Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: JohnAndrew: "Re: Is ANYONE dumber than conservatives?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: 35 killed during Clinton term - Bush over 3000 killed"
- In reply to: Sean Burke: "Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:27:04 GMT
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:31:13 GMT, Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org>
wrote:
>royls@telus.net writes:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:08:56 GMT, Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> royls@telus.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:26:01 -0400, "robert j. kolker"
>> >> > <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Sweden is socialist,
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it is not. Most of the means of production are privately owned.
>> >> > It is therefore by definition not socialist. Ask almost any Swede if
>> >> > he lives in a socialist country (a few right-wingers will be ignorant
>> >> > enough to claim they do, but that's about it).
>> >> >
>> >> Don't you think there are degrees of socialism?
>> >
>> >I don't think so. It is more a matter that in many Socialist
>> >contries, including the United States, the traditional forms
>> >of private property have been allowed to persist, even though
>> >the substance is gone.
>>
>> You are delusional.
>
>At least I am not obsessed with medieval landlords deflowering
>virgin brides. ;->
What evidence do you have for your implication that I do, lying filth?
I have posted many thousands of messages to Usenet, and have mentioned
it perhaps twice before, AFAIK.
>> >After all, does it really matter that a company is "privately
>> >owned", when the state is able to excercise its will upon that
>> >company without limitation?
>>
>> But there are plenty of limitations.
>
>Then it should not be hard to name one.
You mean like not being able to just take it over without
compensation, or operate it in violation of the law?
>> >Is ownership without control really
>> >ownership?
>>
>> It is if it is as profitable as ownership with control. The
>> beneficiaries of a trust have no control, but they get the income,
>> just the same.
>
>I contend that there is a difference.
Of course there is a difference. Just not the one you claim.
>The state is free to
>punish or reward a business by reducing or increasing the
>share of profits that the business is allowed to retain.
That doesn't mean the owner doesn't own it.
>A trust has no such freedom to control its beneficiaries.
>
>> >If I can tell you when and where you may drive "your"
>> >car, or who else may drive it, or whether or not you sell and
>> >to whom for how much, in what sense is it still "your" car?
>>
>> Do you really imagine the US government is doing all that?
>
>I'll take this as agreement on your part, that
>"ownership" without control isn't really ownership.
Yes, well, it's not the first time you've shown yourself to be
delusional.
-- Roy L
- Next message: JohnAndrew: "Re: Is ANYONE dumber than conservatives?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: 35 killed during Clinton term - Bush over 3000 killed"
- In reply to: Sean Burke: "Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
