subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:00:07 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

The rent of the natural resources used to produce the coffee cup (a
microscopic fraction of the cup's value) would go to the community.
The rest of its price would go to those who contributed the labor and
capital to make the cup and bring it to you.

Right.  And as long as no one else wants to exercise their _equal_
right to use that land, no one is harmed, the land yields no rent, and
under a land rent recovery system of public finance, the users would
not have to pay any rent for it.

All who came later and wanted to use it, but were denied the same
liberty the first two pioneers exercised.

The pioneers' children got its value (capitalized rent) from the
community that created it.  But we can't really call that "stealing,"
because it was done according to that community's own laws.  It would
be more accurate to say that the government appropriated the value
from the people who created it, and gave it to the pioneers' children.
That is the usual pattern with rent collection privileges: X grants a
privilege to Y that allows Y to acquire unearned wealth from Z.  This
method of engineering unrequited transfers of wealth (otherwise known
as "thefts") through the mechanism of economic rent shrouds the nature
of Y's gain in a cloak of misdirection that is forever impenetrable to
people of modest intellectual capacity, who are too _short-sighted_ to
understand how it works.

LOL!  Yeah, I'm sure going to have complete records for all the
billion-odd land parcels in the world, right at my fingertips...

Predictably, you are now employing an invalid and dishonest form of
argument -- in this case, one known as "high redefinition."  The fact
that land is not produced by labor, and can therefore never be earned,
but only ever acquired by forcible appropriation, is self-evident.  It
does not in the least depend on whether or not I, personally, happen
to have complete records of such appropriations for all the land
parcels in the world (as if such records even exist, or could ever
have existed).  Your dishonest and unreasonable redefinition of the
issue is just an attempt to deflect readers' attention from the fact
that my statement is true -- and yours consequently false -- virtually
by definition.

Anyway, you've described one example (a very idealized and
historically unrealistic version, of course) of forcible
appropriation: the pioneers who appropriated previously uninhabited
land, sharing it among themselves and forcibly denying it to all who
came later.

Yes, actually, they pretty much are.

That is of course false, like all your claims, and I will now prove it
to be false:

No one owns the air.  If someone invented, built and operated a giant
machine that sucked in air and stored it away, with the result that
eventually others would have to pay him for bottled breathing air in
order not to suffocate, that stored air would have been appropriated
by him, without ever having been owned before by anyone else.  QED.

So you stand refuted.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:05:55 -0700, wjyoung <[email]>
wrote:

You are apparently trying to confuse yourself and/or your readers.
Choices do not have any value in themselves.  It's the house that
would have value, not the choice to build one.  The house _as_built_
might add a lot of value, or it might be a monstrosity no one would
want to live in.  It is not making the choice to build a house that
adds value, but rather the actual building.

As to the choice to add no value at all, but merely to await an
opportune moment to commandeer for oneself the value others create in
the land, you need to clarify why (assuming it wasn't just a
childishly clumsy and obvious attempt to justify landowner parasitism,
that is) you are claiming that that choice adds value, when the land
would be just as valuable even had the chooser never existed.

??  Market value is determined by the advantages conferred on the
user, not the other way around.

Right, because almost all government spending that isn't wasted ends
up as land rent, to which all have an equal claim.

They don't now, of course: the police are of much more benefit to
those who have things worth stealing than to those who don't.  But
people _would_ all benefit equally under a land rent recovery system.

To benefit from the existence of a police force and judicial system,
you have to be living, doing business, etc. -- i.e., using land --
within the area of their jurisdiction.  But that means you have to be
paying land rent to get any of those benefits; and because the supply
of land is fixed, the value cannot be competed away: the land rent
will reflect the full market value of those benefits.  Under a land
rent recovery system, all benefit equally from government spending,
because all the benefits that proceed from government spending on
services, infrastructure, etc. flow through and add to the land rent,
to which all have equal claims.

That is effectively already the case (the specific services involved
may vary widely, of course), as the land rent on each parcel in each
area already reflects the market value of the exact degree of benefit
conferred on each land user by all government spending.

Yes, in the sense that he has an exactly equal claim to the rent those
services create.

Under the current system, by contrast, the holder of the higher-value
land use privilege gets a large gift from government and the
community, in the form of higher land rents, in return for which he
contributes exactly nothing.

In any case, "identical access" is perfectly meaningless in the
context of benefits received.  The people who shop in a grocery store
all have "identical access" to the goods on the shelves, but they of
course get -- and pay for -- only the ones they actually take home.

No, the choices made by the land user do not affect the market value
of the land, though the choices made by the users of nearby parcels
may.  This has been recognized for nearly 200 years as a fundamental
advantage of taxing land rent: there is nothing the land user can do
to reduce his tax obligation but use less valuable land, or to
increase it but use more valuable land.

Unlike the payer of a tax on earned income (which is almost all the
current income tax taxes), the payer of a land value tax pays only for
the benefits he receives from the community, not for the benefits he
contributes to the community through his productive efforts.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

Of course they're not going to. The point was that
the moral basis of Locke is his appeal to an ultimate
moral authority (which even today is still considered
by a majority of people apparently a given fact).

If one then jetison's that authority either some other
basis for the moral claims and the moral conclusions
is required or the moral claims go as well.

You and Lev can take you pick.

I find that a proplematic claim. It clearly existed and I
find it hard to believe that people in general were not
aware of rental rates for similar land, or prices for that
matter, being driven by proximity to markets and town centers.
Petty seems to have had some notion of the idea tha land value
and prices were not  only derived from land's productivity or
the labor working it.

Prehaps rather than being unaware of land rents they were
merely taken for granted.

Sure but then don't ignore the whole of Locke's argument.One of
his responses to the question of  question of "as much as and
as good" for others was that nature is rather stingy with her
fruit but a man's labor produces abuncance.By taking a small
bit from nature that man is not only able to produce for
himself but produces a surplus that is now available for
others--not for free as is is the case of nature but still
available.

I didn't call for zero tolerance but until your response
to me in another post I'd not seen you even consider
the question. Even there I don't think you actaully
made a huge effort to address the issue.

Equal rights doesn't mean mean if you have it I can
now take it. Nor does equal rights to nature mean
that society can now charge you for what you're using.

If you want to claim that my use of land is generating
$X in rents that I cam collecting for using that land
and that $X exists merely because the actions of some
others are producing this external value I'm now collecting
as a land rent, that's a bit different. It's not the
case that everyone in society has produced that external
effect so how is giving them a share of it or kicking
me off so someone else can pay and everyone then
gets a share securing this equal right?

No, just good analysis. If you don't want to disaggregate
the problem at least do some preliminary work to establish
a reasonable probablility that it's a second order type
issue or that it all nets out. Don't just assume it.

The fact they have just as good a right and currently
ARE using it. That appears to be a fairly well established
social convention even in cultures that don't have any
extensive private property rights.

The social conventions for minimizing conflict that
recognise the current users has a superior claim to
use. If they stop using it but still want to prevent
others then, depending on one's assumptions about
property rights, others' right to access become into
force. If two or more are competing for the unused
resource then some, preferably non-violent, rationing
approach seems desirable.

Perhaps the difference here is one of a transition
between regemes and transactions under a regeme.

Because the community doesn't own the land either.
If a person is not using land to extract a rent
from others then the community has no right to
demand any payment.

Is this the new theme now, social ownership and social
rights--all justified by Locke's theory of property
that was a individual right?

Care to elaborate?

It might be public but it's not always simple or transparent
or clear.

Sure but that, and the need for everyone and everything to actually
be somewhere, also supports the old public finance propsition of
taxing inelastic demand.

Where?

jmh


author: robert j. kolker

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

That is pure assertion. What physical law of nature or what moral code
graven on two stone tablets establishes this "right"? You have extruded
this right ex anus. The good things of nature go to the strongest. It
has always been so and it will always be so.

Bob Kolker


author: sinister

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

I think his problem is one of understanding what he's read, not how much
he's read.


author: Igor

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

So she this is the problem there are NO LANDOWNERS. When George
advocated communal property he advocated the current system. A deed does
not say you OWN the land. A deed says you have purchased legally defined
rights to USE the land. A deed for a slave said you owned the slave. A
deed for land says you have legal rights to use the land NOT OWNERSHIP.

NOTHING GUARANTEES APPROPRIATION OF LABOR. YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND
RENT. RENT DOES NOT COME FROM LABOR. There is a very good explanation of
rent at www.henrygeorge.org. I suggest you read it because you have
SERIOUS misunderstandings to what rent means. RENT IS THE WAGE PAID TO
LAND. The wage paid to land goes that person who has property rights. It
is not an exploitation of labor. LABOR IS PAID WHAT THEY PRODUCE. If
Grade IV land produces 4 bushels of wheat and Grade III produces 3
bushels then labor's marginal product is 3 bushels if Grade III land is
used. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY LAND OWNERS. It is the fourth bushel
that EXIST ONLY BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY OF LAND, the amount
of labor used is the same, THAT IS APPROPRIATED BY THE LAND OWNER. YOU
ARE NOT A GEORGIST YOU ARE A MARXIST WHO BELIEVES CAPITALIST AND
LANDOWNERS CONSPIRE TO EXPLOIT LABOR. Despite what your socialist
pamphlets told you this is NOT WHAT GEORGE SAID.

READ GEORGE. READ IT AGAIN. READ IT A THIRD TIME IF NECESSARY. You not
find any support for the "theft" of labor in George as you claim. You
will find that land owners receive rents that NO ONE had to WORK to obtain.

Please DOES A BILL OF SALE FOR A TRACTOR SAY CAPITAL ON IT? DOES A
REGISTRATION FOR A WHEAT THRESHER SAY CAPITAL ON IT. What do you call an
input that the capitalist owns and that is not used in production.
Slavery turned people into capital. Slaves were not only bought and sold
like capital but rented as well. There has been some work that used data
on slave markets to test capital theory.

A land title does not make the land an asset. You do not own the land.
You paid for the RIGHT TO USE THE LAND indefinitely.

Now you have to go back and read Mr. Hobbes. Do you know what a state of
nature means. Try reading the LEviathian by Thomas Hobbes.

Again Roy's intellect fails and he really realizes he has not correct
understood the argument so he resorts as usual to insults.

Wrong. YOU SAID PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE INVALID NOT PROPERTY RIGHTS IN
LAND. You might have meant the right to own land is invalid. I am not
going to argue that either way because it is a moral question and there
is no CORRECT answer. You statement was PROPERTY RIGHTS were not valid.
Property rights cover much more than land. When you stated that you
claimed that ALL property rights should be eliminated. If you meant the
right to own land fine. You have just clarified that but that is not
what you initially said.

RENT IS NOT A PRIVELAGE OVER OTHERS. IT DOES NOT ENSLAVE WORKERS ANY
MORE THAN THE CAPITALIST DOES. WORKERS ARE STILL PAID THEIR MARGINAL
PRODUCT. WITH PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND, LAND OWNERS RECIEVE THE
MARGINAL PRODUCT OF THE PIECE OF LAND NOT WHAT BELONGS TO THE WORKER. To
argue a land tax on unimproved land is efficent is different from
arguing that land owners EXPLOIT WORKERS. THIS IS JUST MARXISM UNDER A
FACE. GEORGE NEVER ARGUED THIS. George argued that taxing capital and
labor was determinental to production taxing unimproved land is not.
George argues that taxing away rent leads to a more efficent use of land
NOT THAT LAND OWNERS EXPLOIT AND STEAL THE PRODUCT OF LABOR. THIS IS A
GROSS MISUNDERSTAND OF THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF RENT. Again read the
Henry George website. YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE TO WHAT RENT IS.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:10:52 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

You will find my vision considerably exceeds yours.

Likewise my logic.

Defending the greatest evil in the history of the world may be called
many things, but IMO "humorous" is not one of them.

Please define the difference between being consciously and honestly
committed to defending the right and being "self-righteous."

-- Roy L


author: wjyoung

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Is the market value of the exclusive usage privilege of a plot of land
not to be separated from the market value of the house built upon it?

How does government know the market value of the exclusive usage
privilege of the empty lot until its current holder sells it, and of
course, until either buyer or seller discloses this information?

Also, once that information in known to government such that the
exclusive usage privilege fee that should be levied the holder of the
privilege, does it fit with your sensibilities that the new fee should
apply to the buyer?  Or should there be some way to reclaim the deficit
from the original owner as implied by the increase in market value since
the last market transaction when he bought it, such as to assume a
linear rate of increase between original purchase price and eventual
selling price that could be summarized, including interest, into a fee
to be charged the seller at the time of the disclosure of the facts of
the transaction?

I thought market value was determined by buyer and seller.

Anyway, I am inclined to conclude from your comment that it should not
be the market value of the land use privilege that should determine the
fee to be paid to government, but rather the real burden that would be
placed on government services by the existence of the land use
privilege.  Would I be incorrect to do so?

How does non-wasted government spending end up as land rent?

How is government spending wasted?

Would the people who do not benefit under today's system come to benefit
under the land rent recovery system because government would bestow on
them gifts worth stealing, which would be provided from the taxes paid
by those who already possess such gifts?  Or would they be granted
relief from their own tax burdens because the rich have been made to pay
them on their behalf?

I hope you do not regard them as a people of, by, and for government.

How is the benefit that comes from personal labor separated from the
benefit that comes from government services?

Am I to assume that the rent being charged by government to the citizen
reflects the market value of the benefit of government spending on the
citizen simply because government has charged it?  What of the
reciprocating expenditures by government; are they not already the
benefit itself?

Government services create rent?

Which is the cart and which is the horse?  Is it a people of, by, and
for government?

How did the land use privilege come to have a higher market value?

I can't imagine that I should be expected to recite my credit card
number when calling the police to report a prowler in the neighborhood.

How is it that my neighbors might affect the market value of my land use
privilege but I could not?

What a dilemma.

I guess those benefits are not simply that which are inherent to a
community police station or fire department, but rather includes the
prosperity the individual realizes under that auspices of those services.

Barring an argument that prosperity is created entirely by government
expenditures, where is the line drawn between the benefits of those
services and the benefits of the labor of the individual?  What is the
rate of the tax?


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 19 Dec 2004 23:30:45 -0500, [email] wrote:

One can use the principle of equal rights to use natural resources
without invoking divine sanction.  If one doesn't accept equal rights,
one is obliged to embrace the alternative: privilege.

Of course people were aware of rent.  But the underlying economics was
not understood until Ricardo.

Right.  There was no clear understanding of the relationship of rent
to wages, marginal land, etc.

Maybe if you identify "the issue" specifically, I can address it.

Right.  B has no more right to deny it to A because A now has it than
A has to deny it to B because A now has it.

Society is just everyone whose rights are in play.

Your use of land does not generate the rent.

The equality is not in the contribution to the rent, but in the right
of use.

You need to specify exactly what problem you are talking about here.

??  What?!?  You can't obtain a right to violate someone else's rights
by violating them!  Unless, of course, you want to live in the kind of
primitive, rights-ignoring society that allowed a rapist's offer of
marriage to nullify his crime.

It's a social convention because current users tend to hold the power,
and it's too much trouble and risk to assert the rights of the
powerless.

That social convention (which btw you just made up -- try not paying
your property taxes and see how far you can rely on it) wouldn't
mimimize conflict at all, as history clearly proves.  It just shifts
the conflict to a higher level, as the greedy and ruthless would fight
among themselves to be recognized as "current users."

The current user's claim is in no way superior to anyone else's,
except insofar as he has made fixed inmprovements, has a crop in the
field, etc.

Wrong.  Others' rights do not depend on the indolence of those who
would violate them.

Allocation can only be non-violent when all agree that forcible
appropriation is not a basis for a right of use.  Those who defend a
right of use based on forcible appropriation are agreeing that others
are perfectly right to use force against them.

Nope.  The community consists of all whose right to use the land is in
play.  So the fact that the community does not own the land either is
completely irrelevant, as it acts in the capacity of a trustee for all
its members.  A trustee does not own the trust's assets, yet has a
perfect right to charge the user of a trust asset rent for it.

You stand refuted.

Flat wrong, and lacking any supportive fact or logic whatsoever.  This
line of "argument" leads straight to the most exorbitant form of
privilege: the big landowner's privilege to keep "his" land idle for
his own recreational pursuits, while others starve for its lack.

Equal rights of _all_ individuals, which only the community can
secure.  Anything else is privilege and tyranny.

The public, one-dimensional nature of land rent and the inherent
justice of recovering it for the purposes of the community that
creates it render complexity, obscurity and partiality extraneous.
They become artificial blemishes on an inherently fair, simple and
natural system, not complex kluges needed to ameliorate the
destructive effects of an inherently unjust, flawed system.

??  Compared to what alternative?

Meiji Japan, Denmark in the 1950s, post-war Taiwan, China in the late
17th and early 18th C, etc.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:08:46 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<[email]> wrote:

Of perfectly evident facts.

No tablets.  Just the fact that no one made the land, and so no one
has any more right to it than anyone else.

I realize that you do not believe in rights, or at least not equal
ones.

OK, so you don't believe in rights at all.  Fine.  Have a nice day.

Oh, and a Happy New to you, too, you old curmudgeon.  As if you
deserved it...

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:54:24 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

Only in a very strained sense.

That's a distinction without a difference.  The deed is what makes the
land property, just as it made the slave property.

Owning land that yields rent does.

<yawn>  Back atcha, pal.

Yes, actually, it does.

Yes, and it defines rent as that part of wealth which constitutes the
return from land.  All wealth is produced by labor.  So rent is a
product of labor.  QED.

Moronic.  Land does not work, and it does not producegoods or
services.  It therefore cannot earn a wage.

Land rent goes to landowners.  Duh.

I didn't say "exploitation."  I said "appropriation."  Learn to read.

Flat false.

Right.  Only the fourth bushel the workers produce on Grade IV land is
appropriated as rent.

Right.  It is produced by the worker, and appropriated by the
landowner, who does nothing.  Just as I said, and you denied -- before
just now agreeing that I was correct.

I have never claimed to be a Georgist.

You are an idiot and a liar.

It's not what I said, either, liar.

Either provide a verbatim, in-context quote where I say "theft" of
labor, or admit that you are lying filth.

That is a flat lie.  The worker had to work to obtain them.

Capital consists of products of labor that are used for production.
You can only define slaves as "capital" by equivocating on the word,
"labor."  Which might be amusing, but is not illuminating.

As long as you pay the taxes, etc.  That "right" is the asset.

Yes.  But maybe you mean something different by "property rights."

I have.

That's what you said, liar.  Look up about 20 lines.  Yep.  There it
is.

Either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect, or
admit that you are putrid, evil, despicable lying filth.  I have said
explicitly, many times, that valid property rights derive from an act
of production.  I don't understand what you think you gain by baldly
lying about what I have clearly written.

Yes, there is.

Provide a quote, or be known for a liar.  You have no other choices.

Quote, or be known for a liar.  Choose.  Now.

Liar.

The privilege of appropriating it is.

It appropriates part of the product of their labor in return for
nothing, just as the slave owner appropriates the product of his
slave's labor -- except that the slave owner usually provided the
slave something in return, like food, clothing and shelter.

No, they aren't, lying filth, because they have to pay their taxes out
of their marginal product, while the greedy, idle landowner is
privileged to appropriate part of their product for doing nothing.

In return for contributing nothing whatever to production.

Ineed, what belongs to the worker is only what he has left after the
landowner has appropriated part of the worker's product.

Indeed.  But both flow from the same facts.

Lie.

You continue to prove that you have not the slightest understanding of
Henry George's work.  George did not advocating taxing only unimproved
land, and he clearly stated the fact, well known in economics, that
taxing the unimproved _value_ of _improved_ land was _also_ not
detrimental to production.

You are the very last person on earth who can claim to speak for Henry
George.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

-- Roy L


author: Zach

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...
news:[email]...

You're not defending a right, you're actively attempting to thwart a right.

As to self-righteousness, I'll refer to your exact words:

"Your "arguments" were and are utter garbage, and have been duly demolished
by your moral and intellectual betters.  You now have an opportunity to
learn from them.  I predict that you will choose not to do so.You will find
my vision considerably exceeds yours. Likewise my logic."

Bloody self-righteous
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-righteous) of you, especially
when you know absolutely nothing about me, save I hold a different opinion
than you do.

BeachBum


author: The Trucker

subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
wjyoung wrote:

Yes. It is separate.

County tax assessor collectors do this as a matter of course.  Every
year the value of the land on which my house sits rises, the value
of some land to which I hold title in Texas has been rising also but
there is no structure on this land.  There are all sorts of ways to
arrive at estimated market value but like sales is probably best.  And
you can appeal this value if you wish and as a last resort you can
auction the land and buy it from yourself at a lower price if you
think you can do that.   You must give other people the opportunity
to bid.

Here you enter into a system of current user "claims" a value and so
there must be some way to insure the honesty of the users.  In this
type of system the current holder of the land must pay back rents/taxes
plus a penalty.

In a market there are many potential buyers and sellers.

Roy will have his own answer but mine is that you would not be correct
in your assertion that government cost of enforcement is the only
fee to be paid by the land holder/user.  The holder/user is paying
the market rate for exclusive use.  It does not matter what the actual
cost of tenant rights enforcement may be.

If government spending is for infrastructure then the value of
all land in the sovereignty is increased.

Bush, Iraq, Drug laws, a military 5 times the size of all the other
nations combined, corporate welfare, simple wealfare, running the
Republican spin machine, etc.

No.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

That is a ridiculous question.  If there are no taxes on labor, or
assets other than land, then all productive persons will benefit so
long as government is held in check.  The best way to do that is to
insist that all funds collected as a tax on land or from the rent
of land that are not used for infrastructure or actual defense and
law enforcement be distributed as a citizen's dividend.

Certainly.

The people are supposed to BE the government.  That seems to be the
point missed by most Libertarians.  If the government does not
represent the people then the government needs to be fixed.

People want the land use privilege and they bid for it.

You paint your house and it is the best house in the neighborhood and
the value of your house rises.  The value of your land does not immediately
rise.  But so long as your house does not "stick out" like a sore thumb
because it is so far above all the others then the value of land in
the neighborhood is increased by what you have done, and it is this
very small increment that will be "reflected" upon your own lot.  If
all the people in the hood keep their homes very neat (externally) and
their lawns and gardens the same, then the value of all land in the hood
will rise.  Even the one hold out that does not participate (probably
a Libertarian) will see an increase in the value of his holding.  In the
Georgist system he will also see an increase in the tax.

Which benefits are you attempting to discuss?

The _rate_ of the land value tax has nothing to do with "the labor of
individuals"


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:51:38 -0700, wjyoung <[email]>
wrote:

Yes.  But the value of the house does not come from the owner's choice
to build.  It comes from the labor of the people who design and build
it.

??  Buyer and seller don't have to disclose that information.  It is
disclosed automatically as part of the process by which government
transfers the title.  And anyway, how do the buyer and seller arrive
at a price?  Do you think there is some magical force that prevents
government employees from doing what buyers and sellers do?

Certainly.

The amount paid to the seller would already be reduced equivalently,
as the buyer would know he was going to have to pay the difference,
and reduce his bid accordingly.

Tenants need secure tenure in order to use land as prooductively as
possible, and retroactive taxation is not a part of LVT.  It would be
normal for the holder of a land use privilege to have a guaranteed tax
amount for some limited period of time (say five years).

??  And how do you suppose they "determine" it, if not by reference to
the economic advantages conferred on the user?  By cutting cards?
Reading tea leaves?

No.  Few market values are equal to the associated marginal costs,
even if the latter could be measured, which in this case they can't.

Yes.

By increasing the advantage conferred on the land's user, relative to
the user of marginal land.

Lots of ways.  Consider the return achieved by the government of North
Korea.  How much is the US government getting for its current spending
in Iraq?

No, they would benefit through not having to pay for government
services twice (once in taxes and again in land rent) in order to give
landowners something for nothing.

Not "the rich."  Landowners.  And the tax burdens are only "their own"
now because they are made to pay twice in order that landowners can
get something for nothing.

Why would I?

Personal labor is paid for by the employer, who presumably knows what
he is getting for his money.  Government services are paid for once by
taxpayers, and then again by land users.  It's just that the second
payment currently doesn't go to the government that is providing the
services, but to private landowners for doing nothing.

I don't know what you are referring to, here.  Rent is charged for
land use privileges, not per citizen.  The rent reflects the market
value of the benefit conferred on the land's user; it is not just an
arbitrary amount, but the exact amount the user would be willing to
pay a private landowner for what government, the community and nature
are providing.

The land rent measures the benefit received on a particular parcel,
not the amount spent there.  As I said before, some government
spending is wasted, and money spent is no guarantee of benefit
conferred.  The former can be determined by accountants, but only the
market measures the latter.

Yes, to the extent that they confer greater differential economic
advantages on the users of land within the government's jurisdiction.
Most government services make locations within its jurisdiction more
valuable.

We know that government is the horse and rent the cart, because when
government stops, the rent stops.

I have no idea what that would mean.

Greater advantage conferred, relative to marginal land.

Oh, don't worry, that's not necessary: they already know which
neighborhood you are calling from.  And they know which neighborhoods
are likely to have more prowlers, too (hint: not the high-rent
districts).

Because the value of the privilege by definition specifically excludes
the effect of anything the holder does, but includes the effects of
everything everyone else does.

Not to those who intend to profit by production rather than
parasitism.

The value of the advantage conferred on the privilege's holder.
Right.

Prosperity is created by abundant production of goods and services,
which can only thrive under certain conditions such as security in
one's person, liberty to devote one's labor to productive ends, access
to the necessary natural resources and secure property rights in the
resulting products.  No government, no prosperity.

Now, granted, it is most certainly possible to get government wrong.
Far from fostering prosperity, a handful of very bad governments have
reduced or eliminated it, for themselves and/or their neighbors,
perhaps even reducing it below the level typical of anarchistic
societies.  But such governments are very much the exception.

To the extent that their effects are specific to the goods or services
produced, the latter are not taxed.

Assuming it is a multiple of the discount rate, the rate doesn't
matter much.  What matters is the base.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

I believe in rights alright. But they have to be bought with force.
Think of those worthy Minutemen on Lexington Green. Do you think they
meekly petitioned the thugs wearing Red Coats to recognize their rights.
No they didn't. They said the Three Magic Words --- Lock and Load.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

READ RICARDO READ GEORGE. LEARN WHAT RENT MEANS. Rent is the share paid
to land.

You have zero understanding of what Ricardo or George meant by rent.
READ THEM.

Flawed. The portion of wealth created by land IS NOT CREATED BY LABOR.
It is an intrinsic value that land ADDS to labor. You are using a very
crude MARXIAN LABOR THEORY OF VALUE. You are not a Georgist you are a
Marxist in disguise. That is why you are trying to destroy George's
theory will saying you are supporting it. Not all wealth is produced by
labor. Some is produced by the natural characteristics of land when
combined with labor and capital. To say ALL wealth is produced ONLY by
labor because you must have labor is as silly as saying ALL wealth is
produced by land because without land you can not produce. This is a
very crude labor theory of value. UNTIL YOU CAN UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
OTHER THAN MARX'S LABOR THEORY OF VALUE YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND MODERN
ECONOMICS.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:28:34 GMT, "Zach" <[email]>
wrote:

Back atcha, pal.  The difference is, I can support my position with
facts and logic.  You can't.

Oh, I know much more about you than that.  I know the specific kind of
position you hold, and the kind of dishonest arguments you advance in
its defense.  Haven't y0ur arguments all been demolished, exactly as I
said?  Didn't I accurately predict that you would choose not to learn
from people who obviously know far more about this issue than you do?

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:21:05 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<[email]> wrote:

No, you obviously do not.

Rights are not bought with force.  Only secured with it.

Yes.  _Beforehand_.

Yes, in fact they did.  Numerous times.  Only when peaceful means
failed did they resort to force, and even then it was in most cases
very reluctantly.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
Igor wrote:

This argument exists because "wealth" and "value" are not well enough
defined as constants recognized by the two of you:

Roy says "value" is a market thing and that value in use is called
"utility".  And both of you and a very large part of the economics
community refuses to differentiate between "wealth" and "goods" and
continues to use the word "wealth" where the word "goods" would be
much more appropriate.

If the words "wealth" and "goods" are synonymous then it is true that
all "wealth" is produced by labor.  But if "wealth" is the capacity
to forgo or to command labor then access to more bountiful land
confers wealth on the user of the land, and the land has "value"
even in a one man world where there is no market and no kings or
priests.

It is more appropriate to speak of the reduction in labor that is
afforded the user of more bountiful land.

Why do you bring out that dead cat labelled "Marx" and sling him
around your head?  You tryin to ward off EEEEEEEEEEVIL???

Yep....  That's what he's doin.

Smith predates Marx, and Smith never claimed that an item is worth
however much labor was spent on his creation.  Smith's value theory
is (IMHO) correct and stands today just as it did.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/wealth.php

Smith does make the mistake of comingling wealth and goods.

This GreaterVoice.org site is not some sort of "authority".  And the
stuff you find there is most certainly open to debate.  If you wish
to disagree with what is said there then please do so.  But we will
not accept appeals to "authority".  Only reason and logic need apply.


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:24:03 GMT, Igor <[email]>
wrote:

That's the classical definition; but you see, it doesn't mean the land
actually gets the money.  The owner does.

Never mind; I realize that you are unwilling to know even such
elementary and undeniable facts of objective reality.

I have.  And unlike you, I understood them.

No, it is not; you just refuse to understand plain English.

<sigh>  No wealth is ever created by land; all of it is created by
labor applied to land (and usually capital).

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.  Land that yields rent does
not "add to" labor.  It allows labor to create more wealth, but does
not itself create any wealth.

No, but you are making a fool of yourself.

I have never claimed to be a Georgist; and if you called my views
Marxist to a Marxist, he would laugh in your face -- if not spit in
it.

And btw: you are a lying idiot, very much _not_ in disguise.

I am just identifying facts and their implications.

Then kindly identify some that was not.

??  What nonsense!  There is no such thing as "combining" land with
labor and capital.  Wealth is produced by _applying_ labor to land and
usually capital.  The labor is active; the land and capital are
inanimate objects, and can produce nothing.  All they can do is allow
labor to produce more.

Which I did not say, did I, lying filth?

Land is not active.  It cannot produce.  It just is.

No, it is not.  But that is a very crude lie.

Until you can stop lying about what I write, you will not deserve any
more of my valuable time.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

Coming from another person who advocates a
simple might makes right approach this is rather
funny.

I'll take Kolker's honesty over Roy's delusions
any day of the week. At least I know Kolker will not
set out to kill me or take my property for my own
good or even worse for some "general" good.

Gotta love those good intentions.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On 02 Jan 2005 14:37:51 -0500, [email] wrote:

Coming from a proved liar, this is rather expected.

??  How much good has ever come of _evil_ intentions, hmmmm?

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] writes:

Your twisted asertions don't produce proof or fact.

jmh


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

Little good, but much progress. Thanks to Hitler and his gang a dozen
and half nations have A-bombs are nearly have A-bombs. It is an ill wind
that does not blow somebody some good.

War and evil have been major engines of technological progress. The
reason we have anti-biotic in great quantity is war. Penicillin was
developed from a laboratory curiosity to a mass produced product because
of the horrendous wounds suffered by solidiers during the the Second
World War.

So, if you want progress, get used to having lots of evil.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:24:44 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<[email]> wrote:

Countries like Iran and North Korea having A-bombs is not good.

It was coming very rapidly anyway.  The idea that war is on balance
beneficial is just idiotic and anti-human.

-- Roy L


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
[email] wrote:

No it wasn't. The freeze-dry process for producing gobs of penecillin
was a wartime measure. It would have taken ten years longer in peacetime.

In addition to anti-biotic war is a great envorionment for learning how
to handle trauma quickly and well. Methods of controlling shock and
infection were developed rapidly during the second world war. Almost all
the trauma techniques used in civillian hospitals were war developed.
Where else do you get thousands of shell, explosive and gunshot wounds.
Only two places: in a war zone and in the black sections of our big
cities like Harlem in NYC and Roxburry in Boston.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Income from a tax on land.

text:
robert j. kolker wrote:

So what's the mentality here, Bob.  We should have war so as to saction
these human lab rat experiments?  We need to create trauma so as to
treat it?  It takes "provide jobs" to a whole new level!


author: CC Tang

subject: Re: Tibet: Stories of Change

text:
[email] (Kalsang Y Tashi) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Kalsang,

You misunderstand.  I didn't write this message, I was simply
reposting it from another forum.  I do, however, feel her perspectives
are honest and interesting.  You bring up reasonable questions, and I
will try to address to the best of my abilities.

(I'm not a sociologist, nor am I a woman.  Feel free to call me Xiao
Tang if you'd like :P).

No, that's not the suggestion at all.  No one believes Tibet is
dangerous from a security point of view (although many believe that
the rural areas of Kham are still rather lawless... an opinion shared
by most urban Tibetans, from what I understand).

Maybe you don't believe this, but the truth is Tibet has a tremendous
reputation within China-proper as being a very harsh land.  No one
denies its natural beauty or spiritual presence, but the weather and
altitude are legandary in the terror it holds for the Han.  I'm not
sure if you've known many Han, but health is almost an obsession...
and even being in high altitudes is considered a great risk.

This is why there are few true settlers in Tibet... most stay at most
a couple of years, and very few migrant workers bring their families
if they can help it.

I speak from personal experience, and I also refer you to:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99feb/tibet.htm

It depends on what you mean.  I don't know if you've been to Tibet,
but claiming that they're making profits *because* of their government
is a VERY biaesd interpretation.  Yes, if Tibet was independent and
there was no TAR government, of course there would be few Chinese
entrepreneurs/migrants in Lhasa.  But beyond that, you'll have to tell
me what specific policies the TAR government is using to help Han
business people profit?

Do the Han get preferential business loans?  Are Tibetans prevented
from opening up businesses or travelling to China-proper?  The answer
to all of these questions is: no.

There is a huge socio-economic gap between Han and Tibetans, including
in Tibet.  I don't deny this at all.  But the same type of gap exists
in every society (whether it's the United States or India)... and they
exist for very similar reasons.  Social connections, language
benefits...  it definitely does not require government policy to make
it happen.

An honest look at Tibet would tell you that governmental policy is
doing many things to try to ease this gap (whether it's enough is open
for debate).  Tibetans do not pay many of the taxes that have
bankrupted many rural Chinese farmers.  Tibetans gain tremendous
advantages in schooling, in terms of tuition and admission.  This gap
won't go away over-night, but if you want to erase it, you need to
target the cause of the gap... not insist the government is causing it
because it's what you want to believe.

Is this based on personal experience?  Or on what you've "read"?

The author of this article shared her specific experiences with
small-time Han businessman.  What do you believe she is denying, or
ignorant of?  Specific facts, not innuendo.

Is this based on personal experience?  Or on rumor?

It's been confirmed by various Western sources that Tibetans (in the
TAR) are exempt from many of the tuition/school-fees that affect the
Han.  The percentage of Tibetan children in schools is far lower than
the national average, but not far below other rural areas in Western
China dominated by the Han.  There are many significant reasons that
exist, but few of them are directly related to a lack of government
desire to educate Tibetan children.

Again, the article from the Atlantic Monthly I linked above has
comments from the teacher, mentioning the schools he saw (travelling
alone) had facilities at least as good as those he saw in Sichuan.

I also refer you to:
http://www.khamaid.org/programs/education/litangeducation.htm

Pamela Logan has been working in Kham for much of the past decade.
Tibetan areas in other provinces don't have many of the benefits that
the TAR has... but even in Kham, there's only so much blame the
government should bear.

The government can and should always do more, but let's get clear at
least on what has been done so far.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying.

You can't be claiming that *ALL* Tibetans disclaim Tibet's affiliation
with China... can you?  It wasn't the case 50 years ago, and it
certainly isn't the case today.

Very true, there are various harmful aspects of modernization on
Tibetan culture... and there are few Tibetans really
qualified/powerful enough to speak on them.  The Dalai Lama would be
perfect for this role, and hopefully he will take it up if the
political question is resolved.

I hope you take my post in the positive spirit it is intended in.
Regards.


author: Kalsang Y Tashi

subject: Re: Tibet: Stories of Change

text:
SlipperySlope <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Irrespective of whether China had 'wanted' to 'liberate' Tibet, it
went against our right to self-determination.  Tibet may have been
economically backward, we were, however, happy with what we had and
how we lived.  If materialism/modernism (the more we get absorbed in,
the weaker we mentally become)did not interest us, why did China have
to impose its ideology of capitalism on us?  If China had really
wanted to 'liberate' Tibet as it claims, it could have simply
exchanged dialogues with the Tibetan government and expressed
concerns.  Trapping our land in its clutches wasn't the way to go.
China simply wants to swallow Tibet and exploit our resources as it
has been doing for decades.
As for your question to where our white supporters were then, ask
them.  What matters now is that they recognize our self-determination
and thus, support our struggle for independence.  They see the
strength and charisma in His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to lead
Tibet.  What more does China need to know?


author: francispoon

subject: Re: Tibet: Stories of Change

text:
[email] (Kalsang Y Tashi) wrote in message
<snipped>

Speak for yourself only!  I know many other Tibetans in HK who are as
interested in having their material well-being improved like the Hans
or the WASPs.  You are painting the native Tibetans as some kind of
special human beings who are immune to a good quality life like anyone
else.  Shame on you!

  If materialism/modernism (the more we get absorbed in,

During the time of Mao, the ideology was communism was imposed on the
whole country and there was much unhappiness for understandable
reasons.  Now you are complainning in place of all the natives that
capitalism is being "imposed" on the natives.  So are you choosing
feudalism or serfdom in place of modernism?  Why do you even suggest
that the natives are happy being slaves again and having to work with
primitive tools in an agrarian economy?  There has always been a level
of materialism or moderniam in Tibet any way.  It is when it was
opened up a higher level is now achieved.  That is to say, regardless
whether or not Tibet is interacting with China Proper or another part
of the world, the level of materialism or modernism will also be
enhanced.  Now you are suggesting to hold the wheel of history for
some god-knows what reasons.

  If China had really

Is that government a democratically elected one?  Tibet has been a
part of China for many years.  Why should the central governemnt have
to let a minor group of special theocratic interests dictate terms for
that place?

  Trapping our land in its clutches wasn't the way to go.

This is an empty statement.  It can also be said by a bunch of beach
combers in Hawaii.

Please show what kind of resources that have been digged out of Tibet
and the cost of developing that place.  Each year, the government has
poured in billions into Tibet just for its development.  You are one
of those naive liberal art students who, during the era of Mao, would
have worn Mao's jacket and during the world convention in Seatle would
have protested against economic global village.  You are a
professional demonstrator without knowing why you are doing.  Life is
too lonely for you.

Trash all these terms!  Tell us what you cannot do now under the
current setting that could be accomplished by self-determination or
independence. Tell us the price required for such luxurous items as
self-determination and who will be the people that pay for the price.

  They see the

What will happen when DL die?  DL is only ONE person.  Tibet needs to
be governed by a system that guarantees its well-beings on a perpetual
basis. You are bringing back a form of feudalistic rule which is rule
by people rather than system.  Who needs that shit?  Speak for
yourself only.  Most of the Tibetans i know are more interested in the
stock index charts than the picture of DL.  You and your kind are
hiding under a feudalistic image.  Coward!

 What more does China need to know?

No, she does not need to, as she has already known that the best way
to build trust with the Tibetans is to put the Tibetans' interests
ahead of them.  Currently the economic development going on is a way
to help Tibetans break out of poverty.  China knows she does not need
any Hollywood celebrities to advocate the cause of Tibet independence.
 And anyone who advocates that cause and causes commotion with bombing
and the other kinds of terrorists activities will be locked up and
beaten up.  And president Bush, after its little education
with the muslims, has learned that if you sleep witht the dogs you get
fleas.  Bush is off topic with Tibet until the Afgan mess is cleaned
up.
FP


subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
"_ G O D _" <[email]> wrote in message news:<hEJ2c.735674$ts4.443985@pd7tw3no>...
I support the legal and private farm production of Hemp!  I use many
products made from Hemp and its fibers such as soap, paper, cloth and
kraft materials.  HEMP is not Marijuana, and no one can get high on
Hemp. They can try, but it won't happen. They might OD from trying
though.

Farming Hemp does not require pesticides and requires only a little
watering.  Hemp is pest resistant.

Regards, from Nan


subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
"_ G O D _" <[email]> wrote in message news:<hEJ2c.735674$ts4.443985@pd7tw3no>...

Hemp is not a "drug."  Hemp cannot produce a "drug."  You do the Hemp
advocacy movements, of which I am a dedicated member,  _great
disfavour_ by associating Hemp with the Drug War, and with illicit
drug abuse and trade.

from Nan

We will work


author: Harry K

subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
[email] (nan) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Ah, but what they are after is to legalize raising hemp so they can
hide their Marijuana grow operations in the middle of the field.
Almost impossible to tell which is which.

Harry K


author: _ G O D _

subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
"nan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Nan, I suggest you contact people at this site and tell them about it...
http://www.volunteermatch.org/orgs/org14973.html


author: Bill Levinson

subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
nan wrote:

See http://www.wingedhussar.org/zagloba.html
Hempseed oil is actually very good for you. It's quite legal and you
don't get high on it (it contains no THC).

--Bill


subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
[email] (Harry K) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Yeah, I know what you mean.  That is a serious concern of we NONE
DRUGGIE, sincere rural residents/farmers who are Hemp advocates.  Our
local Hemp advocates were disheartened by the impracticalities. It is
impossible for the LE/Feds/State Ag to monitor and test the crop in
growth stages on a regular basis.  Whatever, its just not cost
effective for the grower with a few acres no matter how dense that
hemp grows.

Corn is NH's golden crop.

Regards, from Nan


author: Andy Katz

subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
On 7 Mar 2004 18:51:42 -0800, [email] (Harry K) wrote:

In such proximity hemp would inevitably cross-pollinate cannabis,
destroying its potency, turning the latter into the former.

Andy Katz
____________________________________
I sentence you to kiss my ass!

                    The Simpsons

[email]
[email]

Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org


subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
[email] (Harry K) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Aye, and that fact is the major obstacle.  Our local Hemp advocates
are not DRUGGIES.  Many are disheartened by what would not be cost
effective if required to have some agency monitoring and testing the
(dense) crop in growth stages. Hemp is an incredible weed for its
myriad of uses.  Very like Comfrey, another weed just recently made
illegal in Canada & US(!) - that's a long story and has nothing to
with Comfrey being a drug.  Comfrey has many medicinal applications -
its cures are miraculous - I know first hand.
Undoubtedly, *that* (my anger!!!)is why one cannot buy seeds to grow
it in a patch in the backyard. Comfrey thrives and requires no special
care - it's a weed.

Regards, from Nan


author: Pete nospam Zakel

subject: Re: Seattle Hempfest

text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:

Only in any plants grown from those seeds.  And since the goal of most
marijuana grow operations is to grow seedless buds, anyway...

The potency of the plants themselves would not be affected by their proximity
to fiber-hemp plants.

But this argument is just more propoganda used to try to smear the legitimate
hemp industry with the tar of marijuana.  Those are two different things that
just happen to be related by plant genetics.  Most hemp farmers do NOT want
marijuana plants in their grow operations because they DONT'T want to be
associated with drug manufacturing.

However, legalizing marijuana would instantly make it much easier for hemp
farmers to exist.

-Pete Zakel
 ([email])

"The really great thing about cats is their endless variety.  One can pick a
 cat to fit almost any kind of decor, color scheme, income, personality, mood.
 But under the fur, whatever color it may be, there still lies, essentially
 unchanged, one of the world's free souls."
						-Eric Gurney


author: osprey

subject: Re: Where Is Osama bin Laden? Day 1,461 and Counting

text:
"Ricky Ticket" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Personally, I felt the Republicans and Democrats both failed.  Neither
candidate, in my opinion, was a good choice. Once again we were faced with
voting for the lesser of two evils. I really hope someday that the
Independents can come up with a strong candidate that can rattle both
parties.

I wouldn't mind seeing Rice run, but I don't think she is going to.

I think Guilliani is going to run and in my opinion he is a good candidate.


author: Ray Fischer

text:
osprey <[email]> wrote:

We KNOW that your candidate was a bad choice.  Many of us knew it five
years ago.

You do not know whether Kerry was a good choice and you will never
know.  You can only cling to that hope because it allows you to deal
with the fact that the current batch of republicans are screwups who
care more about power than they care about America.

[...]

You never learn.  You continue to support the warmongers, the liars,
and the screwups for no other reason than they are republicans.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dgpc7g$uct$[email]...

Too bad some of us have our own thoughts and don't always agree with you.
Why does that bother you?

You can only cling to that hope because it allows you to deal

I don't support you though, so I guess I learned.


text:
osprey <[email]> wrote:

The only "thought" you have is contempt for anybody who dares to
disagree with your politics.

No, you haven't.  You're still an idiot and an asshole.


author: R.D. Heilman

text:
"osprey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Just got back from Germany, there some intellectuals believe and decry
tnat he was murdered by George Bush's agents.


text:
"Ray Fischer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dgpfj9$3rp$[email]...

cough...IRONY METER...cough

I obviously have, you said I continue to support the liars and
screwups...well, I don't because I don't support you.

Think about it, you will catch on sooner or later.


author: Louise Mallard

text:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:24:19 -0400, "osprey" <[email]>
wrote:

Are you coughing one up with THAT piece of irony?

Keep projecting, heishman.  You're ensuring that you're
Not to believed, ever!


author: rickthecockroach

subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
The irony of a meaningless life is people putting meaning to it.

Who teaches the meaningless other than yourself?  A man teaching such
a philosophy is applying meaning to his life, and others.

The man who's truly caught up in such a lifestyle is dead already or
running for the nearest bottle of bleach.

The rest are bitter, too sure of an all consuming world-view but too
afraid to end his own nonsense.  (And those who can't, teach.)


author: beelzibub the reverse psychologist

subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
rickthecockroach wrote:
... butt no one ever taught me how to shit? work that in their somewhere
and get back to me cause I can't deal with your post as it is.

b

This is my post. It's one of the best posts on the net.
I know what you're asking yourself 'did he post 5 or 6
times'? Well in all the confusion I kinda lost track
myself. So you gotta ask yourself 1 question 'do you
feel lucky, huh do ya punk ...'


author: Ioannis

subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
"rickthecockroach" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Kierkegaart, among many others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

You are playing with semantics. The above is silly word play.

Either life has a meaning or it doesn't. It's a XOR. It can't be neither or
both. If life HAS a meaning, display it. Say it, so we can all know. If it
DOESN'T, me saying "life is meaningless" is an accurate portrayal of reality.
I am not "giving" life meaning by saying it. Besides, Life itself as a process
is totally oblivious with regard to MY or YOUR sayings.

Quoting Murphy's Law makes your statement cheap philosophy. The fact that I am
not brave enough to end my own nonsense, does not absolve ME or YOU of all our
responsibilities towards others and towards the general absurdity that is
Life. Neither does it absolve you from educating OTHERS about the general
nonsense, by adopting a passive stance which implies that life has a meaning.

If you were one of those who COULD, you would either be preaching right now in
my place or you wouldn't be talking about it altogether. You'd be watching
from up there. You are simply here because you cannot do any better. Like the
rest of us. Yet, some of us teach, whereas you choose silence.

The results of this silence is this craphole you call "the world".


author: Elspeth

subject: love

text:
how much i fukkin' love you,
  i wish i fukkin' knew.
i'd travel off to timbuctoo
  to get a whiff of you.
i'd travel off to timbuctoo
  and wouldn't know what the fukk to do,
cuz that's how much i fukkin',
  muthafukkin' fukkin' love you.

love,
Elsie

in my tree


author: Aldo Pignotti

subject: Re: love

text:
wasn't it Joni Mitchell who sang:

Love is your nose, so you'd better not pick it.
It only grows when it's when it's on your face.

Sounds more like an Emmy Lou Harris song, now
that I've sung it a couple of times.


author: rumi

subject: Re: love

text:
Love comes and goes
Just like release of wind
when its bad it stays
when its good it goes
love is you know
CRAP!


author: blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton

subject: Re: love

text:
Aldo Pignotti <[email]> wrote:

I've got a brand new pair of rollerskates
you've got a brand new reason to hate people
in clothes you wouldn't wear on a dare.

				--Blair
				  "Squirrels are quite smart."


author: Paminifarm

subject: Re: love

text:
blair[no spam]@world.std.com (Blair P. Houghton) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

What is love?
Why "love" is said to be a form of insanity;
How cannot you believe the popular definition
of love when you listen to something as this:
Love is here to stay;
I loved you in the Spring of May;
I loved you in the hay;
I loved you when you strayed;
I loved you when i would pray;
I loved you in my nerves all frayed;
I loved you when i was afraid;
I loved you when i lost you today.

But Oh, say, hay, hay, hay;
I will get by some how;
For you are only gone for now;
Tomorrow and many more tomorrows;
You will be in my scheme of plans;
For a life unknown, and all alone.

You will be in my dreams today;
You will be in my dreams tonight;
In my dreams i will hold you tight;
My conscience will give me no fight;
If i forget im not a bird but take flight.
In clouds of despair i will find you some way.

My sacrificial lamb to you
http://www.angelfire.com/fl5/10paminifarm10/urls.html


author: Leighton Anderson

subject: Re: Single Payer Medical Insurance (was: Re: Is Health Care A Right? (essay))

text:
Gordon Fitch <[email]> wrote:

So, what's your response to the poster's point (let's turn it all over
to the private sector)?  I agree with him/her; so far, you seem to be
saying its better to be all the way screwed than halfway screwed.

Leighton


author: A T Furman

text:
In article <[email]>,
Leighton Anderson <[email]> wrote:

	limit  {n wrongs}  =  a right
   (n --> <infinity>)


author: george conklin

text:
In article <2r1pso$[email]> [email] (A T Furman) writes:

     No, what they are saying that it is fine to be screwed for
private profit.  Being screwed that way does not count because
Ayn Rand said so.


author: Richard Z Toptani

text:
george conklin ([email]) wrote:

:      No, what they are saying that it is fine to be screwed for
: private profit.  Being screwed that way does not count because
: Ayn Rand said so.

So what you're saying George, is that it is fine to be screwed
if the government does the screwing.

Well, George, why don't you go screw yourself instead of trying
to get the governement to screw everyone else for you.


text:
In article <2r3skf$[email]> [email] writes:

     My my.  The ultimate comment of a reasonable person.  It
shows why the AMA is losing respect so quickly.


author: BYS

subject: 環球時報：救災不忘讚政府英明

text:
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭嚙磐嚙踝蕭G
嚙瑾嚙褕對雅嚙緩嚙窮嚙稻嚙窯嚙踝蕭P嚙踝蕭 嚙誰論肯定嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭F嚙踝蕭嚙罵嚙踝蕭

嚙踝蕭嚙瑾嚙褕佗蕭G嚙線嚙踝蕭嚙瞎嚙踝蕭F嚙踝蕭嚙窯嚙窯嚙踝蕭嚙篇嚙諛己嚙稷嚙踝蕭C嚙踝蕭嚙�
嚙瘤嚙踝蕭嚙瞇嚙諸記嚙踝蕭嚙篇嚙諛己嚙箭嚙箠嚙篁嚙緙嚙踝蕭{嚙瘠嚙緘嚙瘦嚙踝蕭嚙篇嚙踝蕭
嚙瑾嚙緩嚙瞋嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙瘠

http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-04/3856417.html

嚙瑾嚙褕對雅嚙緩嚙窮嚙稻嚙窯嚙踝蕭P嚙踝蕭 嚙誰論肯定嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭F嚙踝蕭嚙罵嚙踝蕭
2013-04-22 02:35 嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭

嚙瑾嚙瑾嚙箠嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭嚙碼嚙踝蕭D嚙篌嚙踝蕭嚙篌嚙窮嚙稻嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙誹再嚙踝蕭襲嚙踢中堆蕭|嚙緣!嚙踝蕭嚙瘡嚙諛塚蕭嚙緩嚙窮嚙稻嚙窮嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙緣嚙褒遍嚙瑾嚙褕，
嚙緻嚙誼迎蕭嚙窮嚙衝佗蕭嚙瘤嚙瑾嚙踝蕭嚙誰論哨蕭嚙踝中嚙赭的嚙瘩嚙緯嚙�?嚙瘠

嚙瑾嚙瑾嚙瘢嚙豌昨嚙賠伐蕭嚙踝蕭I嚙稿嚙璀嚙緻嚙踝蕭7.0嚙褐迎蕭嚙窮嚙稻嚙緩嚙緙嚙踝蕭186嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙窯嚙璀21嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙豌，嚙磕嚙盤1.1
嚙瘟嚙瘡嚙踝蕭芊C嚙箭嚙篌
嚙調∴蕭嚙瞑嚙磋嚙窮嚙踝蕭嚙稻2008嚙羯嚙稿嚙緣嚙篌嚙窮嚙稻嚙篁嚙磕嚙稷嚙請∴蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瞑嚙褕，嚙羯嚙褕也嚙褕紛迎蕭隉A嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭F嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭a嚙稻
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踟為剁蕭嚙緣嚙璀嚙誕湛蕭嚙踟有序。

嚙箠嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭u嚙踝蕭嚙緩嚙磅嚙踝蕭嚙瞌嚙踝蕭 嚙踝蕭嚙� 嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭n嚙羯嚙磅嚙踝蕭O嚙踝蕭 嚙踝蕭嚙� 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭 嚙踝蕭嚙線嚙踝蕭 嚙瘠嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭O嚙踝蕭 嚙緬嚙緻嚙緻 嚙瞋嚙踝蕭 嚙蝓蛛蕭 嚙篁嚙踝蕭嚙瞑嚙篌


author: haha

subject: Re: 環球時報：救災不忘讚政府英明

text:
嚙踝蕭 22/4/2013 8:22, BYS 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭:

嚙篌嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瞋嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙盤嚙調也嚙緩嚙瞋嚙線嚙瞋嚙磊嚙線嚙緞嚙羯嚙踝蕭嚙瘦

http://udn.com/NEWS/MAINLAND/MAIN2/7845409.shtml

嚙罵嚙緣嚙踝蕭嚙緩嚙窮嚙稻嚙踝蕭A嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝嚙罵嚙賠即嚙箭嚙盤嚙調發嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙窮嚙踝蕭A嚙緻嚙瞋嚙踝蕭嚙談以嚙線嚙線嚙緞嚙緝嚙瘤嚙踝蕭嚙瘠

嚙緯嚙質都嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙褕，嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝嚙罵嚙窯嚙褓副會嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭F20嚙踝蕭嚙豌，嚙諉會嚙窯嚙罵嚙瞎嚙緩嚙碾嚙窮嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙賢撥嚙瘢5100嚙磊嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瘠

嚙緻嚙踝蕭嚙誹塚蕭嚙稽嚙璀2011嚙羯嚙豌歹蕭嚙璀嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙窯嚙畿嚙罵嚙範嚙磊嚙璀嚙瘡嚙諄震嚙窮嚙緻嚙談恬蕭x嚙磕嚙踝蕭
嚙瞋嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙褊萬嚙璀嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瑾嚙褊萬嚙畿嚙踝蕭嚙範嚙瘡嚙諍殷蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙褊萬嚙瘠

嚙踝蕭2011嚙羯6嚙踝蕭u嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙複伐蕭v嚙踝蕭嚙緞嚙確嚙豌歹蕭嚙篌嚙篌嚙璀嚙瑾嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭20嚙賡雅嚙緩嚙窮嚙稻嚙璀嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝
嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙瞎嚙穀嚙賣不嚙瘤嚙複件陰影嚙璀嚙箭嚙盤嚙調慘嚙瘩嚙線嚙瞋嚙磊嚙線嚙緞嚙羯嚙踝蕭嚙瘠

嚙請－－∴蕭

嚙線嚙踝蕭嚙盤嚙篌嚙窮嚙箠嚙賞不嚙踝蕭嚙編嚙課滾嚙皚嚙璀嚙諄是嚙罵嚙瘤嚙稽嚙瞋嚙磋嚙踝蕭茪w嚙瘠


subject: Re: 環球時報：救災不忘讚政府英明

text:
On 4/21/2013 9:59 PM, haha wrote:

嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙複伐蕭A嚙箭嚙踝蕭嚙瑾嚙褕穿蕭嚙瞋嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙罵嚙緻嚙談。嚙瞇嚙踝蕭o嚙談喉蕭嚙瞋嚙踝蕭
嚙箴嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瘠嚙瞇嚙賤有嚙踝蕭D嚙璀嚙瑾嚙緲嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙磕嚙踝蕭職嚙瘠嚙璀嚙踝蕭@嚙諉德嚙踝蕭嚙賣重
嚙踝蕭嚙瘡嚙磕嚙踝蕭h嚙箠嚙瘠嚙諉且嚙踝蕭嚙瞋嚙緝嚙罵嚙踝蕭嚙瘩嚙褓利嚙踝蕭嚙箱嚙璀嚙稽嚙瘤嚙褊瘀蕭嚙踝蕭嚙磐嚙瘠
嚙踝蕭嚙瘤嚙踝蕭嚙誰踝蕭A嚙稽嚙褓每嚙羯嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭|嚙瘠嚙緲嚙踝蕭蚾嚙踝蕭C嚙瞇嚙踝蕭U嚙褐經嚙緲
嚙羯嚙磅嚙稽嚙踝蕭嚙箴嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭o嚙瘠

嚙瑾嚙赭情嚙緘嚙瞇嚙瞌嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭妢嚙踝蕭C嚙誼樣要嚙課話事。嚙諉且嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭O嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙誹要嚙諸如嚙踝蕭嚙瞋嚙緝嚙罵嚙瑾嚙赭控嚙踐的嚙踝蕭織嚙箭嚙稻嚙瘠嚙踝蕭嚙編嚙瞇嚙範嚙踝蕭嚙瑾嚙踝蕭嚙�
嚙罵嚙稽嚙緣嚙踝蕭嚙篁嚙踝蕭嚙賞接嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙誹。嚙諉且嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭Q嚙緝嚙罵嚙豬作嚙蝓箱嚙瑾嚙羯嚙瘠
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙複伐蕭嚙緲嚙緻嚙璀嚙踝蕭嚙磅嚙豎用殷蕭嚙誹自肥迎蕭嚙踝蕭嚙緘嚙瘠


subject: Re: 環球時報：救災不忘讚政府英明

text:
On 4/21/2013 9:59 PM, haha wrote:

嚙璀嚙踝蕭n嚙緲嚙瘠嚙誕伐蕭嚙課每嚙踝蕭b嚙綞嚙瘠嚙磐嚙踝蕭N嚙瞌嚙踝蕭嚙課救災嚙稷嚙踝蕭C嚙緻嚙瞌
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙緙嚙褕喉蕭嚙踝蕭D嚙瘦

http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-04/3860839.html

嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭洠a嚙箠嚙畿嚙瑾嚙瘡嚙篆嚙踝蕭 嚙誰速嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭贏嚙緻嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙�


author: Ted B Samsel

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
I recall that the NatLaw types are Transcendental Meditator TM
types from Maharishi U.


author: Myself!!!

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Ted
B Samsel) says:

SO?   Is that a bad thing?  Is it a good thing?  Does it matter?

AL -- "HuH?"


author: Semolina Happyface

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
In article <[email]> Myself!!!
 <[email]> writes:

Well, what do *you* think?  Does a party made up adherents to some
weird-assed, saffron robe-clad, vegetarian, Om-chanting fringe group
hold any credbility with you?  It sure as hell wouldn't for me.  If
it doesm then you're not fit to vote in this man's America.

Geoff

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 "I mean, who the fuck cares if we know where Europe is?  The whole goddamn
   _point_ of this country is that we don't _have_ to know where Europe is.
         We don't even need to fucking _care_." -- Curtis Yarvin
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


author: Mark Roberts ~

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Semolina Happyface) writes:

I'm glad I don't live in "this man's America"!!  In the United States of
America we are given a choice of whom we wish to vote for.  Not every
body makes informed or even 'good' decisions.  Take a look at all the good
folks out there that voted for the Republinazis with their right wing
extreemist christian agenda.  In my opinion they voted incorrectly but
at least they had a say in the workings of our government.

Don't forget, a lot of people didn't take Mr. Perot seriously either, and
he managed to get a pretty fair percentage of the popular vote and almost
threw the election.

I'm glad you live in "this man's America" and not the U.S.A. because a
tight-assed pinko like you that would limit anothers rights to run/vote
as they think best isn't fit to vote in the U.S.A. let alone ...

-- Mark


author: Joel Furr

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Mark Roberts ~) writes:

Xibo will be sending letter-bombs to you shortly, Mark. :)


author: bd@ (Brice Dowaliby

subject: Re: Natural Law Party ad

text:
[email] (Mark Roberts ~) writes:

"Pinko"?  That term is generally applied to someone on the
lefty side of the political spectrum.  I had assumed that Geoff
was from the rightist side of the spectrum, not the left.


author: Doug Bashford

subject: Why Fresno University Seminar on Radical Environmentalism sparks Hate/Fear

text:
Jim Ware, president of the Clovis Chamber of Commerce,
 ....said:
 "They have a long history of violence. Their agenda is
 not the environment or rights.
 "They have targeted businesses and property. They favor
 interrupting business operations. ... To bring them and
 their terrorism...seems to be a real slap in the face..."
       --------

Typical.  People are now calling sabotage; "terrorism."
Why not?  Bush called a pure-as-it-gets act of terrorism:
an Act of War.
The Boston Tea Party "terrorists" would cringe.

Something odd here.  ALL protests in ANY nation NEVER
gets proper Media coverage.  Sure, Media will happily
cover any violence or damage, perhaps pics of signs,
but NEVER fair coverage of WHY people are protesting.
 (Guess why this might be.)
Thus, we see only kooks.  Thus: how could anybody
but a kook, protest such a perfect (politi-corp) world?
For example, do YOU know why 40,000 Americans rioted
in Seattle???    No?  Join the blinded masses.

Anyway, we have our asleep-at-the-wheel Media, subdivision
of the entertainment industry to blame for this.  If it's not
entertaining, it's not there.  Gee let's deregulate it
some more!  ...and the FCC is planning top do just that.
Wake up America.

             ===================
Event sparks tension and fear
Fresno State seminar on environmentalism begins Thursday.
By Jim Steinberg
The Fresno Bee
(Published Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 5:21 AM)

As a conference on radical environmentalism this week
at Fresno State draws near, alarms are sounding from
opposing political camps, each warning about the danger
of violence from the other.

California State University, Fresno's academic seminar
Thursday and Friday on "Revolutionary Environmentalism:
A Dialog Between Activists and Academics,"
is intended to examine the motivation
behind radical tactics and promote discussion between
environmentalists and social scientists.

Business, agricultural and conservative political
advocates lambaste the university's invitation of
admitted "direct action" environmentalists who have
violated laws and damaged property to protest abuse
of land and animals. They say the university risks
inciting violence by inviting radicals to the area.

Environmental radicals say they are trying to save
the planet and that the greater threat of violence
comes from business and big agriculture. Those
interests, not environmentalists, inflict
widespread death on animals and ecosystems and
also threaten protesters, they say.

Jim Ware, president of the Clovis Chamber of Commerce,
speaks with those adamantly opposed to the conference.
Speaking of the environmental radicals invited to the
conference, Ware said:
"They have a long history of violence. Their agenda is
not the environment or rights.

"They have targeted businesses and property. They favor
interrupting business operations. ... To bring them and
their terrorism against agriculture in particular into
the heart of an agricultural campus seems to be a real
slap in the face of the community that has supported
the university."

The Center for Consumer Freedom, representing food,
restaurant and beverage interests, condemned Fresno
State for "legitimizing lunatics."

Opponents picked Rod Coronado, one of the conference
participants, as a focus of their outrage. He served
prison time for the arson of a research laboratory.

Coronado, who said he represents the Animal Liberation
Front, Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front,
says there is no reason to fear the conference will
spawn violence.

"Why the crazy fear?" he asked. "I am home, and I'm not
running around terrorizing and wild. ... They think that
of us, but we are trying to stop them from cutting down
old-growth redwoods. Let's address it. Let's address
the things that promote violence."

Police agencies at Fresno State and in surrounding jurisdictions
have developed contingency plans in case of violence.

Associate Professor Mark Somma, the conference organizer
who teaches political science, says the event is a
national first and much-needed.

Discussion between revolutionaries and academics who study
them is crucial, Somma said, because protest groups tend
to splinter over time. The splinter groups tend to become
more violent than the organizations that formerly included them.

He had not anticipated the national reaction the conference
touched off.

"The reaction surprises me," Somma said. "In some ways,
I am quite glad. At least the conversation has been opened.
I know there has been a lot of heat. This brings it into the open.

"We are a country that has learned to listen and adapt.
Our universities have a responsibility to open a conversation
even in very difficult areas."

In a written statement the university said it "does not
endorse or condone the use of violence to advance
environmental goals."

Ellen Gruenbaum, dean of Fresno State's College of
Social Sciences, approved the conference, and her
decision was reviewed by Provost Michael Ortiz.
Gruenbaum said she did not anticipate the outrage
the conference would trigger. Still, she said Tuesday,
it falls within a university's proper functions.

"I still believe that this is a controversial issue and
something that universities have to deal with," she said.
"We want to understand what is going on with this movement.
If I had known how this would be misrepresented,
I might have tried to do it in a different venue or
in a different way. But I have to stand by my decision."

      ..........snip

Attendance at the conference is limited to students,
faculty and staffers.

The scheduled topics for Thursday include panel discussions
on radical environmental spirituality and politics;
nature and the ethics of science and the ethics of
direct action.

Other participants include:

Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace now with the
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who is dedicated
to marine wildlife.

Craig Rosebraugh, who has spoken for the
North American Earth Liberation Front press office.

Gary Yourofsky, People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA).

Kim Marks, Earth First! -- Forest Ethics.
============
The reporter can be reached at
[email]
or 441-6311. www.fresnobee.com
letters to the editor: [email]

Speak Out! on News
We invite your comments about this article. Registration
is required for participation in our Speak Out! forums.
        [To respond delete nospamno-no-no...whatever.]
        ===

.....Some rights are more "equal" than others, eh?


author: Sajo Markecz

subject: Re: Why Fresno University Seminar on Radical Environmentalism sparks Hate/Fear

text:
" Doug Bashford " <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Albrecht Ploum in his book called " Natural Mirrors of the Universe " [
Spiegelbilder des Universums ] , likened the shape of the human embryo to
Pangaea , the prehistoric world super continent that existed 200 million
years ago , before the individual continents split apart . Pangaea was
surrounded by a world ocean called Panthalassa , much as the human embryo is
surrounded in the watery womb , supplied with food , water , and oxygen by
the umbilical cord . Although Adam was made in the image of God , so was Eve
, although indirectly , since God made Eve out of one of the ribs of Adam .
I personally believe in the Creation story of the Old Testament book of
Genesis as a parable , not as literal facts of history [ see Matthew 13 :
10 - 17 , for an explanation by Jesus Christ for the purpose of parables ] .
A literal interpretation of the Bible can sometimes lead to sin . For
example , according to a literal interpretation of the Bible , the children
of Adam and Eve in order to produce offspring would have been guilty of the
sin of incest , as would the grandchildren of Noah . God warned both Adam
and Eve at the same time not to eat the fruit of forbidden knowledge , that
is , the knowledge of what the difference between right and wrong is , and
the knowledge of what true death is , i.e. , eternal damnation of the soul
and body . The rest of the living things were all made good by God , and the
animals did not lose their innocence by eating the fruit of forbidden
knowledge [ see Genesis chapters 1 - 3 ] . The talking and cunning snake in
the Garden of Eden was Satan , the fallen angel , in disguise [ see
Revelation 12 : 7 - 9 ] . When animals do something violent , they do it in
ignorance of the knowledge of what the difference between right and wrong is
, and therefore in innocence , whereas when humans do something violent ,
they do it in knowledge , and therefore with a guilty conscience . Although
eating both animals and plants is morally acceptable for humans , eating
only plants is even better . In the Roman Catholic denomination of
Christianity , the patron saint of nature and all living things is St.
Francis of Assisi . Proverbs 12 : 10 says that a righteous man looks after
the life of his animal , but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel .
Animals are neither to be tortured nor neglected , and they are to be killed
as quickly and as painlessly as possible only for the sake of food and
commercial items . Animals are not to be hunted to extinction . Revelation
11 : 18 says that God will destroy those who destroy the earth . Psalm 104
and Psalm 148 in the Old Testament have many uplifting verses praising the
beauty of God's creation , which , according to Genesis chapters 1 - 2 , God
made all of it to be good .

One day the seas might be turned into large lakes . Some of the verses of
Ezekiel , chapter 47 , say that the Dead Sea , an extremely salty lake ,
will one day be turned into a fresh water lake with an abundant amount of
fish living in its waters . Jesus Christ , who was God Himself in the body
of a man when He was on earth [ the Gospel of St. John 1 : 1 - 5 ] , once
miraculously fed 5000 adult males , besides the women and children , on the
shores of the large fresh water lake called the Sea of Galilee , also known
as Lake Gennesaret or Lake Tiberias , and He also walked on the surface of
Lake Galilee by means of a miracle [ Matthew 14 : 13 - 36 ] . If God wanted
to , He could make whales live in large fresh water lakes with a never
ending supply of food , since nothing is impossible with God [ see Mark 10 :
27 ] . Somewhere in the verses of Isaiah , chapter 11 , it is said that one
day the lion will be turned into a harmless herbivore , and that children
will play with poisonous snakes , and not be hurt by them . The Caspian Sea
, a large salt lake that is about nine tenths the size of the state of
California in area , has seals , porpoises , tortoises , and alligators
living in its waters , although over the last few centuries they have nearly
been hunted to extinction . The Caspian Sea was once connected to the Seven
Seas in prehistoric times , although continental drift eventually enclosed
the prehistoric Tethys Sea . Lake Baikal or Baykal , a large fresh water
lake that is little bit more than three quarters the size of Switzerland in
area , also has seals living in its waters . Lake Baikal is located far
inland in Russian Siberia , and is connected to the distant Arctic Ocean by
the Angara River , which was much wider in prehistoric times before
continental plate movement or tectonics narrowed the river . God , who was
powerful enough to create the universe out of the nothingness of space by
the Big Bang event many billions of years ago , is also powerful enough to
suspend the laws of physics , which He created , by means of miracles . God
is indeed the eternal , with no beginning and no end , timeless , omnipotent
, omniscient , perfect being who is the uncaused first cause of Aristotle
[ see the Acts of the Apostles , chapter 17 : 16 - 34 ] .


author: Stan de SD

text:
Thanks for the biblical rant. Too bad it has nothing to do with the subject
at hand... :O|

"Sajo Markecz" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
is
Eve
.
.
children
the
that
the
in
in
is
Although
killed
God
the
known
wanted
:
one
Sea
nearly
Seven
in
by
God
omnipotent


text:
In <[email]>
 On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:18:56 +1100, "Sajo Markecz"
<[email]> wrote about:
 Re: Why Fresno University Seminar on Radical Environmentalism sparks
Hate/Fear

Here's one nobody knows about.  The First Covenent.
aka the covenent of the Rainbow.  It's in Genisis after
the Flood.  God makes a contract with Man, Animals, Earth,
and Himself.  Keep in mind that a Covenent (contract) is
not a decree, but an exchange of responsibilities.  Also,
one does not make contracts whith toys nor chattle.
The rainbow is proof it's still binding.
I'm guessing Gen:25 ?
--Doug


author: redflag

subject: Re: capitalism

text:
Mike Bachwansky wrote:

Which illustrates my point that "libertarian" ideology relies heavily
on a good dose of mysticism. Libertarians indulge in a type of fetishism
over private property.

But you blur the distinction between personal possessions and private
property. A car is a personal possession, a factory or som other
means of production is private property.

Neither category is eternal since they are concepts that people have
created as their relationship to things and each other have evolved.

An assumption which King George and Parliament accepted. That's why
they sent troops to enforce their property rights over those who
wished to abolish them. They did not prevail.
The whole point is this: No conception of property is eternal and
can be abolished in favor of another or abolished altogether.
Just like the rebellious colonists of 1776 who maintained that
the English monarch's rights over the colonies was no longer
an acceptable or viable regime, socialists today maintain that
private property rights, specifically _capitalist_ property rights,
are untenable and must be abolished in favor of a better property
form, one that reflects a more current reality.

Morality and ethics cannot be disassociated from material reality.
Since material reality is a dynamic, ever-changing phenomenon, so
must be our moral and ethical conceptions.
Since property rights and property relations are conceptions based
on actual, evolving relationships taking place between people and
things, the ethical and moral conceptions that spring from those
relationships inevitably change, are done away with, to be replaced
by other moralities and ethics.

We might not be able to point to a day in the calendar and say, "here
the ethical conception of land sale changed", but we can say that around
a certain period of human history people's idea about land sale
changed as a result in this or that change in agricultural method.

Possibly. I cannot be ceratin how long socialism will last nor even
if it will actually come into being. I am certain of a number of things
that require no speculation:

Capitalism is outdated. It is outdated because it cannot fully
or adequately address the needs of the greater number of people who
participate in it but who are legal outsiders because they do not own
the menas of production. It is outdated because the cooperative labor of
its particpants is used for the exclusive benefit of a tiny minority
whose actual contribution is either negligible or non-existent.
It is outdated because the social ills spawned by this absurd inbalance
are such that they threaten to undo all human progress and civilization
hitherto achieved.

I ackowledge that they exist. But i do not equate private property
rights in the means of production to the possession of personal
belongings.

Yes. the substance is more important. But definions are important too.
If by "recognize" you mean _accept_. Then perhaps we've been talking past
each other.
I recognize the existence of capitalist property rights but I
do not accept them and am actively engaged in educational and
agitational efforts to abolish capitalist private property.


author: Robert Sparks

subject: Re: capitalism

text:
redflag wrote:

How does that illustrate your point?  I don't see how it does that?  Can you
expalin it?
A "type" of fetishism?  Which "type?"

Me thinks you have blurred vision yourself. Private (personal) possession vs
private property.  Please, educate us on the difference, that is, define your
differenc ein terms: private vs personal, possession vs property.  There must be
some logical distinction you wish to make.  Try it....

Sorry, but as far as these concepts being eternal, their only demise will come
with the advent of the demise of all intelligent life.  Otherwise, the concepts
exist.  They can be applied to 200 years ago; they will be applied 2000 years from
now.  The concepts have been "discovered," not "created."

Hey, ya know, there's going to be disagreements.  George lost that argument,
didn't he?  You haven't won yours; ergo, the concepts stand as eternal or better
"in tact, without having been lost"

Are you serious about this???  As material reality changes, so should our ethics?
No, no, not "should change," in fact HAVE TO change?  Which particular ethis or
moral statement has changed in the past 100 years (because of material reality)?

Gobble-de-gook.  Go ahead, show the connection, the logic; not merely
pontification.

Please .... go ahead... do that.  Around what period?  Which idea?  What change?
Which agricutlural method CAUSED it?

Whew!  Thank goodness.....

(Certainly for those who have a good hearty mystic sense of socialism, I'm sure)

Which people are these?  Which needs?  Which groups are counted as being part of
the "capitalist system?"  Does greater number mean "majority?"  Are you saying
that over 50% of all the people involved in a capitalist economy aren't content
with today?  (Mind you they may have dreams about tomorrow, but then without some
dreams about tomorrow what fun is there in today.)  Fully?  and Adequately??
According to whom?

More poppycock.  "exclusive benefit???"  Nonsense.  The best you could get out of
current reality is "greater benefit."  And that's mere incentive.  You don't like
incentive???

By your definition, I guess, but not by the majority of the human race involved in
capitalist economic decision making.  Oh, sure, there are lots who want more, (not
necessarily "need" more, and there are lots who ENVY those who have "more," but
then I suspect that's been the way for thousands of years.  At least the
literature of all the times would indicate that. Not much change there....

Yikes!  Here comes an asteroid!  Doomsday!

OK, what social ills?  Spawned in what way?  WIth what current consequences?  How
do they threaten human progress?  What is human progress?  Who gets to determine
what that is?  Civilization?  Threatened by whom?  Those who are envious?  Oh,
that's capitaism's fault?  Hey, criminals (those who are the proximate casude of
someone else's demise) are just that: criminals.  If someONE is threatening, then
someONE is a criminal.

Well, that was obvious above, but you give no reasons for your apparently clever
distinction.  Try defining that for me so that I will better understand and be
able to "come over to 'your side.'"


author: Tom Royston

subject: Re: capitalism

text:
Dear Robert,

A few things?

The assumption that the rights contemporary society maintains to exist
are eternal and in some objective way 'correct'. The concept of private
property has not always existed: historical evidence shows clearly
'private property' ios not a timeless idea. Logic, in the form of the
argument that private ownership of capital (particularly any means of
production) inevitably creates a situation in the interests of
relatively few, suggests that at some point the majority will wish to
have society operate in their interests, and thus the seemingly
immutable private property laws will be revoked.

This demonstrated, the libertarian conception of private property laws
as in some way unchangeable, or objectively right (both views commonly
expressed here) is shown to be based entirely in wrong thinking, and
blinkered vision. A view of this genre (or 'type') is, when carried to
such heights as it frequently is here, akin enough to a kind of
'fetishism' for that word to be appropriate and adequately illustrative
in description of the belief.

OK?

They will still be concepts, it is true, just as the concept that one
god appointed king owns all land and merely bestows contingent occupancy
rights is an eternal concept: but a completely defunct one. It is clear
that situation was only directly in the interests of one man, and it is
also clear that the contemporary situation is only directly in the
interests of the bourgeois.

Are YOU serious?

What else but material reality has given women and the working class the
vote? What else is it that makes illegitemate children acceptable? How
about the welfare system? Children at work? Taxation? All of these have
moral aspects, and I don't think God is behind the relevant laws. Nope,
material reality: social change. Has this *really* never occured to you?

Ah, well. I know very little about American History, but in the UK,
there were a series of laws passed called the Enclosure Acts which had a
revolutionary effect on land use and ownership. I think most of them
were passed in the 18th century, though a few possibly dribbled either
side

I have not studied this in any kind of detail for about four years (and
not very much then), so if anyone reading this knows more, do correct me
(but the basic concept is simple).

Villages and villagers had previously not had a system of well defined
land ownership, generally dividing arable land in big fields up amongst
them, and swopping every few years to ensure equity. Pastoral land would
be held completely in common, animals grazing together on fields left
fallow, or on the village green.

Parliament, since the Civil War governing in the interests of owners
generally (rather than kings) decided that the system of communal
ownership was silly, and introduced a series of laws over a long period
of time decreeing that people must have formal deeds of land ownership,
and that their land must be 'enclosed': ie hedged or fenced. Few
villagers had much capital, as they were mainly subsistence farmers, and
when land was divvied up and they handed the deeds to their chunk, could
not afford to enclose their land. They had no choice but to sell their
land, to the few men in the country who had the capital to buy it. This
changed their status from subsistence to salaried farmers.

This was probably the first stage of the agricultural revolution.
Second, machines started to come along which made farming much more
efficient, and the landowners, wishing to ensure maximum profitability,
threw the surplus workers off their land.

Vast numbers of labourers had nothing to do: however! new inventions in
industry made large scale industry possible for the first time ever,
which made massive industrial towns spring up in response to the demand.
The massive labour surplus made it easy for owners to employ desperate
men (and women and children) for near-starvation wages.

This is generally considered (I think) to have been an important cause
of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. It was certainly a massive,
revolutionary change in the conception of land use.

So there you go, mate. Does that answer your question?

Normally, comrade.

Mr. Third World Starving Man; are you content with the way of the world?
Do you think that it is fair that you worked for a foreign owned
business for near-starvation wages because there was no way you could
ever do anything else without money or education? Are you chill with the
fact that you've been laid off to ensure the multinational's greater
profitability and now are fucked, let's face it, because your country's
enormous debt to the West ensures it can't provide a real welfare
system?

In this country, the proletariat are kept in an unilluminated sophor by
their relatively good living conditions. 'The country which enslaves
another forges its own chains' Marx said, or something like it. We
certainly do owe a lot of our prosperity to cheap foreign labour.

But this is not the point anyway. 'Address the needs' was the phrase.
That the proletariat have been tricked into the belief that socialism
cannot address their needs ably and thus are relatively content with the
current situation is no proof that the current situation addresses their
needs as well or better than any other system could.

And on that note, goodnight...


author: David James Polewka

text:
Kitt Peak National Observatory -- anagrams
*********************************
1. Tab Starkey took part in a love-in.
2. Bevy o' tarts take part in a look-in.
3. alt.tv.kook.reports ain't eBay, Ian!
4. Tony Blair: "To take over Pakistan?"
5. I take vapor at Orion's Belt, Tanky!
*********************************

=========================
 "Endeavor to persevere"
=========================


author: Joseph Lazio

subject: Re: Kitt Peak National Observatory -- anagrams

text:
DJP> Kitt Peak National Observatory -- anagrams
DJP> *********************************
DJP> 1. Tab Starkey took part in a love-in.
DJP> 2. Bevy o' tarts take part in a look-in.
DJP> 3. alt.tv.kook.reports ain't eBay, Ian!
DJP> 4. Tony Blair: "To take over Pakistan?"
DJP> 5. I take vapor at Orion's Belt, Tanky!
DJP> *********************************

:)

O.k., maybe I should be afraid to ask, but what about the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory?


text:
Joseph Lazio <[email]> wrote:

National Radio Astronomy Observatory -- anagram
**********************************************
Tarnation!  Orion's Belt O-rays *do* vary, Mao!
**********************************************

Los Alamos National Laboratory -- anagram
*************************************
O, a tall Osama ran Orion's bot, y'all!
*************************************

MIT Media Laboratory -- anagram
**************************
I'm radial.  Eat my robot.
**************************

=========================
 "Endeavor to persevere"
=========================


subject: I'd be afraid to go to Christian Heaven

text:
On Jun 22, 10:17 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
<[email]> wrote:

Sorry I didn't elaborate, I'd rather go to the Pagan Heaven. All I
need is a Pagan princess that sings Celtic songs, and we can spend the
whole time making love and eating --not McDonald's. Of course, we
won't be couch potatoes --a Christian quality-- and intend to ride
bikes and go hiking in the woods. Pagans love Nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hjQk-Mfjsg&feature=fvsr

The Christians tortured this princess in the movie and wanted to offer
her as a sacrifice. Can you believe it? That was common practice in
the Dark Ages and many "witches" were burned. But in Pagan Heaven
women and men are equally respected. Actually Pagan women can go
topless in Pagan Heaven. Very liberated and fun! You can have many
gods or none at all!

But the Christian Heaven is full of Christians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

***

On Jun 22, 12:04 pm, Art Harris <[email]> wrote:

They control the world. They can break it or fix it --without turning
to God.

Or perhaps I single them out because they claim to follow a peaceful
humble man but are nothing of that sort.


author: TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

subject: Re: I'd be afraid to go to Christian Heaven

text:
On Jun 23, 9:19 pm, liaM <[email]> wrote:

Trouble in Christian Heaven starts when your "monkey mind" already
polluted by the flesh begins having fantasies and you go restless and
open up to someone. They report you immediately to the angels, who put
you in a cage for 1,000 years. It may seem harsh, but what's that
compared to eternity? The purity of the soul must be ensured.

Try this exercise at home: Calm your monkey mind until no impure
thought is present. Then figure that for 1,000 years and see if you
are ready. Any dirty thought sends you back to the start. The problem
is your monkey mind, which the Christians can not manage well.

Tantric Masters though have put this monkey mind to work for their
benefit. Well, you don't have to be a master but it helps that you
know a bit about energy. A couple completes a circuit and that's how
energy flows. E=mc2.

Einstein was brilliant.


text:
On Jun 23, 9:36 am, one <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

First detailed description that I hear. Maybe the SUV hits you while
you are riding your bike and you won't get killed. You get up from the
ground and say: "I used to fear and hate you, but now you are no
better than me. In a way this is like COMMUNISM. We don't have to
work. We are all the same. We only have to praise the Lord. But I
still don't understand why you resisted so much the idea of socialism
back on Earth. We did suffer a lot down there because of you, but now
everything is forgotten. I may have said 'fuck you!' before, but now I
say 'praise the Lord!' Have a nice day."


text:
On Jun 23, 9:26 am, Wilson <[email]> wrote:

She got those bewitching eyes. Christian wives are said to hate them
because of the way they looked at their husbands, but they only
remembered them for being wild.

That's why those "witches" had to suppressed and burned.


text:
On Jun 22, 4:04 pm, Bob Eld <[email]> wrote:

A common perception is that the Christian Heaven is something like
Disney World, a family place with no carnal pleasures. Others think of
it as a medieval castle with strange contraptions to extract
confessions. Still others think it's a Republican paradise. Liberals
go to Hell, they claim.

But no Christian has advanced a detailed picture of Heaven. For
example, for how many hours you must be praying to God, how to make a
living, etc.


text:
On Jun 22, 7:21 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<[email]> wrote:

The Heaven Christians promote must be a communist paradise: One Party
system, no personal property and God is always watching you.


author: BeamMeUpScotty

text:
On 6/22/2012 6:45 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

SO you are complaining because Christian Hell is much like the Liberal
interpretation of our Constitution.....  It is interpreted and can
change on a daily basis as the needs of the person interpreting it desires?

Odd that you hate your own style of Liberal logic?

--
             *Liberal Commandments*
3.  That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.