me) control the lower classes."

Welfare promises little and delivers the little that it promises. People expect god to destroy entire civilizations for them. To make them kings and to render them invincible. This is what god promises to the weak. And they pray for it and wait for it. They fail to realize that the prophecies were written to be self fulfilling. Look at when Jesus told his disciples to buy swords. His rationale was that it was written. He knew the prophecies and made that shit real. Today, the weak sit and pray for a spirit to drop from the sky. And it does. They go into trances and dance and shout and faint. Posessed by the holy spirit. But where's the spirit when its time to survive? Where is he when you need to be posessed by a god? Why is it that the people youre asking god to destroy are praying to the same spirit, acting at the same time, and beating your ass? I do believe in God, but I dont believe in a genie.

"We then collectively tend to muddle things up."

LOL. Its not muddling. Its design.

"It has always filled me with a kind of loathing to see black church services (not the same kind of loathing when I watch whites).I just get this sense of the abandonment of this life, of assimilation by superstition, of submission to the world."

Its really sad. I cant stand it. They dont know the bible and they dont know reality. They ask for change and it never comes. They need to make shit happen. Let god come through if he wants, but handle your business.

"Unrelated question: why did you choose to go to a black college?"

Best school for black males anywhere. They acceptec me so I came.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

elipson
19th February 03, 03:04 PM
My take on this whole thing is, that God gives us the opportunity, but we gotta step up and take.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Justme
19th February 03, 03:10 PM
Osiris. God works through us. He has to. Otherwise he would override your free will. Free will is very important. For us. God looks at us like an astronomer looks a a distant galaxy. Looking at millions of years of time at a glance. Only he can interpret and interact even though see all time at once. Boy I wish you were face to face. These discussion are so hard over this medium. Hey, I'll send you a greyhound ticket. Squall says you live in a ghetto, so I'll pay your way to see me.



Edited by - justme on February 19 2003 14:35:34

Justme
19th February 03, 03:13 PM
"My take on this whole thing is, that God gives us the opportunity, but we gotta step up and take."

Yep. God works through us. Tell you what. If everyone in this thread wants to make a postive difference. Sign off, and go out and do something good for someone. Even if you don't like them. Thats not liberal or conservative or queer. Thats being human. ST Anselm said his God was the most powerful because he had the quality of EXISTENCE!!!

GOD BELIEVES IN CHI!!!!! HE MADE IT. HE ALSO BELIVES IN RICKSON GRACIE HE MADE HIM TOO.

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 03:57 PM
Justme,

St. Anselm? The ontological proof of god is a joke, but anyway, nice reference.

Osiris,
I didn't ask why you went to Morehouse, I asked why you chose a black college. Why did you choose it over an "integrated" school? One of my best friends went to Howard, then later switched to Dartmouth. I'm interested to hear all about EVERYTHING that led you to make that decision. To be honest, you belong to a class about which I am very curious. Intelligent, often non-liberal, inward-looking, intellectual but not co-opted, unidealistic, young black men. If I may be so blunt, I think you're the future of any strong and meaningful "black" identity.
My own position on this is that, of course, race doesn't exist at all. And we'd be better off if we could rid ourselves of the concept.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Bolverk
19th February 03, 04:06 PM
The article is 99% fabricated propaganda.

Where are the pictures?

Wether you are talking about the 'Arabs' in the North or the tribes in the South, they all would have been called niggers in the US.

Are there atrocities in Sudan? Yes

Is it fundamentalist Islam against pious Christianity? Nope

It's a big mess resulting from poverty, lack of education, British Colonialism, political corruption, and basic human nature.

Osiris,

The pictures are on the news site I got the article from. I did not post the pictures, to much of a hassle. As far as it being a fabrication, that is false. You just fail to open your eyes to any facts that may contradict your already preconceived opinions.

You base the assumption, that the facts are lacking, on past events which have no correlation to current events. Your views are basically racisit, in that you assume that the America of 100 years ago still exists, with all of its racists views intact. Which ofcourse belittles the fact that the United States is the only place, in the entire existence of human beings, where one race of people fought a war to free another race of people. Yet you are persistent in your view that racism is central to this nation. Perhaps you are correct, but I would wager that the group of people you think are racist are not the ones who truly are the racists. Perhaps the true racism lies with the groups who scream racist the loudest and most often.


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Justme
19th February 03, 04:11 PM
"St. Anselm? The ontological proof of god is a joke, but anyway, nice reference. "

Yeah, I like that reference. How about Descarte! We could bring him into this to. No wait hes dead! Oh well.

Wastrel - I still am waiting. I only have till tomorrow. So if I get clocked....(Damn 97B's there always late....)





Edited by - justme on February 19 2003 15:13:40

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 05:24 PM
98G. Never late, always underarmed.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Osiris
19th February 03, 06:31 PM
"My take on this whole thing is, that God gives us the opportunity, but we gotta step up and take."

True. Unfortunately this is often not taught today. Often people pray for big things that require sacrafice. Instead of making it happen and giving up time, money, liberty, life, or whatever is required, they wait for god to deliver them. Go to a black church one day and see how many cry for liberation or freedom or whatever. Then see how many step out of the churh and pull the AK out of the trunk. NONE. They talk about how the current establishment is so evil and needs to be eliminated, but they make no steps towards it happening.

"United States is the only place, in the entire existence of human beings, where one race of people fought a war to free another race of people."

Thats what they told you in your history class?

"Perhaps the true racism lies with the groups who scream racist the loudest and most often."

I doubt that.

"I'm interested to hear all about EVERYTHING that led you to make that decision."

Very little went into it.

"Intelligent, often non-liberal, inward-looking, intellectual but not co-opted, unidealistic, young black men. If I may be so blunt, I think you're the future of any strong and meaningful "black" identity."

Youre wrong. I see a group of idiots "rolling on 24's" while they "holla at bitches". When I was at GA Tech I was surprised. I didnt see to many psuedothugs and no one saw a girl and said "hootiehoo". No one ran around talking about "yuurp" and "soowooop". It was an entirely different enviroment. It seems to me that they let just anyone in here. They even let me in. Sample class discussion:

"What do you all think of the war on Iraq."

"We gotta go in an gettem. We buying all this oil and they raisin prices. That means we gotta gettem."

"We do?"

"Yeh and they spreadin communism and shit."

We're in trouble.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 07:08 PM
I'm wrong? I think you proved my point. I'm not saying there's a lot of you, but that there needs to be if "you" are going to go anywhere. So why ARE you at Morehouse if that's the environment?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 07:10 PM
Oh, I looked at my post and it reads like I was talking about people at black colleges. Not at all. It was an individual judgement. Have you read any Shelby Steele yet?

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Osiris
19th February 03, 07:28 PM
Oh, I understand what you mean now. Thanks.

"Have you read any Shelby Steele yet?"

Not yet. What of hers should I read?

"So why ARE you at Morehouse if that's the environment?"

To be honest, I shouldnt have gone to any college that would have accepted me. I didnt do shit in highschool. Bored me. I was planning on taking a year off, getting a job and possibly teaching a little bullshido. The master of my old school keeps mentioning that hes trying to give it away or hire help. I applied to a few colleges and universities without much thought. My papers were all late and carelessly filled out. Some places didnt even get my transcript. I got rejected from one and accepted to 2 or 3. Morehouse didnt have my transcript so they said nothing. My dad then headed to Morehouse on business and talked to the dean. They sent me info for a summer program that could get me in. I thought about it and saw that the oppurtunity came out of nowhere. Thats why Im here. Saw an oppurtunity and took advantage of it. In retrospect, I probably shpouldve gone to a more diverse school with other races and GIRLS. Now, when I discuss anything serious, people tend to either agree or come with some dumb shit. I get no exposure to different ideas and cultures besides the "thugs" here and the THUGS!!! outside the gate.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

Osiris
19th February 03, 07:47 PM
Also, I wouldnt call myself an inellectual. Next to my rather shallow brothers, I may seem to be so, but rarely to I engage in actvities that could be classified as intellectual in nature. My primary approach to gathering information is simply to study things that either catch my interest or that I need to know for practical reasons. This is the reason for my spotty highschool gpa. If i decide something is impractical or if I lose interest in the subject the I put in little effort into understanding it. I need to work on that.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 07:50 PM
Shelby Steele is a he. I'll actually have to scan the article I'm thinking of and send it on. I couldn't find it online.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

J Zen
19th February 03, 08:44 PM
---United States is the only place, in the entire existence of human beings, where one race of people fought a war to free another race of people.---

The origin of the American Civil War hardly had anything to do with racism or slavery. It was primarily about economic and political disputes. The whole "fight to free slaves" was nothing more than an attempt to claim a noble cause in order to gain support for the war. Anyway even after the war, slavery disappeared only in paper, but it was still widely practiced in a different form of racial & economic oppression which was really not that much better than slavery. The founding fathers didn't fight the war because they thought black slaves needed justice nor equality, they just wanted to utilize the anti-slavery sentiment to their advantage. If anything, many of the founding fathers were some of the most devouted white supremacists. It's a shame that many soldiers were duped to die for a cause that was nothing more than a false promise.

Osiris
19th February 03, 08:46 PM
Slavery did not end until the 60's.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 08:57 PM
That's an utter gloss. Trying to extricate ANY of these causes is fallacious.(That word always makes me break out in an evil grin). If you want to talk about economic and political disputes then you should look at the South. It would be correct to say that the South did not fight to defend slavery, but to protect their economic power and preserve some political independence (which became necessary all of a sudden because the North was pursuing abolition). But it would not be correct to adopt an axiomatic analysis of the North's motives. How can you just wipe away the Abolitionists with a wave of your hand? Look at Bloody Kansas, and the widespread attempts to demographically "shift" the territories aspiring to statehood to slave states. Regular people fought vicious battles over that stuff. One of the major causes of the Civil War was John Brown's abortive raid at Harper's Ferry. If there was ever a man who cared about slavery, it was him.
The failures of Reconstruction don't provide any challenge to the professed anti-slavery motives of the North. What founding fathers participated in the Civil War?! People also like to prop up the segregationist sentiments of abolitionists to "prove" that they didn't care about slavery. But these things DO NOT follow. Segregation does not equal racism does not equal slavery.
This single aspect historical analysis is really uncalled for. None of these things is ever "about" one thing or some other one thing. It's just not that simple. THAT IS a high school version of history.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

The Wastrel
19th February 03, 08:58 PM
Not you Osiris. J. Zen. I would argue that slavery in the U.S. didn't end until they stopped the draft.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Osiris
19th February 03, 09:06 PM
Never mind then.

America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda


Edited by - osiris on February 19 2003 20:08:16

Little Idea
19th February 03, 11:31 PM
Slavery ended?

It was nice smooth transition, but now they enslave most everyone.

Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, for their worst motives, will do the most good.

Welcome to neo-feudalism. . .Good day

The Wastrel
20th February 03, 12:31 AM
"Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, for their worst motives, will do the most good."

LOL. That's it, huh? Liberating self-interest for everyone was a very big deal. And at least you can count on it.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Justme
20th February 03, 10:53 AM
"In retrospect, I probably shpouldve gone to a more diverse school with other races and GIRLS. "

Girls will take away from your studies. Just ask JKDChick. Plus, they'll make you late for class, and sap all your energy. Then you'll have to do hours of Qigong to build it back up.

magikchiongson
21st February 03, 01:39 PM
Man, I'm never going to understand some people. Why do people like to walk around with this chip on their shoulder thing? I've got College Classmates who believe that Corporations turn them into Slaves. Umm no working Mohhamed's Cocoa Bean Plant during the day and riding Mohhamed's slong at night is slavery, sitting in a cubicle 8hrs a day so you can pay off your Mortgage, Car, FOOD is not....

Bolverk
21st February 03, 01:45 PM
"United States is the only place, in the entire existence of human beings, where one race of people fought a war to free another race of people."

Thats what they told you in your history class?


So name the other, if you can.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
21st February 03, 01:56 PM
---United States is the only place, in the entire existence of human beings, where one race of people fought a war to free another race of people.---

The origin of the American Civil War hardly had anything to do with racism or slavery. It was primarily about economic and political disputes. The whole "fight to free slaves" was nothing more than an attempt to claim a noble cause in order to gain support for the war. Anyway even after the war, slavery disappeared only in paper, but it was still widely practiced in a different form of racial & economic oppression which was really not that much better than slavery. The founding fathers didn't fight the war because they thought black slaves needed justice nor equality, they just wanted to utilize the anti-slavery sentiment to their advantage. If anything, many of the founding fathers were some of the most devouted white supremacists. It's a shame that many soldiers were duped to die for a cause that was nothing more than a false promise.


Much of what you say is true. However, President Lincoln was writing about the injustices of slavery long before the Civil War erupted. I have heard it said that slavery was made the issue to keep England out of the war on the side of the South. I am not sure of exactly when it became an issue for the war, but it was definately a Northern State idea to abolish salvery, since it did not benefit them because they were a industrial driven economy at the time.

Many people do not understand all of the underlying issues of the Civil War. The South was being forced to pay for a Rail Road they felt would not benefit them. Tarrifs were raised on all shipping, which primarily affected the south since ships were how all of their agricultural goods were moved. There was a third issue, but it escapes my grasp at this time. And the fourth issue was bondage.

Let us not forget, the underground rail road was created by white patriots of the North to help slaves escape bondage also. This started prior to the war, and continue during its duration. Also, even in the Revolutionary War, slaves were offered freedom if they served a term of service with the Continetal Army. This was primarily initiated by a man named Alexander Hamilton.

Sincerely,


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

patfromlogan
21st February 03, 02:29 PM
There's some good stuff on this thread. And a nice lack of name calling.

and a thought from an earlier thread about chanting protesters:

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido! oh, wrong war.

ho ho ho chi min, the NLF is gonna win, oh, wrong war.

I can get the latest hot item, NO WAR ON IRAQ buttons for $25 a hundred ($5shipping)if anyone wants some.

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

Little Idea
21st February 03, 04:23 PM
sitting in a cubicle 8hrs a day so you can pay off your Mortgage, Car, FOOD is not....

Yeah, Yeah, and serfs weren't slaves either. . .

They were, uhh, serfs?

magikchiongson
21st February 03, 04:27 PM
What you want stuff for free? How awful that we actually have to work for a living, those damned Corporate Slavers.

The Wastrel
21st February 03, 04:39 PM
Yeah, I don't get this. Where does productivity come from Little Idea? How should people be compensated for their work? How should resources be divided? Is a farmer supposed to give away everything he doesn't need for himself and his family alone? One major difference between capitalism and feudalism...you can keep your surplus. Communism merely replaces the feudal lord with "the state" and divine right with "revolution".

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

mikus
21st February 03, 05:07 PM
What? In capitalism you can keep your surplus? Or your boss keeps YOUR surplus?... in the form of profit.

Anyone who has actually read marx should know that the soviet union is a piss poor example of what marx was talking about.

He carries a gun.
THE Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A man with a plan.

The Wastrel
21st February 03, 05:35 PM
He was talking about serfs and feudalism, so I kept the example at that level. Your question involves a very different level of analysis and recompense. At a business, how many employees actually produce a surplus of any good? And when the business does, is it seized by the state? No. What about my other questions?
Anyone who has actually read Marx and paid any attention to the history of revolution should know that it doesn't work, it doesn't reconcile with human nature, and there's nothing liberating about it. Anyway, Marx was a pretty shaky economist, and if you really buy into historic teleology, I'm not sure what to think.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Little Idea
21st February 03, 06:06 PM
How awful that we actually have to work for a living, those damned Corporate Slavers.

Does everybody have to work for a living?

Who are 'We'? What is 'work'? and what is a 'living'?

Everyone derides communism as a situation where people gets something for nothing.

The irony is that is that capitalism, particularly modern corperate capitalism, creates a similar imbalance in production versus compensation.

Someone is NOT working for their living either way.

PeedeeShaolin
21st February 03, 06:47 PM
Never let it be said that Little Idea is not one smoooth motherfukker....

Osiris
21st February 03, 06:59 PM
"So name the other, if you can."

What Im saying is that US didnt. Not that we werent the only.



America's express privelage is, blood spillage
We got more balls than billiards
Star-spangled banner, soldier stand up
Cobra commander, stop the propaganda

The Wastrel
22nd February 03, 12:29 AM
The party leadership used to work so hard on behalf of the divine proletariat.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

The Wastrel
22nd February 03, 12:30 AM
Yeah Peedee, he very smoothly avoided answering any serious questions.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Sheol
22nd February 03, 12:51 AM
Little Idea:

Does everybody have to work for a living?

Everybody should be responsible for themselves. If you don't want anything out of life, then you aren't required to exert any effort outside the bare minimum. On the other hand, if you want a car, a home, something more than what you were born with, you had better be ready to work for it because nothing is free.

Who are 'We'? What is 'work'? and what is a 'living'?

"We" are individuals humans who are part of a society. "Work" is the exertation of effort in a purposeful activity. "Living" is the sustaining of life (consumption of resources). Thus, working for a living is activity with the goal of acquiring resources necessary to sustain life... in the manner that one might demand.

Everyone derides communism as a situation where people gets something for nothing.

Communism is an economic system based upon the communal ownership of property. Strictly speaking, personal authority, such as ownership of private property, is supplanted with community (i.e. state) ownership. Thus while a person has no right to personal gain, his part-ownership of property entitles him to benefits without required contributions. Thus, it is easily apparent how true communism is doomed to fail because it relies upon the giving up of self-interest in favor of the collective. This runs counter to human biological and psychological imperatives.

The only way in which communism can exist is if other commodities continued to be traded... such as political power and other perks. That is why under 'practical' communism, everyone is 'equal', but some are more 'equal' than others. Thus, it remains that capitalistic trade, and therefore personal authority, must exist under 'practical' communism. As competition for commodities does result in the accumulation of 'wealth' by the successful, such things as political power, will become concentrated among a small cadre.

However, in contrast with the open market that exists in a capitalistic society, the lack of opportunity to compete, due to loss of personal authority, prevents redistribution of traded commodities among a large number of competitors, thus creating an accumulation of commodities that cannot be easily dispersed. The economic turmoil of post-communist Soviet states is evidence of the disproportionate balance that existed and the weak ability to compete among most older citizens. After all, if someone has never competed for most of their life, it is rather silly to assume that they will be able to perform well competition.

"The irony is that is that capitalism, particularly modern corperate capitalism, creates a similar imbalance in production versus compensation."

You are strictly looking at the only tracked commodity of wealth and neglecting the aspects of supply and demand. In a 'perfect' capitalistic society, people are capable of trading everything. Obviously, the United States is not a 'perfect' example of capitalism because there are limits imposed upon trade. Still, it remains that such limits only restrict that which is expressly forbidden, such as physical enslavement and sale of organs. In reality trade encompasses more than personal property (i.e. monetary wealth) and includes personal authority and resources (i.e. time and energy).

As with all transactions, the price realized is based upon supply and demand. Personal resources are still a relatively plentiful commodity due to continued growth of the population, but certain abilities and skill-sets still demand a higher price, based upon demand. Thus competitive usage of personal resources to gain in-demand abilities and skills is required. As with all things, the ability to leverage a possessed commodity for a desired one is part and parcel of competing. Failure to trade effectively results in a 'poor' outcome.

"Someone is NOT working for their living either way."

If someone achieves a highly favorable rate of exchange, it can appear as if they are not working, but it remains that they are simply utilizing the 'momentum' of prior effort. Even among the wealthiest individuals, they still must trade to compete. In fact, if one does not spend personal resources to continue competing, someone must be compensated to did it for them. WELL compensated, in fact. As a result, the wealth of most tend to evaporate after they retire, demonstrating that consumption of resources (i.e. living) requires trade... either that of personal resources or some other commodity.

TANSTFL = "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

Little Idea
22nd February 03, 04:01 AM
Wastrel,

Ask and you shall receive. . .

Productivity always comes from effort of some kind. Motivation, now that's the real question.

My position is people should ONLY be compensated for their work. (We need to fully define 'work', 'produce' and 'compensate' before I'm willing to go any farther)

Resources SHOULD be divided according to who can make the best use of them. What the best use is might be a bit nebulous though. We'll leave that to the wise benevolent dictators.

Farmers should farm. Food should be eaten. Tailors should sew. Clothing should be worn. It's really pretty simple.

Sheol,


something more than what you were born with

And what if you were born with everything? Did your fearless leader G.W. Bush work his way to the top? Let's see we had daddy in the white house, Dubya in Texas and good ole Zeb down in Florida. Sure am glad we came over here to get away from those hereditary monarchies.

I accept your definitions. So do you fail to recognize their exists a class of people who do not exert effort and still consume resources? There are actually two classes that do this in our present system, one at the top and another at the bottom.


The only way in which communism can exist is if other commodities continued to be traded... such as political power and other perks.

This statement is the opposite of the truth. The accumulation of political power and perks destroys the essence of communism, futhermore, a true democracy is ONLY compatible with a communist economy.

Nothing erodes democracy faster than capitalism, especially when it is sold in nice shiny 'democratic' packaging.

There has never been communism, at least not in modern times. Communism cannot be implemented from the top down.

This is all besides the point. I'm not particularly in favor of communism, I'm just against the exploitation of people.

You seem to have all these noble ideas about the 'lack of an opportunity' to compete in the market, but fail to recognize that the 'market' is controled and manipulated at a very high level. Companies can manipulate laws and the media in such a way that they thrive not by who has the competing with the best products and services, but by who can effectively eliminate competition.

Don't even get me started on debt based curreny.


You are strictly looking at the only tracked commodity of wealth and neglecting the aspects of supply and demand.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain the aspects of supply and demand you are referring to.

Price is not determined by supply and demand. That is a nice clean economic theory, but supply and demand are virtual constructs of academic convenience. Price is determined by perception, and perception is easily influenced.


If someone achieves a highly favorable rate of exchange, it can appear as if they are not working, but it remains that they are simply utilizing the 'momentum' of prior effort.

The first part is false in the sense that there are really people not working. Actually some people appear to be working, when in fact they are not, but this happens at every level of our culture. The second part is entirely true and is at the crux of what we are discussing. The idea of utilizing momentum, across generations, conglomerating political and financial power until the momentum of the very system itself provides certain people and families with 'a highly favorable rate of exchange'.


Even among the wealthiest individuals, they still must trade to compete.

False. Compound interest, do the math.


As a result, the wealth of most tend to evaporate after they retire

False again for the same reason. True wealth does not evaporate. This only happens to the lower fringes of the upper class.


"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"

That's exactly what those who are eating it want you to think.

The Wastrel
22nd February 03, 09:33 AM
The motivation was exactly my question. And use/risk of capital IS work.


Farmers should farm. Food should be eaten. Tailors should sew. Clothing should be worn. It's really pretty simple.

Yes, and it's interesting how you make it look like you are telling me something when you are not.


You seem to have all these noble ideas about the 'lack of an opportunity' to compete in the market, but fail to recognize that the 'market' is controled and manipulated at a very high level.

This is equally interesting, because it's not true. You introduce a truism with two things that you haven't and can't determine so that rhetorically they sound "true". Neither of us has said that we don't have serious questions about capitalism as it is being practiced. That's an entirely different argument. We were talking about defending essential capitalism, or at least avoiding the extremely short-sighted characterization of it that appeared on the previous page.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Little Idea
22nd February 03, 12:32 PM
That's funny, you never asked about motives or even why people work. You asked where productivity comes from.

I don't really buy into the whole risk/use = work argument.

Please explain to me how collecting compound interest is a risk? Maybe you can convince me. . .


Yes, and it's interesting how you make it look like you are telling me something when you are not.

Wow, you certainly have high expectations from people on this message board. Perhaps the interesting thing is you have no intention of examining what is right in front of you.


This is equally interesting, because it's not true.

Uhmm, Ok, so now you are disputing what? You are telling me what? You have a problem with 'controlled and manipulated'? Two words, Federal Reserve.

Is see how it is now, you were defending 'essential' capitalism. Well fuck me, I feel much better about things knowing that.

So you can defend 'essential' capitalism, deride 'practical' communism and somehow it all makes sense to you? Whatever keeps you going I guess.





Edited by - Little Idea on February 22 2003 11:33:44

The Wastrel
22nd February 03, 02:39 PM
You seem to have all these noble ideas about the 'lack of an opportunity' to compete in the market, but fail to recognize that the 'market' is controled and manipulated at a very high level.

Your claim here is not that the market is controlled and manipulated at a very high level. Your claim is that "we" don't realize that. That is what is not true. I thought I made that clear.

I'm defending essential capitalism because you sought to define the "theory" of it, and then attempted to equate it to feudalism. This debate is shifting all over the place. Which isn't too helpful to clarity.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Edited by - The Wastrel on February 22 2003 13:45:44

Little Idea
22nd February 03, 04:47 PM
This is equally interesting, because it's not true. You introduce a truism with two things that you haven't and can't determine so that rhetorically they sound "true".


Let me see, 'This', 'It's' and 'Things'. My bad, it was perfectly clear that you realize the market is manipulated at a high level.

I wasn't seeking to define the 'theory' of capitalism. That was an attempt at humor.

I stand by my analysis that the present course we are taking leads to neo-feudalism.

Debates always shift all over the place. At some point we can just agree to disagree. It doesn't mean we don't understand or respect each other, we just don't see things the same way.

Sheol
22nd February 03, 07:17 PM
Little Idea:


And what if you were born with everything? Did your fearless leader G.W. Bush work his way to the top? Let's see we had daddy in the white house, Dubya in Texas and good ole Zeb down in Florida. Sure am glad we came over here to get away from those hereditary monarchies.

A person is born with nothing more than the skin on his back. Inheritance is the bequeathal of property from one person to another. It is a matter of the right to dispose of personal property. However, continued possession of the property is not guaranteed. Inherited property, whether real or financial instruments, do not come with any sort of insurance against losses in the free-market. Attempting to draw a similarity to monarchy is to ignore the differences betwixt the current U.S. system and historical feudal systems. A feudal system is, for the most part, closed to the introduction of new competitors. Titles and property were usually not shared and a good number of bloody disputes arose over right of recievership. This leads to another aspect of feudalism, which is that the economic monopoly is protected by force of arms. Now there are more intricate aspects of feudal systems, as they do vary, but it is essentially a closed system that relies upon the restriction of competition to create stability.

I accept your definitions. So do you fail to recognize their exists a class of people who do not exert effort and still consume resources? There are actually two classes that do this in our present system, one at the top and another at the bottom.

Failure to exert effort results in loss of resources. Of course, exertion of effort does not guarantee retention of resources. That is why few rich people are idle. In order to retain wealth, an idle person must actually have those that will make the appropriate decisions in trade in order to combat the steady drain that lifestyle and market pressures will put upon 'wealth'. Such individuals or organizations do not work for free and as such, most of whom you might consider to be "the idle rich" actually contribute to industry.

Further, while a level of wealth might be retained or even grown despite idleness (or perhaps BECAUSE of idleness due to financial incompetence), it remains that the accumulated resources must be used in productive trading by their paid representatives. Of course, then there is a matter of trust... many an executor has taken advantage of incompetent clients to increase their own wealth beyond their lawful compensation.

In contrast, the idle 'poor' do not facilitate growth of the economy by productive trading. Instead, they are sources of economic drag when resources that can be used for production are instead directed to sustain them. They are examples of the negative effects of socialism because they demonstrate a lack of motivation that is often present when one does not have to work for a living.

This statement is the opposite of the truth. The accumulation of political power and perks destroys the essence of communism, futhermore, a true democracy is ONLY compatible with a communist economy.

Communism fails to address the issue of human self-interest, the motivator for human action. To ensure that individuals are motivated, power must be wielded. Who wields that power? Individuals do, thus possessing power not held by others. It is evident that an imbalance of power must exist to create movement. Human self-interest provides the motives to wield the power, control the wielder of power, or benefit from the wielder of power. In essence, the beginnings of despotism can have their root in the unification of power through 'redistribution'.

As greater concentration of power occurs in order to increase production and move the state, greater is the trade in influence. With that concentration of power arises a state wherein it is not so much property that is bought and sold, but influence... particularly the power to control the people through persuasion or force. When dealing with the issue of redistribution or commonality, one is presented with the truth of human nature. When an individual or group of individuals become responsible for the disposal of communally held resources, self-interest will cause movement in a manner than reflects the trade of influence. In effect, communism is the cousin of fascism, sharing many similar methods. It only differs in the source from which the movement originates. You call it corruption, but it is a matter of human nature.

Human self-interest is also why communism and democracy cannot co-exist. In order for a democratic state to remain communist, there must not the utilization of political power, such as voting, for self-interest. That is certainly an unrealistic expectation. Since communism fails to acknowledge self-interest, it is not practical for a system in which people have the freedom to choose their own course of action. Without freedom of choice, you cannot have a democracy.

Nothing erodes democracy faster than capitalism, especially when it is sold in nice shiny 'democratic' packaging.

Democracy is nothing more than the exercise of personal political power. Since individuals will act in their own self-interest, the trade of power is inherent to it. In fact, without the trade of power there is little chance that a state will be effectively moved, except under dire circumstances. Capitalism is actually the cousin of democracy in that regard because of its reliance upon personal trade of resources to accomplish economic growth and movement. Both are egalitarian systems dependent upon active participation (i.e. competition) for sustainment and growth.

There has never been communism, at least not in modern times. Communism cannot be implemented from the top down.

More to the point, communism cannot sustainably exist without trade in one form or another that leads to destruction of communist ideals. In fact, no society that attempts to redistribute resources can exist without trade. In short, it is the exchange of personal authority and responsibility for dependence upon system authority. It is a sacrifice of individuality.

This is all besides the point. I'm not particularly in favor of communism, I'm just against the exploitation of people.

In other words, you are against human nature. Humanity's natural imperative, the drive of self-interest, invariably results in the clash of interest. Barring infinite, freely available resources, people will compete for resources. In fact, even with plentiful resources, people will seek to create social structures that benefit themselves. This is another form of competition and another source of conflict. Economic balance through infinite abundance would not prevent social imbalances that result from competition for influence. Then, there is the issue of self-determination. You cannot prevent the presence of imbalances without depriving individuals the right to decide their own actions. Furthermore, if you attempt to rectify imbalances through means of systemic intervention, you create an even greater imbalance of another sort.

You seem to have all these noble ideas about the 'lack of an opportunity' to compete in the market, but fail to recognize that the 'market' is controled and manipulated at a very high level. Companies can manipulate laws and the media in such a way that they thrive not by who has the competing with the best products and services, but by who can effectively eliminate competition.

There is nothing noble or romantic about my ideas. They are a reflection of reality. Trade occurs at multiple levels. Companies are not sentient creatures... they are comprised of individuals working as a group to benefit themselves through multiplication of effort. In the end, it goes back to individual self-interest. To control financial trade, one must sacrifice individual authority to the state, thus moving away from both capitalism and democracy. Even then, human self-interest will continue to drive actions, resulting in nothing more than a exchange of imbalances. Government is nothing more than a means of establishing rules of conduct. They do not prevent decisions made in self-interest.

Heightened competition increases the flow of resource transactions but it remains that demand is finite and the drive for profitability will ultimately lead to the demise of competitors until there are no more competitors than the market can sustain. Therefore, to maintain competition without deleterious effects to individual authority, there must be an elimination of laws that prohibit the creation of competition, acompanied with significant penalties for unethical behaviour that injures the market. It is the meting out of significant punishment and accessibility of rewards for good behaviour, not the growth of governmental authority, that will deter unethical conduct by individuals, whether acting alone or as part of a group.

Don't even get me started on debt based curreny.

"Debt based" currency isn't based upon debt per se, but the expectation of future payment. In effect, valuation is dependent upon continued existence and productivity. It is a matter of perception, just as the value of gold or silver is a matter of perception. Gold and silver are not intrinsically useful for living, just as paper currency is not (except as tinder). Rather, it is their percieved value that allows for their usage of trade. If glass was as rare as precious metals, they would be just as fitting. In fact, glass was used in trade, long ago. You are merely swapping one symbol for another. Deficit trading is useful for growing wealth and moving the economy, but abuse of it is what leads to disaster. Hence, the onus is upon the individual or government to properly regulate the usage of deficit trading.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain the aspects of supply and demand you are referring to.

Price is not determined by supply and demand. That is a nice clean economic theory, but supply and demand are virtual constructs of academic convenience. Price is determined by perception, and perception is easily influenced.

Once more, you are focusing on monetary and real property transactions. Not only that, but you appear to have no concept of what "supply and demand" means. Perception of value is an inherent part of it. Supply and demand exists in every form of trade. Without perception of value on both sides, supply and demand, there could be no trade at all. Either there will be stagnation, a cessation of trade, or the exercising of other means, such as force, to attain commodities and any desired thing.

Your next objection deals with the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone achieves a highly favorable rate of exchange, it can appear as if they are not working, but it remains that they are simply utilizing the 'momentum' of prior effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first part is false in the sense that there are really people not working. Actually some people appear to be working, when in fact they are not, but this happens at every level of our culture. The second part is entirely true and is at the crux of what we are discussing. The idea of utilizing momentum, across generations, conglomerating political and financial power until the momentum of the very system itself provides certain people and families with 'a highly favorable rate of exchange'.

It is not false, because there must still be trade to support momentum. Whether a person works by exercising authority through granting the usage of property or by personally exercising physical effort in a manner that you recognize as being work, is irrelevant. Without trade, the cost of living would drain accumulated assets (especially in the case of 'high' living). There are those idle individuals that benefit from a legal entity that provides financial support, but in their case, they do not actually own the entity in question. The entity may benefit them, but it is actually a perpetuation of the will of its founder(s). They are the real idle 'rich' and are the same as the idle 'poor' in that they do not produce anything but merely cause economic drag. The only difference is that the idle 'rich' do not drain the resources of the government supported by every working individual. Instead, they depend upon a foundation that is involved in trade (for longevity). Nobody holds, administrates, or distributes resources for free.

You cannot obstruct or redirect the transference of wealth without subverting the personal authority of individuals. Whether a transfer occurs during the benefactor's lifetime or not, it is still the operation of personal authority that drives it. Additionally, there is more money transferred through 'small' estates than through large one. As a family grows, the estate is broken up into smaller pieces. Once more, there is no guarantee that estates will remain in the possession of those who inherit them. Ironically, it is the transference of wealth from one generation to another that enables so many individuals to compete at all. For example, what percentage of people actually pay for all of their own education, especially at higher institutions of learning? Most are probably beneficiaries of transferred familial wealth, though to varying degrees. Controlling the distribution of resources is nothing more than elimination of individual authority in favor of individual dependency upon a system and transfer of authority to a system and, by extension, the administrator(s) of it. It is an attempt to eliminate financial imbalances caused by competition by creating new imbalances.

Next 'objectionable' quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even among the wealthiest individuals, they still must trade to compete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False. Compound interest, do the math.

Interest is gained when usage of funds in trade occurs... and just who grants authority to utilize the funds in trade? Trade is trade. So long as they take action to trade, they can benefit. To the degree that they wish to gain from their existent wealth, they must take risks. FDIC only guarantees individually held balances of $100,000 or less and banks have and still do fold.... The less risk that one takes, the less potential reward that exists.

You seem to have the opinion that a person can only be considered to be working if they spend four or more hours a day at a particular activity that you consider work and that garnishes compensation. There is no question that there is a difference in effort, but that is the nature of open competition. True and total equality does not exist in nature, be that of man or beast, except in some fairy tale.

Another quote of mine that you object to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the wealth of most tend to evaporate after they retire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False again for the same reason. True wealth does not evaporate. This only happens to the lower fringes of the upper class.

LOL!!! Rarely do the wealthy suffer an overnight depletion of wealth, but let me put it this way: Those who inherit wealth rarely keep much of it without working. Those who become wealthy and retire, retain their wealth through relatively frugal living AND investment management (a.k.a. working!). They may only work a few hours a month, but they do work. (Does the phrase, "work smarter, not just harder" mean anything to you?) Many people who are considered to be wealthy, rarely have much in the bank or investments. The possession of assets is far more common than liquidity. Those who are remain wealthy, possessing substantial resources, actually do work. (GASP!) Furthermore, they watch their money and spend only a relatively small percentage of it on luxuries. It's a trade off. They either spend the money on themselves or pass it along to the next generation, who will probably lose it. Further, there are quite a number of people who make over a million a month... and manage to end up in debt, anyways. So, do you wish to punish those that manage wealth for long-term sustainment? That would be what you are doing if you attempt to redistribute wealth through systemic intervention.

Last one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly what those who are eating it want you to think.

Actually, it is true. SOMEONE pays for anything 'free', whether it is a company shareholder, citizen/taxpayer/voter, ancestor, or descendant. It is also important to understand what is being traded in any transaction. Just as 'free' soup kitchens were and still are, utilized to gain influence and political power through non-monetary trade, social programs are utilized in the same manner. While some programs may benefit individuals who do not provide compensation, there is a return being made by someone.

Ultimately, a honest discussion is best indicated by evidence of consideration of points. Unlike you, I give full consideration of the points brought up by those whom I have discussions with. Rather than address my points, as I have addressed yours, you are simply being obstinate. I have no problems with someone holding differing opinion, but I do have a problem with someone who does not fully engage in discussion, but simply passes off dogmatic pronouncements as discourse. Rather than proclaiming something and ignoring contrary points, perhaps you might consider actual discussing things.

Edited by - Sheol on February 22 2003 18:42:52

Little Idea
24th February 03, 12:56 AM
Sheol,

You're obviously educated on the text book rationalizations, but I don't understand why you feel I haven't given 'full consideration of the points brought up by those whom I have discussions with'.

How would my responses be different if I had?

Honestly, compared with what usually passes for discussion on this board?

I don't have the time right now to properly address your post in the manner which it deserves.

Too much 'work' to do . . .

I'll refrain from 'dogmatic pronouncements', at least for the moment.

I just have a few questions:

1) In the wake of WorldCom, Enron, and the tech bubble, how do you not see a parasitic economic drag at the top?


they are sources of economic drag when resources that can be used for production are instead directed to sustain them

2)The difference between currency based on a 'standard' (gold or whatever) and the 'debt' based currency used today is that from the very second a dollar is issued there is more 'debt' than there is currency. This means that not only can that debt never be repaid from that moment forward, but that over time the ratio of debt to currency will approach infinity. Does this seem like a good idea to you?

If there is any particular point you believe to be paramount and would like me to 'consider' and 'discuss', please let me know.

My email is in my profile.

Respectfully

Sheol
24th February 03, 03:53 AM
Little Idea:

I simply dislike having to say something more than once or twice. Don't sweat it. I'm a little short on patience, right now.


You're obviously educated on the text book rationalizations, but I don't understand why you feel I haven't given 'full consideration of the points brought up by those whom I have discussions with'.

How would my responses be different if I had?

Honestly, compared with what usually passes for discussion on this board?

I don't have the time right now to properly address your post in the manner which it deserves.

Too much 'work' to do . . .

I'll refrain from 'dogmatic pronouncements', at least for the moment.

You are focused on your perspective of reality without elaborating in detail, either in explanation or in response. As to your reference to 'my' "text book rationalizations", it's another example of your failure to logically discuss the issue. You are skirting the boundries of having an entirely fallacious argument by using what I percieve to be dishonest tactics such as prejudicial language, illicitly failing to present a well-constructed argument, and attempting to sidetrack the discussion with contention over understood and well-defined terms, such as "work", "produce", and "compensate" (to name a few). While I understand that work has a much higher priority than spending time to have an online discussion, it remains that if you choose to pose an argument, have the decency to present a tangible argument. If you choose to do something, do it right.

I just have a few questions:

It might help if you actually answered any of those that were posed to you instead of just side-stepping them. If you can't pose a coherent arguement, then you are just ranting.

1) In the wake of WorldCom, Enron, and the tech bubble, how do you not see a parasitic economic drag at the top?

Mismanagement is an example of human error. Criminal negligence and racketeering simply provide more illustrations of how much damage personal actions can cause. It does not prove an inherently 'evil' nature of a system, which seems to be a major theme of your arguments. Further, corporate management and oversight are entirely different areas... and you have yet to even get around to actually discussing the system.

2)The difference between currency based on a 'standard' (gold or whatever) and the 'debt' based currency used today is that from the very second a dollar is issued there is more 'debt' than there is currency. This means that not only can that debt never be repaid from that moment forward, but that over time the ratio of debt to currency will approach infinity. Does this seem like a good idea to you?

Does it seem a good idea to you that a nation with a growing human population and growing production, in a world with a constantly growing population and markets, use currency based upon a limited (arguably DWINDLING) natural resource? This means that you at least have a finite potential of economic growth, if not an inherent problem with constant, almost hyper, deflation as the supply of goods and services outstrip the supply of money to facilitate trade. In short, while a fixed value currency SOUNDS good, it cannot scale and actually deters trade. Eventually, other exchange issues will have to be used, due to rarity of currency, rendering legal tender superfluous. Fixed value currency is not a good idea... but that's just my opinion.

If you decided to stick to currency based upon a fixed-standard, you will eventually be faced with such choices as having to constantly adjust the relative value of the currency (inflationary tactic) to print more, adding other 'rare' materials to the standard (another inflationary tactic, though this one could severely disrupt percieved valuation), or be forced to reissue currency if the rate of deflation exceeds the practicality of readjusting 'standard'. Attempting to use a fixed-standard form would simply results in it becoming a handicapping commodity that will become too rare for practical use. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Apparently, it does.

Modern currency is NOT 'debt' based, not being intrinsically indicative of debt spending. It is merely a medium of exchange that permits the establishment of trade terms. It is simply a scalable economic tool that permits people to set prices for goods and services, exchange them for notes, and then exchange those notes for someone else's goods and services. It is not a promissory note. It is a bill of exchange. The problem is when people treat it as an intrinsically valuable commodity that can be stored. Since more currency is printed to keep up with trade, stored currency tend to 'decrease' in percieved value, due to changes in availability. It's purpose is to be exchanged, not held. Whether it is exchanged for real estate, investments, capital equipment, material needs, or luxury items, is up to the person bearing it. It is just for facilitating trade!

If there is any particular point you believe to be paramount and would like me to 'consider' and 'discuss', please let me know.

My email is in my profile.

Respectfully

Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would actually consider and discuss ANY of the points that have been made in this discussion. (Can this thread be called a discussion at all?) I'd especially prefer it if you spent time researching the issues rather than postulating unsubstantiated material. If this sort of discussion isn't important enough to spend effort on, then there's no point in engaging. When you want to play ball, bring your own bat, ball, and glove. Don't expect others to provide them for you. At this point, I see no point in participating in further discussion with you if you can't be bothered to fully engage.

Freddy
24th February 03, 07:31 PM
"Democracy"
This would be an interesting topic to talk about. In ancient Greece you have a system that claimed to be democratic but at the same time slavery existed. How interesting!?

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

Little Idea
24th February 03, 07:40 PM
Alrighty then, I'm fully engaged now.


I simply dislike having to say something more than once or twice.

Saying it over and over doesn't make an argument logically stronger or more convincing.


You are focused on your perspective of reality without elaborating in detail, either in explanation or in response. As to your reference to 'my' "text book rationalizations", it's another example of your failure to logically discuss the issue.

You disagree with the analysis that your responses can be found in text books on the subject? What exactly is 'the' issue? Elaborate detail does not necessarily equate to logical disscusion.


You are skirting the boundries of having an entirely fallacious argument by using what I percieve to be dishonest tactics such as prejudicial language, illicitly failing to present a well-constructed argument, and attempting to sidetrack the discussion with contention over understood and well-defined terms, such as "work", "produce", and "compensate" (to name a few).

Meaningful discussion can only begin after mutual definitions are proposed and accepted for the course of the discussion. I'll admit some prejudicial language in my word selection, I'll even concede the omission of arguments, but I disagree with your assessment of my request for definitions and further contend that these terms are neither 'understood' or 'well-defined' in common usage.

You have made the accusation that I have been 'obstinate', 'dismissive', and 'dogmatic'. All of which might be considered prejudicial language.

The first two terms, obstinate and dismissive, could easily be applied to your position and presentation, but I'll refrain from any accusation there. As for dogmatism, your 'elaborate' responses are carrying a share of dogma.


This runs counter to human biological and psychological imperatives. . . the issue of human self-interest, the motivator for human action. . .Humanity's natural imperative, the drive of self-interest. . .

This is all dogma, a mantra of rationalization and justification, and a theme common and central to all of your positions.


While I understand that work has a much higher priority than spending time to have an online discussion, it remains that if you choose to pose an argument, have the decency to present a tangible argument. If you choose to do something, do it right.

Excuse me? I thought this was mcdojo, err. . .bullshido. You do read other threads, right? You did read most of this thread? I don't really see the point of putting together elborate analysis, when the results will be obscured by the reader's general lack of attention span or knowledge of the subject. To amuse myself, I chose to interject with sound-bite style snippets laced with slightly prejudicial language. Actually, I think I did a pretty good job.


Mismanagement is an example of human error. Criminal negligence and racketeering simply provide more illustrations of how much damage personal actions can cause. It does not prove an inherently 'evil' nature of a system, which seems to be a major theme of your arguments. Further, corporate management and oversight are entirely different areas... and you have yet to even get around to actually discussing the system.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that there is economic drag at the top, but I'm the one being obstinate.

I don't recall ever mentioning 'evil'. Unjust and imbalanced, perhaps, not evil. The fact is the cases, I mentioned represent billions of dollars willfully and deceitfully being siphoned from people who 'work' and 'produce' to the pockets of those who simply exercise authority.


Does it seem a good idea to you that a nation with a growing human population and growing production, in a world with a constantly growing population and markets, use currency based upon a limited (arguably DWINDLING) natural resource?

Its not the worst idea but perhaps not the best idea. My issue is not that the currency was decoupled from a standard, but the manner in which interest is charged on the currency.


This means that you at least have a finite potential of economic growth,if not an inherent problem with constant, almost hyper, deflation as the supply of goods and services outstrip the supply of money to facilitate trade.

How are you going to measure economic growth? Measure it with bushels of wheat, reams of paper, bolts of cloth, and pounds of glass and steel, if you impose a finite limit on currency does not logically imply that you impose a limit on production. Deflation is certainly an issue and a problem as it would reward people who were able or chose to hold currency as its value would increase without risk. I agree you do want to encourage trade and a fixed amount of currency leads to certain problems.


If you decided to stick to currency based upon a fixed-standard, you will eventually be faced with such choices as having to constantly adjust the relative value of the currency (inflationary tactic) to print more, adding other 'rare' materials to the standard (another inflationary tactic, though this one could severely disrupt percieved valuation), or be forced to reissue currency if the rate of deflation exceeds the practicality of readjusting 'standard'.

So with the current system there is not 'constant adjustment of the relative value of the currency'? I agree that your arguments against fixed valued currency are sound, though I think some of the problems are not unique and still apply to our system.


Modern currency is NOT 'debt' based, not being intrinsically indicative of debt spending.

You don't understand what I mean by 'debt' based. Being debt based has nothing to do with debt spending. (almost)Every dollar in circulation represents a debt to the Federal Reserve. Let's say the dollar was lent at some nominal amount, say 1%. That means in the first year, there is one dollar, and you owe $1.01. Next year you owe 1.02. To you it looks like nothing, because you can work, beg, borrow or steal another penny or two to pay off the debt, plus the Fed is always willing to give you a new debt to service your debt. But if you look at the sum of all dollars and all debts, repaying the debt is mathmatically impossible because there is only X total dollars, while the debt is X plus more. This is all being simplified for illustration, but if you look at the big picture, you have the Federal Reserve, then the Fed Banks, then various banks, down to the local level, then to you, in a chain of cascading debt that mirrors the situation I described.

Over time, the debt goes to infinity, so the ratio of currency to debt is basically 0. This is just mathematics.

So, I'll ask you again, does this seem like a good idea?



Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would actually consider and discuss ANY of the points that have been made in this discussion.

This is where you get just a little bit ridiculous. You have no way to measure my consideration of a point and if I haven't been discussing, how is this a discussion?


I'd especially prefer it if you spent time researching the issues rather than postulating unsubstantiated material.

I believe you are confusing your rhetoric for research. Unsubstantiated? You mean like 'psychological imperatives'?


If this sort of discussion isn't important enough to spend effort on, then there's no point in engaging.

Yeah, yeah, and I'm obstinate.


When you want to play ball, bring your own bat, ball, and glove. Don't expect others to provide them for you.

This is the best. You see guys at the park playing basketball and now you are whining that no one has a mit. Don't look now, but the sun is down and all the kids went home. Its just you and me sitting in the middle of the park, I came to play ball, you came to play ball, but we didn't come to play the same game. Doesn't mean I don't have a mit or can't play baseball.

Plus, are you the kid who brings the ball so he can start whining about the way everyone is playing and threaten to take it home? Be honest now. . .


At this point, I see no point in participating in further discussion with you if you can't be bothered to fully engage.

Perhaps that's what's best for all involved. . .







Edited by - Little Idea on February 24 2003 18:42:19

The Wastrel
24th February 03, 08:48 PM
I don't know LittleIdea, I think he has a point. You're just sniping. I appreciate that you went into somewhat greater detail in your above post, but Sheol's irritation is not unreasonable. It's clear now that your original post was meant to be funny. Maybe my patience for such is worn thin by my having to endure the facile pseudo-communistic sentimentalism of other undergrads, but it just smelled like pithy self-piety. When you say we need to define things before we go any further, but don't offer your own proposal, it just smells like we're being baited. Since you're fond of the "have you looked at the other threads" gambit, I'll redirect that to you. Obviously, that sort of thing happens all the time, and those who attempt to confine themselves to reasonable, falsifiable debate, end up being treated pretty poorly. It's clear to me that you're shifting around from philosophical foundations and first principles to actual current outcomes and practices, which makes it hard to engage you at all.
Anyway, being a political scientist, I'm more interested and more familiar with the ways in which particular institutions determine various political outcomes. But that includes collective action and decisionmaking behaviour, which is my particular vantage point on this debate. That, and the relevant philosophical material.
I'd like to conclude by saying that it's clear that at the very least, this is a discussion between people who are roughly intellectual peers, operating at a level that is somewhat beyond that of most. That should encourage some mutual respect between us. So clear the air and start over, because at the moment it isn't even clear what proposition we are debating.

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**