Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

In article <Xns965C896D7950AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:mjones-48FCE2.15552215052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > In article <Xns96547B76FCD6DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
>
> Note: the article had grown too long. I have broken it into 4 sections and
> tried to rearrange things to that it is a bit more coherent. Other segments
> to follow as they are completed.
>
> > ***{You have a rather odd take on things if you think the goings-on
> > under feudalism can be used to judge the workability of a system of
> > private ownership.
>
> Perhaps so. I am just looking back at history. "Those that fail to learn
> from history ...."

***{There is an extensive analysis of the failings of feudalism in the
book I mentioned to you earlier. Such an analysis is useful if one's
goal is to uncover the crucial differences--that which blocks progress
under feudalism and, when removed under capitalism, permits progress to
resume--but to suggest, as you did, that the performance of toll roads
under feudalism tells us how they would perform under capitalism, is
simply wrong. The devil is always in the details. A practice that works
fine due to mitigating circumstances (e.g., competition) under one
system may fail utterly under another system, where those mitigating
circumstances are absent. --MJ}***

> > Leaving that aside, the main problem that has been laid at the feet of
> > private ownership of roads has been the difficulty in acquiring suitable
> > property on which the roads were to be built. Eminent domain, the power
> > to force the owners to sell the desired right-of-way at a price
> > specified by the government, was said to be required. Otherwise, one
> > recalcitrant property owner could block an entire project, by either
> > refusing to sell, or by demanding a ridiculous price. Thus, based on
> > such excuses, governments have retained their control of roadways, even
> > as private property has progressively intruded into their other
> > traditional functions.
> >
> > There is, however, a way to extend the private property system that is
> > not vulnerable to such arguments. What you do, basically, is create a
> > government based on a contractual agreement. Those who become citizens
> > (a) agree to maintain on record in a government office the lowest price
> > they would be happy to accept for each piece of land or land based
> > rights that they own, and (b) agree that their share of taxes each year
> > is to be the sum of those prices, Si, for all the land they own divided
> > by the sum of such prices for the land all citizens own, Sa, times the
> > projected total spending of the government for the coming year, T. In
> > other words, (Si/Sa)T represents the taxes payable by the individual at
> > the beginning of each year. The government only has to project its total
> > spending for the next year by sometime in December, and after that
> > everyone will be able to compute the tax payment that they owe, and send
> > it in. The government then sends out a tax receipt to each citizen, and
> > the number of ounces of gold on that receipt is the number of votes the
> > citizen can cast in any election that may be held.
> >
> > Under such a system, of course, you would have to sell any piece of
> > property you own, if someone offered you the price you had on file for
> > it in the government office. If you didn't, that would be proof of tax
> > fraud. Result: you would have an incentive to keep the self-assessed
> > price you had on file high enough so that, if someone paid you that
> > amount, you really would be happy to sell; and you would have an
> > incentive to keep it low enough so that you didn't overpay on your
> > taxes.
>
> Wow. Everyone is FORCED to either sell or pay taxes proportional to the
> price they would have to sell at if offered.
>
> The idea certainly has some attractive qualities but that 'forced' doesn't
> sound so good. I will have to sleep on that idea for a while.

***{You have leaped so far beyond the implications of anything I said
that it's your idea, not mine.

If XYZ corp is trading at $50 per share and you place a limit order with
your broker to sell 100 shares at $60 or better, and he executes your
order when the price is hit, were you "forced to sell"?

Obviously not.

By the same token, if a person voluntarily places limit orders to sell
his landed property with an agency of government (or, for that matter,
it could be done with a private realtor), in order to establish a basis
for the calculation of his taxes, it doesn't follow that if the limit
price is hit and his property is sold, he is FORCED to sell. He chose
voluntarily to place the order, because he wanted to qualify himself for
citizenship under, and protection by, that government. And he chose the
price at which he would sell. If the price he chose was ten times the
market value of the property, that's fine.

Bottom line: since participation in the system is voluntary,
participation is NOT forced.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> The point of introducing
> While we are on utopian solutions to taxes, here is mine:
>
> Do away with all taxes by selling votes.
>
> Everyone gets ONE free vote.
> Second vote in any election costs $1
> 3rd vote costs $2,
> 4th vote costs $4,
> 5th vote costs $8,
> 6th vote costs $16
> and so on, doubling each time.
>
> Bill Gates could afford to cast 32 votes for his president of choice, 32
> votes for his congress critter of choice and probably 32 votes in his local
> bond election.
>
> On the other hand, 32 people who disagree with Bill's choice could
> counterbalance all of his votes, for free.
>
> Oh, plurality of votes wins rather than majority. The one with the most
> votes wins.
>
> We could even let congress run the same way.
>
> All funds collected from any particular vote would go toward funding the
> projects being voted for, unless the project failed to pass, in which case
> all funds go into the general fund.
>
> As I said, we could do away with all taxes and thems what puts their monies
> where their mouths is has the most to say about how the money is used.
>
> What do you think of that idea? If you like it, take it and run with it. I
> think I first suggested it back in the 80's on a computer BBS. So far the
> fans of the idea are very quite.

***{Just about any change which increased the voting power of the
productive classes vis-a-vis the parasites would be a good thing, but,
unfortunately, there is no way to reform the existing system. No measure
that would shift the balance back in favor of the productive classes
would have the votes needed to pass. That's why I say that the expansion
of the suffrage is like a ratchet: it moves in one direction only, and
that direction is toward universal suffrage. Naturally, somewhere along
the way a tipping point is reached beyond which government falls into
the hands of the mindless, immoral, parasitic masses, and from that
point forward, the eventual collapse of the society is guaranteed. Only
the timing remains to be determined.

My system, however, is not a proposed reform. It is a system that can be
implemented by persons living out of sight and out of mind of those
unwilling to live and let live. All it needs is a frontier. And
frontiers are created by technology (just as were the ore reserves which
we discussed earlier). For example, develop a cheap space craft that can
be constructed by an individual in his garage, and publish the plans on
the internet. Result: private individuals can get into space. Result:
those tired of living among and being ruled by morons will pack their
bags and leave Earth, finding places where, due to the vastness of
space, they can escape the intrusions of Earthly governments. New
communities will then form in such areas, and members of those
communities will need some form of organized protection which does *not*
come with the blood sucking and enslavement apparatus that is built into
all "modern" governments. Organizations of the sort that I have been
describing, in which the sole function of "government" is to apprehend
suspects and hold them over for trial, and to maintain military forces
sufficient to deal with external threats, are the solution. Under such a
system, there is no legislature, no law, and hence no way for the system
to gradually deteriorate into tyranny with the passage of time. Hence
the bloodsucking and enslavement apparatus will have been permanently
removed.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> > Result: eminent domain isn't needed. Anyone would be able to acquire any
> > land, mineral, water, or shipping rights he wanted, for whatever
> > purpose, without the government having the power of eminent domain.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> >> Much of current law and government was developed to solve that problem.
> >
> > ***{As already noted, governments
>
> A rather recent invention, invented to deal with those that controlled the
> roads before governments existed.

***{Government is the strongest organized force in a society. Hence (a)
all societies have governments, and (b) government is not a recent
invention. --MJ}***

> > have always controlled the major roads
> > and shipping lanes. This is merely an area into which the private
> > property system has not yet been extended. It can be so extended,
> > however, as demonstrated above. --MJ}***
>
> Private ferry boats and toll road were once the ONLY kinds of ferry boats
> and toll roads available.

***{If you are once again claiming that private ownership came first,
that's wrong. Property was collectively owned before it was privately
owned, with the head of the strongest organized group deciding its use
and disposal. Under such systems, large canoes, rafts, barges, and
similar devices were held in custody by those who operated them, rather
than privately owned. What is the difference? The difference is that the
chief, at his whim, could dispossess the present custodians in an
instant. --MJ}***

> >> Free competition and the law of supply and demand break down.
> >
> > ***{Nope. You can build parallel to any railroad or any river. Just walk
> > into the self-assessment office and purchase the rights that you need.
> > See how easy that was? :-) --MJ}***
>
> Yeah. All you need is a few billion dollars lying around in your spare
> change dish. I am fresh out of billions, millions, and hundreds of
> thousands. I once saw a few tens of thousands at one time, but it was a
> long time ago.

***{Um, that was a collective "you." It's like when I said the other day
that "we" deserve the disaster that is looming before us: the reference
was to mankind in general, rather than to every specific member of the
human race. By the same token, the "you" which you took personally was
not a reference to you specifically, but to any person with the
wherewithal--meaning any person with the desire, the knowledge, the
financial backing, etc. The point was that there would be no legal
barrier to entry into that market, and, thus, that a toll road operator
had better cater to his customers' needs rather than abuse them, or else
he will draw competition that will cost him a lot of money and which may
put him out of business altogether. --MJ}***

> >> They
> >> found out that someone already had a monopoly on carrying cargo.
> >>
> >> There were cartels controlling everything.
> >> That is the difference between theory and reality.
> >
> > ***{Not under my system. --MJ}***
>
> You have a nice theory.

***{I have been working on these ideas for a very long time. Here
(between the lines of asterisks) is an updated version of a citizenship
contract that I put forth for discussion in another group awhile back.

**********************************************
Section I: Arbitration.

(1) The member agrees that, should he become involved in a dispute over
property, he will notify the organization of his desire to submit said
dispute to a private arbiter for adjudication, and that he will not
initiate unilateral action to settle the dispute himself.

(2) The member agrees to the following procedure for arbitration:

(a) The organization will make a public notice to members which
identifies the disputants, describes the dispute, and requests that
members who are willing to function as neutral, reasoning arbiters
submit their names.

(b) The organization will prepare a list of all members who submitted
their names, and the parties to the dispute will then take turns
striking one third of the names off of the list, rounded to the nearest
whole number, until only one name remains. (Note: before each turn, the
disputants will be given a reasonable amount of time to investigate the
names remaining on the list.)

(c) The person whose name remains will serve as arbiter in the dispute,
will listen to the arguments of the disputants until such time as he
feels he has heard enough, and will then give public notice of his
decision in writing, specifying in detail the evidence and logic on
which the decision was based.

(3) The member agrees that if he should participate in such a case as
either plaintiff/prosecutor or defendant, he will notify the arbiter on
a weekly basis of all expenditures made on his side of the case during
that week, and that he will at that time pay to the arbiter a fee equal
to 20% of those expenditures.

(4) The member agrees that if he, as defendant in a case, does not like
the decision, he will be allowed a specified number of appeals (one, for
example), with the appeal to be conducted as per (2), above.

Section II: Membership Fees.

(1) The member agrees to provide the organization with a list of the
landed (fixed) property that he owns, specifying the lowest price, in
Troy ounces of .999 gold, that he would be happy to accept for each item
on that list, and to promptly update the information to ensure that it
remains current. Let the total of all such items for a given individual
be termed the "self-assessed valuation" of his property.

(2) The member agrees to promptly pay his pro-rata share of the budgeted
costs of the organization, with that share to be simply the
self-assessed valuation of the individual's property, divided by the sum
of the self-assessed valuations of the property of all citizens, times
the budgeted costs of the organization in the coming year, in Troy
ounces of .999 fine gold.

Section III: Voting.

(1) When a member pays his share of the budgeted costs of the
organization, he shall receive a dated receipt listing the amount paid
and the details of the calculation.

(2) Any member of the organization shall be eligible to run for CEO, and
may do so by notifying the organization of his candidacy.

(3) The organization will maintain at all times a public list
identifying each voter, the number of votes cast by him, and the
declared candidate for who whom his votes are cast. The member agrees
that he will promptly notify the organization of any changes in his
preferred candidate, so that the list can be kept current.

(4) The CEO shall be the person on the list who currently has the
largest number of votes. When that changes, the CEO changes, and the new
CEO takes office immediately.

(5) Each member is entitled, but not required, to vote for one of the
declared CEO candidates. If he votes, he will cast a number of votes
equal to the number of Troy ounces of gold paid by him in taxes, as
indicated on his most recent share receipt. [See Section II, item 2.]

Section IV: The Organization.

(1) The purpose of the organization shall be to carry out its
responsibilities as defined herein, to ensure that the members do
likewise, and to take whatever measures seem necessary and proper to
prevent non-members from settling disputes without neutral, reasoned
arbitration, when those disputes are with members.

(2) It shall be the responsibility of the CEO to prepare a budget
listing the various things that must be done in the coming year to meet
its obligations under this contract, to ensure that the individual
members meet theirs, and to deal approprriately with non-members.

(3) All members of the organization, including those who may be employed
by it, are bound by all of the stipulations herein.
**********************************************

So there you have it. There are, of course, unlimited possible
variations on this theme, so the above is merely food for thought,
nothing more. It is an example of the sort of community that I, for one,
would like to live in, and which I would seek to organize, if I were out
of sight and out of mind of the murderous, oppressive regimes that
presently control this planet.

Why think about a situation that is not real? Because circumstances are
subject to change, and the mind must be prepared to act if opportunity
presents itself, else the opportunity will be lost.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> >> ....
> >> >> More likely transformed into a new set of wrongs.
> >> >
> >> > ***{How so? --MJ}***
> >>
> >> The law of unintended consequences.
> >>
> >> Smurfies law says "whatever you try to do, to make things better, is
> >> going to make you blue".
> >
> > ***{When you solve one set of problems, that allows you to move into
> > position to confront the next set. But if you are moving forward, that's
> > OK. It's called progress. --MJ}***
>
> From the side of the road, that kind of progress can look an awful lot like
> a car sliding backwards, down the hill, due to the muddy road.

***{Comments of that sort lead nowhere. If you have a specific line of
reasoning in mind, please state it. Otherwise, let's move on. --MJ}***

> ....
> I am saying that there are activities that can not and should not be
> permitted in populated areas. (prime candidates for orbital operations,
> however).

***{It depends on the kind of area and the distribution of rights. If a
dynamite factory is in an area, and you buy the lot next door and build
a house there, you voluntarily assume the risk of an explosion. And if
ten thousand other people do exactly the same thing, that is their
choice as well. And if their collective number comes up, too bad. And
the same applies to those who choose to live in a valley beneath a dam:
if the dam collapses and the flood kills them all, too bad. Nobody is
exempt from experiencing the consequences of his actions, and nothing
any government can do will ever alter that state of affairs in the
slightest. --MJ}***

> >> ....
> >> http://www.american.edu/TED/bhopal.htm
> >> http://www.getipm.com/articles/seveso-italy.htm
> >> http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/&e=7207
> >>
> >> These are reasons why laze faire capitalism does not work, no matter
> >> how good it sounds.
> >
> > ***{Bunk. Laissez faire capitalism wasn't being practiced at any of
> > those places.
> >
> > Of course, *** happens, and it will happen under laissez faire
> > capitalism, though with less frequency than under any other system.
> > After it happens, those who have grievances will seek relief by bringing
> > charges against the persons or entities that they deem responsible;
> > people will be fired or demoted who are thought negligent; processes
> > will be modified to avoid a repetition of whatever went wrong; etc. As
> > long as no legislature is involved, what is learned from a disaster will
> > reduce the likelihood that such things will happen in the future, as it
> > should.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> I hope we both live to see such a place, in orbit or on the moon or mars.

***{Or on the bottom of the sea. Or beneath the polar ice. Or in caverns
under the surface of the Earth. All of these venues would be easier to
colonize than space, due to absence of vacuum, proximity to already
inhabited areas, etc. If a tenth as much had been spent developing the
technology to live in such places as has been spent on space, those
regions would already be colonized, and there would be many
opportunities, in such remote settings, to set up new and less
oppressive forms of government. --MJ}***
.

Quantcast