~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Where do I begin? Jim Choate has now retreated into subjectivism rather than Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore economics. Answer my questions. How long did the "Thousand Year Reich" last? What totalitarian states can you name that have had any legs at all? There are none. I take it you don't take the comparison between the Roman circuses where prisoners and other misfits (ie Christians) were fed to the lions and and the Tutonic cirucses of the 30's and 40's (ie prison or relocation camps) where the criminal and other misfits (ie Jewish) were fed to the masochistic 'system' as comparable? The Warsaw Ghetto was not a form of 'circus' then? No, of course not. The Roman circuses were public spectacles. They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports today). Their propose was to distract the populace, not to eliminate enemies of the state. That's what Crucifixion and other types of execution were for. Often, the participants were pros, free men who did it for gold and glory. Hell, Rome wasn't even a totalitarian state. Where do you get these ideas? The Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut. Show me your successful totalitarian states. 'They' are the persons with money and influence and have also made it in their best interest to sustain the status quo. Just take a look at the Federal Reserve and how they manage the money in this country. Take a look at the special interest political groups who make it their job to get law-makers to look at it 'their' way. I've looked. I repeat, who are "they"? You know, like some names. They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal non-compliance is a growth industry. God, what the hell are you so afraid of? Just exactly whose reality are we talking about ruling here?... people do not analyze their choices the same way you analyze some physical problem like building a bridge.... But that's the point. Economics *is* like building a bridge. You can't spend money you don't have. You can't create wealth by printing money. There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them. But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states that have "created their own reality." I bet you can't. When I alluded that "they" weren't spending *my* money you wrote: I can assure you that the folks out there will spend their money if it is clear that they will make more of it in the long run. While it is true that public monies are the easiest to spend because of its anonymity it is not the only resource that is there. Consider under-the-table bribes and such. I give up, I don't have a clue what you're taking about. Do you? If so, please elucidate. Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the speed of light. FLAME ALERT: All Cypherpunks who disdain flamish exchanges should tune out now. I'm feeling peevish today and this sort of mindless drivel pisses me off. I have decided, therefore, to amuse myself by fucking with Mr. Choate's head for the remainder of this post. I am afraid [we know that, the question is why you are afraid?] that if you ignore a control freak you build the perfect environ [I'm sure you don't mean "environ," a verb. Perhaps "environment" or "environs" would be more suitable. Sloppy thinking; sloppy language.] for their growth. We are not talking about roses [now you've gotten SOMETHING right] here but rather ideas, a decidedly different animal. [Neither roses nor ideas are animals, Mr. Choate. Can you say mixed metaphor?] Ideas can grow long after the original thinker is gone. [Yes, but what has that got to do with our discussion. Focus, Mr. Choate.] To ignore rather than [to?] confront and expose [them?] is the best way possible [possible is redundundundant, Mr. Choate] to get what you don't want. [Interesting use of the negative in your sentence construction, but you never addressed my thesis, to wit: it is possible to structure your life so that you can ignore would-be controllers. There is no substitute for critical thinking, Mr. Choate.] Love and kisses, S a n d y "Who promises to go back on his medication tomorrow." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To try to cool the flames a bit... In article <Pine.3.87.9409091434.A20129-0100000@crl2.crl.com>, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> wrote:
Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore economics. Answer my questions. How long did the "Thousand Year Reich" last? What totalitarian states can you name that have had any legs at all? There are none.
I think the point isn't that totalitarian states won't last: we know that. The point is that those trying to establish a totalitarian state can do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of us before they fail. -- L. Todd Masco | "Hide, witch, hide! The good folk come to burn thee, their cactus@bb.com | keen enjoyment hid behind a gothic mask of duty." -JS/BATE
Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore economics. Answer my questions. How long did the "Thousand Year Reich" last? What totalitarian states can you name that have had any legs at all? There are none.
You have obviously misinterpreted my statements intent. I do not hold that any government can ignore economics. As a matter of fact, back there a ways I alluded to the fall of most totalitarian regimes being linked to the economics of open trade. As long as their is a market outside the totalitarian keen there is a threat to its stability. The Thousand Year Reich lasted less than a thousand years. I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion. I have not addressed in any manner the concept that governments, totalitarian or otherwise, are guaranteed a endless bounty of curruption. All governments and structures fail. As to legs, I assume you mean sufficient force to exist? The fist couple that come to mind are China and Singapore. Neither are at this moment in any kind of collapse that is apparent. As to their being good examples from your point of view, they have only existed since the end of WWII so they may be too young...
No, of course not. The Roman circuses were public spectacles. They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports today). Their propose was to distract the populace, not to eliminate enemies of the state. That's what Crucifixion and other types of execution were for. Often, the participants were pros, free men who did it for gold and glory. Hell, Rome wasn't even a totalitarian state. Where do you get these ideas? The Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut. Show me your successful totalitarian states.
I fail to understand how 'public' the spectacle needs to be before it qualifies under your definition. Littery thousands of Christians were killed in the Arena because of failure to make their citizenship oaths. I see this as the main point and why I feel justified in making the comparison between the Romans and the Germans (not to mention the fact that Hitler was a big Roman freak..ever look at standards for Rome and for Nazi Germany?).
I've looked. I repeat, who are "they"? You know, like some names. They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal non-compliance is a growth industry. God, what the hell are you so afraid of?
How about the folks involved in Whitewater? About The Pentagon Papers, Air America, etc. Afraid? I am not afraid.
But that's the point. Economics *is* like building a bridge. You can't spend money you don't have. You can't create wealth by printing money. There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them. But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states that have "created their own reality." I bet you can't.
The US government does exactly that, they print money that has no backing other than a few equations and then wonder why our economy cycles the way it does. Economics is NOT like building a bridge. A bridge consists of aa few well known interactions and a basic understanding of the limits of the materials that you use. Economics is about trying to understand what happened and why in a system revolving around the concepts of stock exchanges, banks that are government backed, etc. In Oregon there is no longer any reference to 'pornography' in their laws. In short their legal body has decided that such concepts are not applicable to their society. The French have government enforced board which reviews the language and decides on what is leglal or not; they also prohibit the use of crypto by their citizens to a large extent. The Mormons build a religion which strongly influences a government in Utah which effects all those peoples reality. In Shanghai, China it is against the law to own a cat or dog without government permission.
Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the speed of light.
And in the process you become a control freak. You become what you most hate (or want to avoid).
participants (3)
-
cactus＠bb.com -
Jim choate -
Sandy Sandfort