Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps


"Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114699300.135895.31980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The Trucker wrote:
>
>> And I posit that it is much more achievable than your
>> concept of anarchism.
>
> However as long as the reform you seek has nothing more than whatever
> is retained after the cost of subsistence has been subtracted from the
> wages of labour to fund it, I am very sceptical of its chances.

Both undertakings (_real_ representative democracy, and
your ideal of anarchism) have similar start up costs. I see
my program as something that bears fruit much earlier and
something that will continue to bear fruit all the way through
and far into the future.

>> > Hardly, as our conversation with each other here in the Internet
>> > proves. If Client/Server where superior we would be having this
>> > discussion on CompuServ.
>
>> Yet there are many "news servers" and many clients.
>
> Proving it is a distributed network with no central point of failure.

Yet it is a client server relationship with the servers in
control of what gets exchanged.

>> Why do you think that Representative democracy is not an
>> attempt at justice? That is what you seem to want.
>
> I do not think that Representative democracy is not an
> attempt at justice, I think it is impossible to reform the State.

And so long as you and others continue to "believe" that
then there will be only whining and no reform.

> Many liberal ideals, including democracy, can be (and in fact can only
> be) achieved by organising industrially instead of politically. This is
> the fundamental argument of the Anarchists.

Then the Anarchists are dead wrong. It is superior
numbers that control. That is why all the lying
and the fabrication. The hearts and minds of the
people must constantly be controlled through
lies, distortions, and side shows:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html

>> I would say that it doesn't even matter. No one is
>> going to extinguish evil and claiming to try is, as you
>> say, a distraction from the real objectives. So if
>> some entity makes this claim they should be removed
>> as a matter of course for being frauds and liars.
>
> However they will not be removed so long as the frauds and lies serve
> the interest of property.

For these sickos the control of property is merely
the means to thier actual ends. And their actual
ends are the control of hunanity. They measure
success not in how much property they control
but in how many people must kiss thier royal
(or priestly) asses.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/aristocracy.php

>> And as I have asserted, it may be that the labor and
>> agreement of the people is sufficient to overcome this
>> problem. If we can win elections in large enough
>> number it is simply not possible to rig them.
>
> They can not "win elections" when they have no candidates to vote for,
> and lack the wealth to organise sufficient mass support.

I've already addressed this: The new wave must offer
it's own candidates. It may be possible to work through
a coalition of Greens, Libertarians, and CUIP to
get this done.

>> > Even if this were true, how is this relevant to the theory of
> Anarchism
>> > and not mere equivocation?
>
>> They seem to be correct. And it tells us that the equilibrium
>> you seek is not sustainable.
>
> You've lost me here Trucker, people who are misrepresent Anarchism
> either willfully or out of ignorance "seem to be correct" and the
> opinions of people who are not involved with or actively against
> Anarchism tells us something about its equilibrium?

That is not what I said/meant. It is my own analysis
and opinion that says it is not sustaibable but through
democratic processes. You seem to agree with this.

> Any criticism of Anarchism is properly addressed to the actual beliefs
> supported by Anarchists, and not appeals to popular misrepresentations.
>
> Regards.
>


.

Relevant Pages