patrick.net

In fact, as I said earlier, 'libertarianism' can scarcely be distinguished form Communism.

Marx wanted freedom from the '5 alienations' of present-day working life, of the alienation of workers from each other, from their work, from their lives, and from themselves, as created by the monotonous process work and atomisation of tasks in the early Industrial Revolution, compared with the craftsmen of earlier times and family-based businesses.

He saw a 'withering away of the state' as an end-point of Communism, also. Not that that has been achieved by Russia, China, Cuba, etc, which are really capitalist 'command economies' still.

Note that it suited the elite ruling class of America to demonise the Russians, Chinese, etc as they were afraid of losing their wealth and power if the ideas of Communism took hold in America. So they started another 1984-style propaganda war against Communism, infecting the general population, maintaining a troubled regressive welfare state and thus ensuring they could keep their wealth and power and status, while the ordinary people of America mouthed anti-Communist slogans and toiled in relative poverty - until progressive policies like the New Deal and GI Bill came along, only to be eroded in recent times with concomitant rises in drug-taking, social malaise and anomie, and the creation of a winner-take-all society which praises the winners and abandons and demonises the losers...

That’s not about capitalism, it’s about greed and social status.

Is there a difference?

But the market system and all economic transactions ultimately are all about meeting human desires, and many of those desires are about status-seeking, and the seeking of esteem through the admiration of oneself or others.

Do you really need a BMW, or a Rolls Royce? Do you really need to cycle your clothes every year as fashion changes, before they're worn out? Do you really need to buy overpriced 'designer' labels and brands? Do you really need a 10 bedroom house? etc. It's more about concern for what others will think of you, or how you will think of yourself.

All I ever heard was that the vast majority of Russians were quite poor and lived terribly. I also know the rate of alcoholism in Russia was astronomical during communist times.

The Russian peasants were quite poor and lived terribly before the Russian Revolution also - that's why it happened! The European Russian aristocrats had a great life, and wasted money on wars, while peasants lived a serf-like lifestyle. Marxian theory suggests that such a revolution should not even be successful, as Russia was an overwhelmingly poor, pre-industrial country - he suggested that communism was an inevitable, post-capitalistic phase of social and political evolution. Of course, that's only his theory, and he felt he was somehow uncovering the laws of history.

However, Marxist messages appeal most to downtrodden 'peasant'-style people around the world in poor countries, which is why they're always trying for Communist revolutions, especially when most of the wealth is known to be held by a corrupt handful at the top, as per many South American countries.

Jean Baudrillard is best known for his formulation of the notion of hyperreality, and in particular hyperreality in the United States. According to Baudrillard, America has constructed itself a world that is more 'real' than real, and where those inhabiting it are obsessed with timelessness, perfection, and objectification of the self. Furthermore, authenticity has been replaced by copy (thus reality is replaced by a substitute), and nothing is "real," though those engaged in the illusion are incapable of seeing it. Instead of having experiences, people observe spectacles, via real or metaphorical control screens. Instead of the real, we have simulation and simulacra.

While early in his career he was influenced by Marxism, he eventually came to the conclusion that Marx's attitudes were in mirror opposition to that of capitalist thought, and that Marx in fact held the same basic worldview as the capitalist. For instance, he did not question such concepts as "work" or "value". In short, while perhaps well-intentioned, he argued that Marx was infected by the "virus of bourgeois thought". In opposition, he proposed a concept of symbolic exchange, a "cycle of gifts and countergifts", similar to a gift economy. However, in time he began to prefer the idea of a system based around seduction, involving "the charms of pure and mere games, superficial rituals". While he gives such possible alternatives, he sees little hope in any repair of the social world, but rather a further progression into a hyperreal system offering little distinction between what is real and what is not. He sees the United States and Japan as having moved furthest in this direction, noting for instance that his decision to visit the United States stemmed from his desire to seek "the finished form of the future catastrophe."

I’d rather take my chances with capitalism.

I'd rather not. Not with fossil fuels about to run out, wars of conquest for resources under pretexts, etc. Some revision is necessary. Further, there are 'communist' elements of thinking in everyday life by everyday people which serve, to some extent, to mitigate the worsts excesses of capitalism.

The social democrat states of Europe such as France, Germany, Scandinavia have a much better social settlement, more equality, less wage multiples, better welfare state, etc, so it is possible.

To keep reiterating that 'whatever we have now, it must be the best, and nothing could possibly be better' is just stupidity itself, and I get tired of hearing this same fatalistic bullshit from Americans.

The social democrat states of Europe such as France, Germany, Scandinavia have a much better social settlement, more equality, less wage multiples, better welfare state, etc, so it is possible.

Are “social democrat” states the same thing as communism?

hmm, are those countries operating under Communist systems? The point was that the social democrat countries of Europe have a reasonable balance between the family, the state and the market in terms of arriving at a good social settlement. Libertarianism is about shrinking the state, and it's a common call from various US politicians - something about making it small enough to drown in a bathtub. However, I believe that makes the mistake of putting too much trust in the market, and leaves very little by way of a safety net, except for the family - which one may not have, or which may possess too few resources. Further, the American mistrust of govt stems to some extent from a historical baggage of fear of capricious English rule.

No. I’m actually trying to figure out if the discussion is sincere or we’re all being baited by someone who likes the attention.

A different, researched, thoughtful and informed view is baiting? [Sigh] Things seemed so much simpler in the old days when we just sat around torturing evil criminals and watching NBL playoffs...

unwanted and unproductive? because there's not a unanimous consensus on torturing evil criminals and holding public beheadings every Friday?

one-sided? Ditto. Is that like the multi-lateral UN-endorsed invasion of oil-rich countries? I think America is accused more of being one-sided these days, isn't it?

anti-American? Well, if you were decent human beings and weren't so grasping and...one-sided... all the time...

ultra-lib? Shame about getting an international perspective and an education. Ruins a good mind... Let's go back to talking about spark plugs and gas mileage and Bennifer and Brangelina and welfare moms and... guns... and... evil criminals...

unwanted? Go back to agreeing on how best to go about torturing evil criminals then... The manual of the Spanish Inquisitors has a few good pointers...is that helpful?

hee hee

I know, I know, I'm not giving enough income away as tax.

The Governator was right when he said that Californians are paying tax all day long, and it's TOO MUCH! These 30% taxing countries at the bottom of the tax heap - it's TOO MUCH...

I don't really like seeing my tax going into a huge defence spending program and enriching Lockheed Martin executives, to be honest - and I'm writing this in a different 30% taxing country who've slavishly signed onto the F-35 program. On the other hand, US defence employs so many people who otherwise might not have jobs, it's like a substitute welfare system...

Here at least I suppose the 30% taxes go into free medical care for the whole country, and cheap pharmaceuticals - $3 scripts for pensioners, free doctor's visits, etc. - and a very cheap university system where the govt subsidises 80% of the fees, and various other public goods.

You're incarcerating people at 6-10 times the going rate in other countries, and yet you insist others aren't walking a mile in anyone's shoes? I was just musing on a quote from the great American classic To Kill A Mockingbird, as a matter of fact, in the context of the posters who want to torture evil criminals...

"First of all," he [Atticus] said, "if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

My effort and involvement at present, apart from working full-time and studying part-time in healthcare, is to put up a housing blog, agitate with politicians by writing dozens of letters, to fill in the economic blanks conveniently left out by the media breathlessly reporting 'GDP growth', and to go on and create a full website this year in time for the state election. This includes taking them to task for leaving all forms of housing in the open market, including housing solutions for the homeless. Beyond contributing to a local politics speakers group and donating small sums to them. Oh well, I tried...

I've personally given up on some academics and most politicians...

and I never pay more than $3.40 for a coffee...

I have always thought it odd that Libs dont wright the IRS a little extra check just to help fund the programs they love soooooo much.

Exactly. Instead, it always becomes "let's tax the other guy to death for the wonderful programs." I do support some pgrograms, but they have to be cost beneficial.

You’re incarcerating people at 6-10 times the going rate in other countries, and yet you insist others aren’t walking a mile in anyone’s shoes?

I would rather not sending most criminals to prison. There should be programs for minor offenders to do meaningful things (like community service). It is just more economical.

Jailing people is not the answer, I agree.

P.S.

Marxist/Communist states provided a social guarantee of full employment, universal access to affordable housing, and universal access to other social goods such as healthcare. I think these are good social guarantees for any government to be able to make to its citizens. Marx predicted that most crime would wither away if people's material needs were met, as most crime was a material problem. No more need to torture impoverished evil criminals!

The price of housing could be seen as a manipulation by one sector of a capitalist society of others - people with capital - developers, investors, banks - are controlling real estate and bleeding everyone else dry in a process of slow strangulation.

The legal system that protects property also protects the interests of these people. In fact, Marx saw most laws as constructions of the propertied classes designed to protect their interests.

"The capitalist system must continuously reproduce itself. Most explicit it is the state that promotes the capitalist order. By its coercive force, embodied in law and legal repression, the social and economic order of capitalism has been traditionally secured (Refer; See Richard Quinney, Critique of Legal Order; Crime Control in Capitalist Society; Boston; Little Brown, 1974, pp 95-135). The legal system continues to be the means of enforcing the interests of the capitalist economy. The state's coercive force however is but one means of maintaining the social and economic order. A subtler way of reproducing capitalist society is to perpetuate the capitalist conception of reality, a non-violent but equally repressive means of domination. Alan Wolf explains below that in manipulating consciousness the social order is legitimated and secured:

The most important reproductive mechanism, which does not involve the use of state violence is consciousness-manipulation. The liberal state has an enormous amount of violence at its disposal, but is often reluctant to use it. Violence manipulates consciousness to such an extent that most people would never think of engaging in the kinds of action that could be repressed. The most perfectly repressive (though not violently so) capitalist system, in other words, would not be a police state, but the complete opposite, one in which there were no police because there was nothing to police, everyone having accepted the legitimacy of that society and all its daily consequences. (See Alan Wolf, Political and the Liberal State Monthly Review, 23; December, 1971, P-20)

Those who rule in capitalist society, with the assistance of the state, not only accumulate capital at the expense of those who work but impose their ideology as well. Expropriating consciousness legitimizes oppression and exploitation; Labour is expropriated, consciousness must too (See Alan Wolf, New Dimensions in the Marxist Theory of Politics Politics and Society, 4 (winter 1974) pp. 155-157). In fact, the legitimacy of the capitalist order is maintained by controlling the populations consciousness. A capitalist hegemony is established.

The more highly developed the productive forces under capitalism the greater the discrepancy between productive forces and capitalist relations of production. Capitalist development, for which economic expansion is fundamental, exacerbates rather than mitigates the contradictions of capitalism (Refer; Erik Olin Wright; Alternative Perspectives in the Marxist Theory of Accumulation and Crisis; The Insurgent Sociologist, 6 (Fall 1975), pp 5-39). Workers are further exploited, conditions of existence worsen, and the contradictions of capitalism increase. Capitalist development, from another vantage point, creates the conditions for transforming and abolishing capitalism, brought about in actuality by class struggle."

Capitalism systematically generates a surplus population, an unemployed sector of the working class either dependent on fluctuations in the economy or made obsolete by new technology. As the surplus population grows, population builds for the welfare system to expand. Growing welfare with its host of services is designed to control the surplus population. Moreover, as James O'Connor observes, unable to gain employment to the monopoly industries by offering their labour power at lower than wage rates (and victimized by sexism and racism), and unemployed, under-employed, or employed at low wages in competitive industries, the surplus population increasingly becomes dependent on the State (See James O Connor: The Fiscal Crisis of the State, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1973), P. 161). An unsteady alliance is formed between the state and the casualties it naturally produces. Only a new economic order could wipe out the need for a welfare state.

http://www.thecheers.org/article_93_Crime-in-Society.html

etc.. well worth a read...

Marxist/Communist states provided a social guarantee of full employment, universal access to affordable housing, and universal access to other social goods such as healthcare.

You can believe whatever you like to believe.

I am about to give up.

Marina is Prime

heh

I am just suspicious when people talk about politics, religion or basically any social ideal that is based on putting aside all of our baser instincts and putting our fellow man first.

I think people may put away all their baser instincts when they are very sleepy or very drunk. If we can keep the population in this altered state of consciousness, it may just work. :)

Unless of course you mean when they’re so drunk they’re comatose, then you might have a point.

That's what I meant. :)

by throwing out a bunch of stats and info the supposedly contradict the prevalent opinion on the topic.

Sorry, this is BS, SQT. The 'prevalent opinions' are only a bunch of people who don't actually work in law enforcement and are in no way policy makers. Further, I've pointed to opinions held more commonly than by the posters on a world scale. Many other countries abhor the practices of the US on a range of fronts. The stats are real and convincing. You seem to prefer uneducated prejudices over real statistics, which is a reversal of the normal scientific practice of evaluating evidence. That's your prerogative, I suppose, but it is neither rational nor reasonable. I argue that bloodthirstiness is a little immoral and unconscionable, but the general public is unquestionably bloodthirsty - however, in most advanced countries, that has worked its way out of the system of jurisprudence, where wiser heads have prevailed...

The only thing that bothers me is when people start talking about `the good of all mankind’ but they don’t live the philosophy. I worked at a Christian school, and believe me I met a lot of bullshit artists. I have nothing against an honest to goodness Christian, but I have a strong dislike for those who profess to love their fellow man and do everything they can to screw you over when you’re not looking.

This is even more BS. You are now accusing every well-meaning person of 'screwing people over'. I know lots of people who work in NGOs, voluntary organisations, church benevolent groups, healthcare, etc who are by nature very altruistic and caring. Of course, you may be talking about the narrow American experience again, where a whole culture is predicated on greed, fakery and being self-serving. As I said earlier, 'capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction'. The American way is just to internalise all the problems into the individual, become fatalistic and individualistic, and lead a life saturated with contingency. Then only small random acts of charity are allowed to stand against the system.

I believe Marxism contains elements of things that would make the world a better place.

I don't know that talk without action is pointless, plenty of people make a living by talking and getting the word out - an act of communication can be an act of education. I don't know how I've learnt anything much in this life without hearing it from someone else or reading it in a book. I presume all the heads of NGOs that I listen to to get an informed opinion are wasting everyone's time, in fact, and they should be engaged in low-level acts of individual charity without trying to address the roots of the problem, or soliciting Federal funding to do it, etc. We should all just listen to Fox News to get the real story and let them do all that fine work for us, ferreting out the truth. But that's all just talk and no action also, I guess...

Didn't I list my 'actions' in a recent post? Don't you think an act of lobbying, communication and education to politicians and their agencies is action? Creating blogs and websites? Appearing on the media? Being published in the newspapers? What qualifies as worthwhile action in your lexicon then? If I could, I would buy up a whole suburb and develop it as affordable, sustainable housing, but I don't have the readies for that at present... There's too much to discuss re talk/action than this space permits - there are so many instances of fuck-ups by the state govt here that they are about to get voted out - better communication and consultation with the public would have forestalled the problems. Not to mention an articulation of a philosophy of particpative democracy - but that's more of SQT's apparently 'random philosophy' again, I suppose.

Some of my philosophical posts have been wry gags, to be honest. But it has certainly brought out the lack of sociological interest in the group - everyone complains about housing prices, but they have no systemic or political fix in mind, except to bag out 'baby boomers'. My website proposes a number of workable fixes. Unfortinately, SQT seems not to enjoy any sort of 'life of the mind', and the value of her college degree, whatever it was, is therefore questionable - she seems to have learnt nothing of the major discourses of the last century from it.

You're beginning to disqualfy yourself from reasonable debate and discussion...

Touched a nerve with you at least, obviously. I'm glad you realise how full of BS the American media is. As per the 'random philosophical' quote about Baudrillard I posted above. Or is that pearls before swine?

I'm certainly not a member of the media at all. However, there are some very good journalists at the Herald here, and I've used their reports and analysis heavily in my housing affordability blog. Ross Gittins in particular, as economics editor, tells it very much the way it is. That's the beauty of doing sociology - you have a solid analytical framework to separate wheat from chaff - like the Realtor buzzlines thread, and the question of whether the bubble is going to burst like the Tulip Boom or the Tech Wreck - and the way capital shifts easily between 'markets', thus doing more harm than good in the case of housing.

Unfortunately, it's a brave newspaper that publishes stories that go against its revenue base of advertising, particularly real estate advertising - the Herald should be congratulated for its fairly frank and fearless reporting, although it is a little schizophrenic at times when it has to publish puff pieces and advertorials on real estate in the Sunday Supplement or whatever... But it's a very big broadsheet paper serving a population of 5 million...

I'm also doing media appearances soon, and getting articles submitted to whatever papers are prepared to print things that go against their advertising base. Also talking with minor political parties going against the 'Big Two' to provide disaffected voters with more voices in Parliament, being those parties who support affordable housing. (Unfortunately, having a few Independents in Parliament often leads to a system of horsetrading and bribes to get key legislation through. Having some decent representation from a 3rd and 4th party like the Greens or whoever with some principles is another story.) If I succeed in scaring the Labor Party into doing something constructive, and possibly get a couple more smaller party candidates elected, then I would consider I'd done something very worthwhile. I could even start a 'single issue' party of my own, it's been done before on unpopular themes, like low-flying aircraft noise over the suburbs.

I see affordable housing as a social justice issue across the spectrum of housing. I know a few people who work in govt in supported housing, and they're actually pretty blinkered and ignorant, and are just doing the job for the $$$ and learning just enough govt-speak to get by, and unfortunately, learning the jargon and getting embedded in band-aid govt structures is all you need to do to get the job. And they're getting paid for that - the lobbying I do is for nothing. (As per the Marxist analysis of crime above that suggests the welfare state is a band-aid attempt at social control by capitalists. Maybe not so random after all, if you 'get' it.)

There are people working for outfits like ACOSS, and all the COSSes in each state who really do nothing but 'bullshit' on behalf of low income people in order to get them a better deal and more funding for supported housing, fare concessions, better employment, and a fair go, etc. and these people, when fulltime, get a 'survival wage' of $40-50 K to be worked extremely hard researching, analysing, lobbying and writing recommendations and reports, and doing cogent television sound bites. Apparently, all that effort and lobbying on behalf of the downtrodden is just 'bullshit', and somehow won't change anything - people are better off being left in the dark about poverty, so that they can feed their own uninformed little prejudices. Coming from a journalist too, mind you... a journalist who doesn't believe in doing any research or examining statistics and thinks all written output is meaningless...

Anyway, I'm off to my 6.00 politics talk -
http://www.politicsinthepub.org/current.htm

Here's one example of where political activism might lead, straight from the Politics page above to sourcewatch.org. But it's all BS of course, and America is the greatest country in the world even tho millions don't have health insurance, whereas in other countries healthcare is free to all citizens and PRs, etc. And if you don't like it, you can leave! Why don't you leave? Just don't ever think of criticising it in the hope of improvement.

Note Wal-Mart pays about $6/hour, and the CEO recently said, having seen the living conditions in NO after Katrina, 'maybe we should think about raising the US minimum wage - our customers are impoverished and can barely afford our stuff' - not to mention their own workers! But let's not talk about social improvement, SQT will get upset...

http://www.prwatch.org/spin

Wal-Mart's Blog Outreach-Turned-Ghostwriting
Topics: corporations | internet | public relations
Source: New York Times, March 7, 2006
Wal-Mart "began working with bloggers in late 2005 'as part of our overall effort to tell our story,' said Mona Williams, a company spokeswoman." Heading the blogger outreach is Marshall Manson, of the PR firm Edelman. Manson contacted bloggers who "wrote postings that either endorsed the retailer or challenged its critics." He emailed one, "I'd like to drop you the occasional update ... and an occasional nugget that you won't hear about in the M.S.M.," or mainstream media. But "some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from," reports the New York Times. Manson warned bloggers they might be "ripped" if someone noticed "nearly identical posts" copied from his emails. Wal-Mart's also opposing state bills that require large companies to spend a minimum percentage of payroll costs on health insurance. Wal-Mart claims, "These bills ... do nothing to take people off America's uninsured list," reports PR Week.

oh, never mind...

look .. Einstein … any minimum wage is a stupid idea. It only lowers the regular working persons wages because it drives up costs.

Minimum wage or any price control mechanism is always bad. It may be popular but it is extremely harmful.

wait a sec - the US already has one of the lowest minimum wages in the the OECD - and the most inequality and poverty - and you want to REMOVE it?

don't you think one way of fighting poverty is to make sure people have more money in their paypackets?

so, you would rather see some people's wages in the US go even lower? what, to $2 an hour? how do they then participate meaningfully and decently in society? how do you stop them kiling and robbing to supplement their incomes out of desperation? this was the reason the welfare state was created, to make a decent social settlement, make sure people had their basic needs met and could at least send their kids to school, etc. it's a protection against exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

i'm sick of all these brainless eco-rat arguments. you are living a life of self-contradiction.

further, how can something beneficial be 'harmful'? harmful to whom? to some money-grubber at the top? think about who benefits here, guys...you guys believe all the smoke and mirrors put about by the ruling class, don't you? you internalise every self-interested argument they put forward and make it your gospel without even realising it...

so much for bap and his bible studies, where jesus said, for instance, 'if you have two tunics, give one away'. apparently 'the economy' can't cope with any level of generosity. keep reading that bible and tell us the ongoing insights it gives you, bap...

Anyway, how will we calculate the productivity quotient of a 66-year-old lavatory cleaner in order to fix his pay? H. B. Higgins, in the famous Harvester judgement, said that a basic wage must be calculated on the basis of need, not some arbitrary market value.

And, he said, if a company could not afford to pay its workers a wage that they could live on in "frugal comfort" then the business should be abandoned.

so, you would rather see some people’s wages in the US go even lower? what, to $2 an hour?

Yes. Whatever the market dictates.

how do they then participate meaningfully and decently in society?

Look, we all want to eliminate poverty in the long run. That should be the goal. Helping people survive poverty is not a solution. I would love a society in which there will be enough resources for everyone. Therefore, we need to innovate. We need better education.

how do you stop them kiling and robbing to supplement their incomes out of desperation?

I have said this many times. We need law enforcement. We need deterrence. Now do you agree with my stance on death penalty?

And, he said, if a company could not afford to pay its workers a wage that they could live on in “frugal comfort” then the business should be abandoned.

Yeah right, then who is going to provide jobs?

Side Note: Ever notice the high number of protest signs written in perfect english in the land-o-sand?? Geeeeze, do you think they may be using the lib media to share their view?? Remeber when I mentioned how the 911 attacks were sweeped [sic] off of TV as quick as the libs could make it happen??

Oh, jeez. There's too much stupidity in all this to rebut at once. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, and most of it is contradicted in some other statement you make...

The footage was swept off the Republican-owned media asap so that people couldn't start slowing it down to look for anomalies and start asking difficult questions.

Half the photos from the Pentagon have been touched up or faked in Photoshop. What happened to the independent confiscated footage taken around the Pentagon? Why have only 5 blurry, inconclusive freeze-frames from 1 camera been released to the public? What about the cameras mounted on the Pentagon at 20 metre intervals along the wall? Where did that hotel footage go? Why were the beams from the WTC sold off for scrap without metalllurgical study? Why did 4 buildings fall down, not 2?

How can illegal workers claim forced benies (benefits???) if they're illegal? They would be deported by Immigration if found out, not given benies. Just because American are happy to use low-paid illegals as a virtual slave labour force to get cheap work done, doesn't make it acceptable.

Whoever the sand-writers are, and I have no idea what you're even talking about now, they clearly didn't get spelling lessons from you... Funny how intelligent, informed people are good spellers, isn't it, bap?

Yes. Whatever the market dictates.

Why is 'the market' right and human decency wrong? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? What's this fetishisation of 'the market', when it doesn't even exist in reality? It's just a series of individual transactions between people. Why do courts and govts increasingly have to control and correct 'the market' on a broad range of fronts (meaning corporations and businesses)?

Look, we all want to eliminate poverty in the long run. I would love a society in which there will be enough resources for everyone.

No, you clearly don't. America has more than enough resources for everyone, it is just too selfish and blinkered on an individual level to share them fairly and decently. You guys want a granite benchtop and European appliances ahead of helping someone on $6 an hour. You may as well just admit it. Some great motherhood and apple pie stuff there, where a few people will have to starve in the short run to make everything 'better' in the long run. That's the way. Good thing that, whoever you are, you clearly have absolutely no power in making policy in your country. Wiser, educated heads prevail while the average American idiot runs around bleating about 'the market' and behaving like a sociopath.

I have said this many times. We need law enforcement. We need deterrence. Now do you agree with my stance on death penalty?

No, because the death penalty is immoral. You have put the granite benchtop ahead of someone else's bare survival, and, in fact, their life.

In the case of Peter P, much as it pains me, I have to use the strong Australian epithet of 'fuckwit'.

And, he said, if a company could not afford to pay its workers a wage that they could live on in “frugal comfort” then the business should be abandoned.

Yeah right, then who is going to provide jobs?

You're saying a typical wage in America is not enough to live on in frugal comfort? Wages make up the greatest part of most businesses' overheads, given that they're designed to keep people alive and in a reasonable quality of life first. Why would anyone take on a job that did not even pay them enough to feed themselves? The people who are providing jobs are employers who have factored in the cost of wages to the cost of doing business. If anything, you should be driving down wages of senior govt workers, executives and everyone else on middle incomes, given that they don't need $70K a year to feed themselves. Corporate lawyers on $500K protecting polluting corporations etc don't need $1000 suits - they should be getting $40K a year instead. Mortgage brokers making $250K a year just for filling out a few forms don't need that much money.

Only by starving people can we defeat poverty.
Only by being callous and inhuman can we become human.

Thanks, bap and Peter P for your wonderful insights.

yes, just keep reading the bible and coming up with those great ideas, bap...

Only by starving people can we defeat poverty.

I am not taling about starving people intentionally. But welfare is not a good solution. We need good education. We need to help people to become self sufficient.

Only by being callous and inhuman can we become human.

This is not entirely accurate. Being callous and inhuman is the essence of being human. I am not very proud of these traits but ignoring the reality will not help us a bit.

There is one more paradox:

Only by the threat of total destruction can we maintain peace.

Did I miss the part where one of these libs explained why killing innocent babies is ok with abortion, but killing guilty murderers with capital punishment is a bad thing???

I don't know. It is too confusing for me.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The Ministry of Peace
Concerns itself with conducting and perpetuating Oceania's peace through continuous wars.

The Ministry of Plenty
Responsible for rationing and controlling food and goods.

The Ministry of Truth
The propaganda arm of Oceania's regime. Minitrue controls political literature, the Party organization, and the telescreens.

The Ministry of Love
The agency responsible for the identification, monitoring, arrest, and torture of dissidents, real or imagined.

Now I understand. And at last I love my Big Brother George W, who always tells the truth...

I dunno, bap, whoever said I was for abortion? Especially relatively late in the term?

Is a cluster of 8 cells after fertilisation a baby?

To me, I think the best solution is to avoid the need for abortion. Instead of whether abortion is morally acceptable or not, we need to ask ourselves why people choose to abort. It is best to have a society in which abortion is not needed.

Sean, what are your meta-ethical beliefs?

so peter p would rather see impoverished people on $2 an hour become incredibly negative and disaffected and start robbing and killing people for money, using guns easily obtained illegally. So after they've killed 8 or 10 well-dressed businesspeople and taken their wallets and watches, and done a few burglaries and home invasions and killed a few more people, the police finally catch up with them after a half-day seige in which another 3 people die. Then there were all the people maimed for life but not killed in the robberies, and their ongoing low quality of life and loss of productivity, and a burden on their families. They then get an expensive trial with lawyers, they get locked up for a long time during proceedings, they end up on death row, also for a long time, and finally get executed with all of the public servants time and equipment required. So the cost to the state has been the scars of 16 tragic and avoidable deaths of uninvolved people, another 5 maimed for life, thousands of hours of police time, court time, lawyers time, judges time, administrators time, prison warders time, doctors for the lethal injection, undertakers and funeral costs for all the dead people, the need to build huge prisons and maintain huge police forces and a huge judiciary. Repeat this episode 1,000 times for all the other disaffected low wage people left out to dry by the system. In just one city alone. And congratulations, you've just created Brazil.

That's really shifting costs from the private sector employer to the state and the taxpayer, now isn't it? All because Peter P was too stingy to pay 6 bucks an hour. Very economically rational stuff, Peter.

Fortunately, decent people would not let this scenario happen, although the real situation in the US is already worse than most other high income countries.

so, a cluster of 8 cells that you can't even see with the naked eye is a baby. but 8 undifferentiated cells have no nerve cells, and therefore cannot feel pain.

and if everyone's just a pile of splitting cells, then why does anyone have any value at all in terms of human life?

and what about:
FELLOW CITIZENS … that eliminates all of the illegal breeders zapping the system.

You don't seem to value these human lives very highly...neither them nor their apparently prolific breeding producing children, and the low quality of life they will experience in your system. And doesn't the bible exhort us to 'go forth and multiply'? and it's also a sin to spill your seed on the ground. it's all very perplexing, isn't it?