Steve Schacher

I stand by my comments and I used my words purposefully. A mugging is a one-time hit-and-run. Wage confiscation is ongoing without end. I go back to my original question: How much of your labor do you own? Money is a fungible representation of the worth of your labor. Some people's labor have more worth than others, therefore those people have more money than others. People who give to charities of their choice express their morality (how's that for bringing in another thread?) and help the less-fortunate in ways of their own choosing, not in ways imposed upon them by others. In the USA, once the poor figure out (if they haven't already) that they can vote to tax the rich to confiscatory levels, they will never go back to any other way of life.

quote:That analogy is inaccurate, because unlike Ancient Egypt, the educated and relatively high-paid workers of today are not the ones who are enslaving the poor and uneducated workers.I must have missed something. I thought the argument was that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I thought the argument was that those with enduring skills are hurting those with obsolete or no skills. I thought the argument was that everyone should get a TV and DVD; that it's not fair that the rich get these things, but not the poor. quote:The educated and highly-paid workers are also slaves, albeit with more money.I said that the rich are the slaves of the poor, not the other way around.

quote:Every socialism (including the 'communisms') have some common goals: reducing the effects of or bringing an end to class division, the facilitation of cooperative and/or collective associations, and the partial or full implementation of planned economics.To bring my reasoning full-circle, Socialism is the unskilled enslaving the skilled by confiscating the worth of their labor. It isn't cooperative if the worth of my labor is forcibly taken from me.

quote:The Jews thought it was wrong, the Egyptians didn’t.Then that brings us back to the Darwinistic survival of the fittest. A society based on the enslavement of others because they are stronger and can do it is no different than a society based on the skills of the laborers who are more educated or employable and can command higher salaries. They enslaved didn't like, and the poor and uneducated don't, either. The slaves eventually overthrew their captors. Will the poor do the same to the rich? quote:the general welfare clauseThe general welfare clause has the power it has because nobody understands what the Ninth Amendment means, including most legal scholars. The Ninth Amendment was meant to say that the rights listed in the Constitution were not the only rights retained by the people. They didn't want the list of enumerated rights to be construed as the only rights granted to the people. The Tenth Amendment says that the powers granted to the Federal government are the only powers granted to the Federal government, everything else belonging to the states and the people. Taken together, they supercede the general welfare clause since many actions taken by the Federal government in the name of general welfare would violate Ninth Amendment rights, if anyone can agree on what they are. quote:health care costsA big factor in high health care costs is that many poor and undocumented people are using the Emergency Room as their primary care facility. [ 05-20-2002, 21:05: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:It is - considering the morals they had in that time. Today's moral wouldn't allow that. But technically, it is a viable society.You would have to define what you mean by "viable." If it means self-sustaining, then Egypt fails because it depended on the forced labor of others -- a situation that couldn't last forever. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. The problem is that the Jews were powerless to do anything about it. If it wasn't wrong then (if the morals of the time let it be acceptable), then why was there such an outcry to "Let my people go?" If what constitutes a viable society changes over time, then you would have to endorse slavery in the United States. If it was okay for Egypt, and it was okay for colonials at the time (until the 1850's), then we can't apply today's standards to slavery and say that reparations are due -- because the South had a viable society. On the other hand, if there are some absolutes of humanity that transcend time, then societies must be measured by them.

Egypt ruled for centuries on the backs of Hebrew slaves. Would that qualify as a viable society?

quote:The only thread ABOUT socialism vs capitalism gets hijacked to a debate on the constitution.Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it was an illustrative diversion. Our capitalist form of society is what it is because the Constitution was meant to be a limiting document, narrowly specifying what the government was allowed to do, and leaving the rest ofr human affairs to the people via the ninth and tenth amendments. The federal power grabs that result in the country slowly inching towards socialism is related to the constitutional abuses by the government (read Senate, and to a lesser degree, the House) by usurping more and more rights belonging to the states, and weakening the rights belonging to the people. Judicial activism (read reinterpreting the constitution) is the favored tool of the day to accomplish what the Left can't accomplish through legislation.

The Constitution, by itself, is not the only source of the meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as well as other jurisdictions, looks to additional writings by the Founding Fathers for guidance to their meaning, including the Federalist Papers, diaries, and other writings amongst and between the parties involved at the time. The amendment process is meant to alter the Constition. This is the only way that it "lives" and "breathes." You cannot simply interpret a new meaning to an existing phrase and call that living and breathing. If you want the new meaning, you must alter the existing meaning. The recent debate over the second amendment is an interesting example of this. The government, back in 1939, used a little case of bootleggers caught with sawed-off shotguns as the basis for questioning the second amendment. The case never made it to trial, as one bootlegger was killed and another never showed up. The argument was that sawed-off shotguns are not "militia" weaponry, hence the second amendment doesn't apply. In other words, they claimed that the second amendment only gave the right of the military to carry weapons, instead of the right of all the people to carry weapons. (See Ashcroft is right on guns, by Cal Thomas, and "Gun Rights Do Not Compute," Say Media Cyborgs, by Richard Poe for more background). Using that kind of interpretation to other phrases of the Constitution, one could say that first amendment only gives those who speak the right to free speech, or only those who speak political speech (campaign finance reform, anyone?), or media speech, the right to speak. One could try to argue that only those people who own homes have fourth amendment protections. The American Taliban is using the first amendment right to congregate as his defense, claiming he can associate with anyone he wants. I don't know if an American can export his rights to another sovereign country, though. I would imagine that his right to associate only applies to associations that occur here. quote:no fair that you answered Sorry... [ 05-17-2002, 21:18: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

General Welfare Preamble quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Article I Section 8 Clause 1 quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Commentary: The "General Welfare", by Thomas Sobran Frenzied Spending and the "General Welfare", by John C. Eastman

quote:Like I said, read my posts. All of them. You will find that, while I made no mention of businesses left behind, I did specifically say that having the claw your way over people is an important part of capitalism. My apologies if I offended you, but I get irritated by people who completely miss what I am trying to say, and then suggest that my arguments support some preposterous idea such as propping up the buggy whip industry.I wasn't offended -- I've been here a very long time. I'm surprised that you didn't take the time to get to know everyone a little better before making personal attacks like that. Don't always expect a point-by-point response to statements you make. I don't. Sometimes, we "spin" them a little to make our own points. I quoted a brief snippet from one of your points and made an equally brief statement of my own. If I were attacking your position whole-heartedly I would have quoted it at length with sufficiently lengthy responses. This is a unique site for gamers. Because the BC franchise is a niche-market game due to its complexity and steep learning curve, it attracts people who are deep thinkers and like a challenge. We informally evolved (devolved?) into a "debating society" because we were bored during the in-between times between BC3K patches/enhancements and wanted something to do so we wouldn't lose contact with other fans of the game. Over time, we attracted many diverse points of view but we knew that we always had one common interest that binds us -- the Battlecruiser series of games. Let's just shake hands and move on.

quote:In the United States, people who are insanely rich and don't need to work are listed as "in poverty" simply because their income has stopped. Unless their income is entirely sheltered somewhere, they would still list interest earned as income. If they are insanely rich, their interest income should be enough to put them above the poverty level.

quote:It's also about those unalienable rights that you mentioned (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), which apply to all citizens, including those in poverty. Since it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those rights are not alienated from any citizen, it is required to assist when private charity proves inadequate.Right to life - granted. Right to libery - also granted. Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will.

Slavery is a red-herring issue. Sure, we had slavery here, but it was the Europeans (mostly Dutch and Portuguese shippers) who brought them here. And, slavery began when we were still an English colony. Many hands are dirty over slavery.

quote:In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth. This money doesn’t come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth. The money comes out of the pockets of the shareholders in the form of reduced or flat dividends. quote:That is the way it works in the US, unless you work for the government or a union of course. then you are paid arbitrarily based on what the government or union thinks you should be payed And when the government pays, it pays with your money. quote:I think it's called overhead. To extract the raw material costs more than it is inherently worth. Thus you can't just add labor + raw material = worth. It's more like you said. labor + cost of raw material + cost of equipment + cost of sales + cost of warehouse + cost of distributing + cost of electricity = worth + profits = total cost to consumer. That's just the cost of goods sold. The "worth" is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the buttons make the dress. Look at high fashion. How do the Parisian designers get away with charging $10,000 dollars for a dress made from a few hundred dollars of material? quote:What a ghastly idea, that is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Ponder it some more. Times change. Innovation hurts. Walmart put the mom and pop corner store out of business. Japanese autos almost put Detroit out of business. Microsoft has put many competitors out of business. Email may still put the post office out of business. History is full of examples of dominant businesses driven away because of changes in technology. We don't use buggy whips anymore. What happened to Mom and Pop, the Detroit auto workers, steel workers, letter carriers? People either retool or they get left behind. In the end, they are in the position that they're in due to decisions they made throughout their lives. It's brutal, but that's the way it is. quote:Now that just was not niceDragon Lady hasn't been here long enough to realize that the quoted statement hurts her more than it does me.

quote:look at the demographics and you can’t fail to realize that success is always at the expense of others. The classic example: why did buggy whip manufactures go out of business? Are we supposed to prop up the buggy whip industry because the people would be out of jobs?

quote:Where does that leave the 5 percent of people who will never get a lasting job regardless of how hard they try? Do you assume that this 5 percent is the same group of people over and over, or is it a revolving five percent that comes and goes as people retrain and acquire new jobs? quote:In Sweden, you don't HAVE to struggle to live. You don't have to hold down two jobs to have a little more. Sweden isn't being asked (no, demanded) to solve the world's problems like the USA is.

Go back to an old thread (I believe it was Knife Control) where I posted at length from the Federalist Papers. The militia was a term of art used to describe ordinary people who were called on to protect the region in times of trouble. The Founding Fathers discussed at length the difference between the militia and a standing army. It is clear from their writings that they are referring to ordinary citizens with arms who defend their property when no other help is available.

quote:but little kids are being killed...Which little kids are you talking about? The little kids that the Palestinians are sending to the front lines of the warzone? The little kids that Janet Reno burned at Waco? The little kids blown up by suicide bombers? The little kids who are suicide bombers? The little kids who see all this, and the attention that is paid to little kids, and then try to mimic it themselves?

quote:Errmm.. and how many nukes does (and did) the US have pointed at almost everyone else? Carpe diem baby.Then they should either call their bluff or fold. Carpe diem... "Let the chips fall where they may." quote:I dont like capitalism because it turns intangible things, mainly money, into a religion. There are people who do this, but they missed the point. When I lived in South Florida (with my grandparents) in the early '70s, there were mostly elderly retired couples from the North in all the communities. In fact, they settled the place and developed it for the rest of us. Anyway, they were children of the Depression, and they were "saving their money for a day." Let me tell you, there are many rainy days in South Florida, but the eldery would still go to $4.95 Early Bird Specials and Dollar Night at the theater. My grandparents would tell me stories of neighbors who would died and then their widows would find $500,000 in their savings accounts. They were shocked because they used to eat tuna for dinner every night. Money is a fungible representation of one's own labor. You work to obtain money to obtain the means to acquire the things that you need and the things that you want. The question is, How much of your labor do you own? If the answer is close to 50% or less, then you are a slave. quote:My ideal place to live would be a nation where health and education are fully provided by the gov. (paid out of taxes of course)Taxes that you paid, not the government. The government pays for nothing, they confiscate the worth of your labor. quote:elder worship has gone the way of the dinosaur. There is a reason for this, with the pace that technology moves these days, unless one really tries to keep up to date old people tend to have the least job skills... and, as older people would make more money it would be in the states best interest if people didn’t grow old... Logan's Run. Work is only a small part of life. You spend 1/3 (of a day) of 1/3 (years) of your life working. You don't begin to understand life until you're 30. You can still learn a lot from someone who's VCR blinks 12:00am.

Kush, et.al.; What happened to c) the poor bastard earns a little more by: c1) taking a second job, c2) taking a night class and getting a job, or c3) does without? Why do people feel entitled to own the things that others own? Whatever happened to "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's?"

The Founding Fathers never imagined a world where they would have to define the meaning of the word IS. Carrying a suitcase nuke for self-defense is absurd. What is the point of security if you destroy yourself in the process? Arms necessary for the defense of yourselves against the onslaught of others with hostile intent is what the 2nd amendment is about. Nukes clearly do not fit the meaning of 2nd amendment.

Eclipse was referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis between Kennedy and Kruschev back in 1962.

Here's another subtlety: ...the people... are the same people that are referred to in the First, Fourth, and Tenth amendments.

Like Nick said earlier, don't go confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism is about the state providing the basic needs for people. Communism is about the state centrally planning the acquisition, manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of resources, as well as the labor pool and wealth. Under Socialism, nobody is allotted a TV and DVD -- they will get health care, food, shelter, and such. The rest is up to them. Under Communism, everyone is supposed to get the same as everyone else, no one richer, no one poorer. Under Capitalism, everyone provides for themselves and are held accountable for the decisions they make in life.

Here are some rapid-fire opinions on my part (at midnight, and you know what happens when I do that): A good analogy for capitalism is multi-level marketing. Like most pyramid structures, those who get in early get the largest rewards. Capitalism isn't so much that hard workers get more for their efforts than slack workers; Capitalism is that entrepreaneurs can create new markets where one didn't exist before. People who can do that will get the big bucks. Capitalism lets the laws of supply and demand work to set the most efficient price points that the markets will bear. If you charge too much, demand will drop until prices drop. If you charge too little, supply will run short until scarcity raises prices. If it costs too much, you will either go bankrupt or raise your prices up to or beyond what the market will pay. The preceding are all examples of moving along the supply and demand curves. People who innovate can shift the curves and compete on new levels, even driving existing competitors out of business. Capitalism assumes that products will be purchased. Socialism assumes that those who can't pay will be provided for. Capitalism assumes that those who are able will work at whatever level of effort makes them comfortable with their lives. Socialism provides a safety net for the less fortunate, but that net could quickly become a way of life. Capitalism assumes that one who wants to improve his lot in life can increase his education and worth to society. Socialism assumes that everyone has an innate worth that must be supported by the government.