Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy and Asatru

[Scott Lowther]

In another thread, I mentioned that Marxism was anti-Democratic; Nik
seems to dispute that.

Here's my intial response:
With pure (i.e. theoretical rather than realistic) capitalism... a
person can opt out. Live on your own, grow your own food, whatever. but
with Marxism... a person does not ahve a choise.

For a Marxist society to survive long term, one of two things must be:
1) A nation of non-ambitious idealists. people willign to accept that
what they see is all they will every be.
2) A nation of oppressed people, with gun-toting thugs enforcing the
rule of the Great Leaders.

Since 1) obviously does not exist, certainly not for any length of time
(especially when one of the idealists notices that the slackers eat just
as well as he does), Marxism inevitably devolves into 2). people do not
ahve a choice in the matter; the choices are made by the leaders... who
*inevitably* wind up living a whole lot better than the serfs.

America has had it's flings with Marxism, and abandoned the concepts
long before Marx was even born.
http://www.lizmichael.com/thanksgi.htm
http://www.foldvary.net/works/thanksgi.html

Democracy cannot exist when the people die of starvation.

Now, it's also a fact that Marxism involves Central Planning. Basically,
the Governemnt determines for a several year span (think "Five Year
Plan") what the nation will produce in terms of food, cars, appliances,
etc. Beyond being merely inefficient (as opposed to capitalism, where
the busienssmen will make what sells, and not make what doesn't), it
limits not only the choices of the consumers... it limits the choices of
the producers. The producers aren't given a choice... if a corn farmer
wants to grow something else, it's not his choice... it's not his land.

And of course, Central Planning requires... central planners. Since
Central Planning is Very, Very Important... it's not open to the vote,
but is left to the leaders.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbooks, even in tyrannies. If
Farmer bob's yams suck, he goes out of business, and Farmer Jim makes
more money.


As far as the Asatru position on collectivism...

Havamal stanzas regarding capitalism/private ownership/reliance on self
rather than collectives:
35
The tactful guest will take his leave Early,
not linger long:
He starts to stink who outstays his welcome
In a hall that is not his own.
(Own your own home)

36
A small hut of one's own is better,
A man is his master at home:
A couple of goats and a corded roof
Still are better than begging.
(Own your own home and herd)

37
A small hut of one's own is better,
A man is his master at home:
His heart bleeds in the beggar who must
Ask at each meal for meat.
(Own your own home)

40
Once he has won wealth enough,
A man should not crave for more:
What he saves for friends, foes may take;
Hopes are often liars.
(It's okay to be rich, but don't go nuts)

59
Early shall he rise who rules few servants,
And set to work at once:
Much is lost by the late sleeper,
Wealth is won by the swift
(work for wealth)

60
A man should know how many logs
And strips of bark from the birch
To stock in autumn, that he may have enough
Wood for his winter fires.
(Provide for your own needs)

75
The half wit does not know that gold
Makes apes of many men:
One is rich, one is poor
There is no blame in that.
(AHEM!!!!)

79
In the fool who acquires cattle and lands,
Or wins a woman's love,
His wisdom wanes with his waxing pride,
He sinks from sense to conceit.
(Private ownership of herds and lands are okay, but don't get too
prideful)

Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The Icelanders knew the value of privatization, and kept at it until the
Christians came along and messed everything up with centralized
government:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal. It would also be hard to derive democracy
from the Rigsthula.

It may be possible to beat Iceland into some sort of proto libertarian
democracy, but it doesn't seem to be a system that existed on the
continent.

Capitalism, to me, implies individualism and a system of values based on
"can I make a buck on this?" to the exclusion of any responsibilty to the
social matrix that the capitalist exists in. Marxism just turns the workers
into little capitalists.


I think the Prussia of Frederick the Great would be about the last system
that could be derived from the Lore.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

Post by bowman
Capitalism, to me, implies individualism and a system of values based on
"can I make a buck on this?" to the exclusion of any responsibilty to the
social matrix that the capitalist exists in.

Yes. Social responsibility is the responsibility of the person, not of
the economy. A capitalist who makes as many bucks as possible in order
to spend those bucks on soup for the poor is, after all, still a
capitalist.

Post by bowman
Marxism just turns the workers into little capitalists.

Okay, I don't get that. Marxism is specifically, "How can I keep anybody
from making a buck on this?" Now, capitalism can easily thrive in
Marxism... ain't been a MArxist society yet that didn't have a black
market - capitalism at its finest. But a Marxist underground economy
within a capitalist one? By definition it'd have to be a small separated
commune, separated from the capitalist economy.

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

No it isn't.
Capitalism does not equal money, nor its general use.
It is a method by which money is obtained - one of several.

FFF
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a

generous

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the

same

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

No it isn't.
Capitalism does not equal money, nor its general use.
It is a method by which money is obtained - one of several.

I stand corrected.

I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a

generous

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the

same

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

No it isn't.
Capitalism does not equal money, nor its general use.
It is a method by which money is obtained - one of several.

I stand corrected.
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

In general Capitalist systems depend on major division of labour and
accruing direct profit from the labour of others by using capital
investment.
A Smith making and selling a sword is not Capitalism.
A Smith borrowing money to buy iron ore is not Capitalism.
I doubt that Capitalism existed in any meanigful form until the industrial
revolution.

FFF
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by Scott Lowther
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

In general Capitalist systems depend on major division of labour and
accruing direct profit from the labour of others by using capital
investment.

Large capitalist systems, sure. btu any large system is goign to
diverge from the basics. The basics of capitalism:
cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A Smith making and selling a sword is not Capitalism.

If the smith owned the smithy, bought the iron ore, wood and leather,
and then sold the sword... that fits the definition of capitalism

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A Smith borrowing money to buy iron ore is not Capitalism.

Why not?

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I doubt that Capitalism existed in any meanigful form until the industrial
revolution.

I doubt that highly. Capitalism does not require seriously organized
economic structures to still be capitalism, anymore tha Marxism
requires tank columns and death squads and large bronze statues of Mao
or Stalin to still be Marxism.

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by Scott Lowther
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

In general Capitalist systems depend on major division of labour and
accruing direct profit from the labour of others by using capital
investment.

Depends on whether you let Marx and Engells define capitalism. I
offer an alternative one based on laizez faire: Capitalism is
where everyone gets to decide their own work and figure out their
own profit. The fact that some people are leaders and inovators
and most people are followers and workers is a realistic feature of
human nature that leads to division of labor.

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A Smith making and selling a sword is not Capitalism.
A Smith borrowing money to buy iron ore is not Capitalism.

Depends on how you define capitalism. I think this works just
fine as capitalism. It probably didn't occur to that smith that
he could be an engineer working on the Internet, but it would
have been an option if the Internet had existed then.

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I doubt that Capitalism existed in any meanigful form until the industrial
revolution.

Phrased the way Marx put it, okay.

[Njygaard]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:15:44 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

No it isn't.
Capitalism does not equal money, nor its general use.
It is a method by which money is obtained - one of several.

I stand corrected.
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

I doubt the Håvamål has ever been in "general effect". If you want an
example of a law from norse times, you want to look at such documents
as the Gulatingslov (Law of the Council of Gula), and other
collections of law poems from the early Scandinavian parliaments.

To describe Norse culture as capitalist is, to say the least,
ridiculous. The Håvamål is a patchwork religious poem exemplifying the
everyday knowledge available to the listeners, and contrasting it to
the secret knowledge only available to the initiated priest. It is not
a collection of laws, nor the commandments of a theocracy. The norse
culture originated in an agricultural honour economy, where family
ties, reputation and good harvests was the primary coins. This did not
stop them from becoming adept traders once markets opened to them, but
the culture, in its core and origin, was not trade-based.

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

I doubt the Håvamål has ever been in "general effect".

Okay, I worded it poorly. Let's try "at the time when the Havamal was
current and/or when it was being followed by a notable fraction of the
Norse populace."

Post by Njygaard
To describe Norse culture as capitalist is, to say the least,
ridiculous.

Bwuh? The farmers didn't own their farms or the produce produced?

[Njygaard]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just *take* somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

I doubt the Håvamål has ever been in "general effect".

Okay, I worded it poorly. Let's try "at the time when the Havamal was
current and/or when it was being followed by a notable fraction of the
Norse populace."

Ah. I won't nitpick. (Though if I wanted to be unfair, I could say
that would include, roughly, the period between 3 and 2003ad :)

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
To describe Norse culture as capitalist is, to say the least,
ridiculous.

Bwuh? The farmers didn't own their farms or the produce produced?

In many cases, no - a lot of thralls/indentured farmers, and more so
as the population explosion, which might have prompted the
colonization effort known as the Viking Age, worsened. In any case,
land and its resouces belonged to the ætt - the bloodline or "tribe" -
rather than any single individual within that ætt. When a "Jarl" (Earl
- war leader and administrator, not owner) died, all his sons had a
right to inherit an equal part. If these parts were too small for the
sons to support their extended families, cronies and relatives, and
none gave up their claims, localized civil wars were not unusual.

An agricultural economy is virtually self-sufficient, and lives from
harvest to harvest. Surplus harvest can be used to buy specialist
services, manpower or raw materials, or to stock up a supply in case
of bad harvests. To the norse, bartering for goods was not a necessity
of life, and thus not a priority. Its prime function was to bring home
the wealth and exotic goods needed to give one farmer-lord a better
reputation than another, and the prestige, men and additional wealth
this brought with it, thus giving him and his ætt an edge in the
increasingly fierce competition for fertile land.

The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead, and try to shoehorn it into some modern
conception. But yet... the free Norse (not the slaves, sad to say)
understood the concepts of ownership, wealth and purchasing power, and
almost certainly would have been quite annoyed by the idea that they had
to send all the fruits of their labors to some central gubmint for
redistribution.

Hell, *any* thinking person would be annoyed by that...

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
But yet... the free Norse (not the slaves, sad to say)
understood the concepts of ownership, wealth and purchasing power, and
almost certainly would have been quite annoyed by the idea that they had
to send all the fruits of their labors to some central gubmint for
redistribution.

Look at Tacitus for an earlier view. Did the farmers own the land or was it
administered by the tribal council?

Even looking at the Rigsthula, where do you think the white bread and other
good stuff the jarls ate came from? Pay close attention to the 39th
strophe. Where did Earl's gold come from? What did he do with it?

There is contention on the dating of the Rigsthula, but it is an obvious
reflection of the social conditions that obtained at some time from the 9th
to 12th century, when serfdon was abolished.

Sure, they understood trade and ownership, but attempting to bring the
social biases of post-Enlightenment Europe isn't realistic.

Confronted with something like Enron, they would be appalled by the jarl's
utter lack of responsiblity and obligation to his followers. I'm sure their
idea of correction would be harsher than a slap on the wrist and a golden
parachure.

That is my criticism of the latter days of capitalism; after the means of
production have been concentrated into the hands of a plutocracy, they no
longer feel a responsibilty to the source of their wealth, either the
working class or the nation. Libertarians have an almost childlike faith in
the kindness of strangers.

Central control of production might be the root of evil, but consider the
alternative. Why does the US steel industry need corporate welfare. Perhaps
because of excess capacity through piss poor planning, and obsolesence from
a lack of reinvestment in favor of short term payouts to stockholders?
Research the lawsuit against Henry Ford when he tried to use excess profits
to build the business rather than turning them over to the finace
capitalists. In fact, take a look at the screwing Goodyear, Westinghouse,
and Edison got.

I am a pessimist. When social responsibility breaks down I don't think it
can be regenerated by Social Democrats, the Greens, the Red-Greens, or any
other party. What is gone is gone; time to move on to the next culture.

[Nik]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
But yet... the free Norse (not the slaves, sad to say)
understood the concepts of ownership, wealth and purchasing power, and
almost certainly would have been quite annoyed by the idea that they had
to send all the fruits of their labors to some central gubmint for
redistribution.

Look at Tacitus for an earlier view. Did the farmers own the land or was it
administered by the tribal council?
Even looking at the Rigsthula, where do you think the white bread and other
good stuff the jarls ate came from? Pay close attention to the 39th
strophe. Where did Earl's gold come from? What did he do with it?
There is contention on the dating of the Rigsthula, but it is an obvious
reflection of the social conditions that obtained at some time from the 9th
to 12th century, when serfdon was abolished.
Sure, they understood trade and ownership, but attempting to bring the
social biases of post-Enlightenment Europe isn't realistic.
Confronted with something like Enron, they would be appalled by the jarl's
utter lack of responsiblity and obligation to his followers. I'm sure their
idea of correction would be harsher than a slap on the wrist and a golden
parachure.
That is my criticism of the latter days of capitalism; after the means of
production have been concentrated into the hands of a plutocracy, they no
longer feel a responsibilty to the source of their wealth, either the
working class or the nation. Libertarians have an almost childlike faith in
the kindness of strangers.
Central control of production might be the root of evil, but consider the
alternative. Why does the US steel industry need corporate welfare. Perhaps
because of excess capacity through piss poor planning, and obsolesence from
a lack of reinvestment in favor of short term payouts to stockholders?
Research the lawsuit against Henry Ford when he tried to use excess profits
to build the business rather than turning them over to the finace
capitalists. In fact, take a look at the screwing Goodyear, Westinghouse,
and Edison got.
I am a pessimist. When social responsibility breaks down I don't think it
can be regenerated by Social Democrats, the Greens, the Red-Greens, or any
other party. What is gone is gone; time to move on to the next culture.

Very interesting culture. I would be interested in what you think a
viable alternative is, especially considering the very real population
pressures on this planet...

Nik

[bowman]

Post by Nik
Very interesting culture. I would be interested in what you think a
viable alternative is, especially considering the very real population
pressures on this planet...

I'm not sure a viable example exists. I tend to agree with Evola; just grab
a big handful of tiger fur and hang on, because it isn't going to get any
better. I was much more optimistic 40 years ago.

The population pressures may take care of themselves. It won't be pretty,
any more than the final stages of a culture that is outgrowing its Petri
dish.

I would lean toward some form of socialism but I just don't know if you can
do that through goverment and politics once the social cohesion of a nation
is gone. I also do not know if it is possible given the scale of modern
states. In the US, for instance, with 270? millions of diverse cultural
backgrounds, it don't know if the political fiction of a state is truly
enough to unite the people in the long run. I believe it will implode long
before the differences are sorted out.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but as I look at the nations that do have a working
socialism, they are quite homogeneous, physically compact, and with
relatively small populations.

[Nik]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead, and try to shoehorn it into some modern
conception. But yet... the free Norse (not the slaves, sad to say)
understood the concepts of ownership, wealth and purchasing power, and
almost certainly would have been quite annoyed by the idea that they had
to send all the fruits of their labors to some central gubmint for
redistribution.
Hell, *any* thinking person would be annoyed by that...

Thinking people are also aware of concepts of greater purchasing power
afforded by collective spending...i.e. healthcare spending. The
proliferation of private healthcare providers involves the private
health care providers spending money on:

advertising their services = decrease in spending on actual healthcare
cash handling = decrease in spending on actual healthcare
tax compliance = decrease in spending on actual healthcare

Also, thinking people are aware that there will always be poor people
and if they aren't catered for at the basic level i.e. food for
example, those people will steal to survive. Petty crime of this
nature is not only anti-social i.e. it attacks the fabric of society
but is also an extremely inefficient means of redistributing wealth so
that the poor can fulfill their needs in a system that is geared
against them.

Why is it geared against them? Because the rich people, i.e. the
powerful ones look after their own interests first and foremost. Those
interests often do no coincide with those less fortunate. Rich people
don't understand what it means to be poor, they're out of touch with
some of the harsher realities of life for the poor...

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead, and try to shoehorn it into some modern
conception. But yet... the free Norse (not the slaves, sad to say)
understood the concepts of ownership, wealth and purchasing power, and
almost certainly would have been quite annoyed by the idea that they had
to send all the fruits of their labors to some central gubmint for
redistribution.
Hell, *any* thinking person would be annoyed by that...

Thinking people are also aware of concepts of greater purchasing power
afforded by collective spending...i.e. healthcare spending.

Then those thinking people can form *voluntary* collectives, that a
person can enter or leave. Collecting money at gunpoint from people =
not good.

Post by Nik
Also, thinking people are aware that there will always be poor people
and if they aren't catered for at the basic level i.e. food for
example, those people will steal to survive.

Sure. Find jobs for them. Make jobs for them. Put them to work. They
don't want to work... they don't have to eat.

Post by Nik
Why is it geared against them? Because the rich people, i.e. the
powerful ones look after their own interests first and foremost.

And the middle class looks out for their own interests. And the poor
looks out for their interests.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Sure. Find jobs for them. Make jobs for them. Put them to work. They
don't want to work... they don't have to eat.

I know you'll find it unbelievable, but there are people who are not capable
of gainful employment. Beyond, that, exactly what sort of jobs did you have
in mind? Something that would displace already marginally employed people?

Post by Scott Lowther
And the middle class looks out for their own interests. And the poor
looks out for their interests.

No, the people of the middle class mostly look out for their individual
asses, since they don't want to admit they are a class. The people who
admit to being middle class are proles.


"As soon as you're born they make you feel small
by giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all.

They hit you at home and they hurt you at school
they hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
till you so fuckin' crazy you can't follow their rules.

When they tortured you and scared you for twenty odd years
then they expect you to pick a career -
when you can't really function you so full of fear.

Keep you doped with religion, sex and TV
and think you're so clever and classless and free
but you're still fuckin' peasants as far as I can see.

There's a room at the top they are telling you still
but first you must learn how to smile as you kill
if you want to be like the folks on the hill.

A workingclass-hero is something to be -
if YOU want to be a hero; well then just
follow me. "

one of the few Lennon songs I really liked.... A lot better than 'Imagine'

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Sure. Find jobs for them. Make jobs for them. Put them to work. They
don't want to work... they don't have to eat.

I know you'll find it unbelievable, but there are people who are not capable
of gainful employment.

Nobody with a functioning mind and the ability to communicate is
incapable of some form of gainful employment.

Beyond, that, exactly what sort of jobs did you have

Post by bowman
in mind? Something that would displace already marginally employed people?

Exactly. Here's the first year of the reign of Scott the First, Emperor
of the United States, Protector fo Canada:
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

Okay, what do we get from the above;
1: A lot of annoyed farmers, factory owners, etc. who are now deprived
of a very low-cost labor force
2: A very large, basically unskilled labor force with no income
3: A governm,ent with much more money than previously due to the endign
of numerous extremely costly social programs

Synergistic solution:
1: The farmers, factory owners, etc. pay the American laborers the same
low wages they paid the illegals. This keeps the businesses in business,
and the prices at the market low.
2: The government uses the money formerly spent on social programs to
directly subsidize the farm/factory workers. The workers get their buck
fifty an hour (or whatever) from Farmer Fred... and they get an extra X
dollars per hour from Uncle Sam to have a decent living wage.

What does this get us:
1: We no longer import poverty via illegal immigrants
2: The prices stay low
3: More people can actually speak English
4: We still shell out a lot of money through the social spending... but
now it's given out as wages, for people who are actually working, rather
than as a handout to people who are not.


Would this be a hard sell? Would this be difficult to actually
implement? You bet your ass. Is a difficult challenge that results in a
better, richer nation a better solution than simply waiting for the
nation to collapse into general poverty and chaos? You bet your ass.

[Njygaard]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:14:46 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Sure. Find jobs for them. Make jobs for them. Put them to work. They
don't want to work... they don't have to eat.

I know you'll find it unbelievable, but there are people who are not capable
of gainful employment.

Nobody with a functioning mind and the ability to communicate is
incapable of some form of gainful employment.
Beyond, that, exactly what sort of jobs did you have

Post by bowman
in mind? Something that would displace already marginally employed people?

Exactly. Here's the first year of the reign of Scott the First, Emperor
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.

Never point a gun on anyone unless you intend to use it. I see dead
people in this plan.

Post by Scott Lowther
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.

I see people starving. I see small children, mothers and old people
dying. I see people commiting the awful crimes you invariably get when
people starve.

Post by Scott Lowther
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.

Good idea. I'm sure they'll want to take them. What are these illegals
going to do once they're there, then?

Well, I suppose that's not your problem.

Won't be that many left, anyway, after all the deaths from resisting
arrest, from diseases and malnourishment, and then the hardship of the
travel. Maybe the New Zealanders can make them little camps with
barbed wire around, where they can learn to work properly? As we all
know: Arbeit Macht Frei.

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

More deaths, spread of communicable but easily cured diseases.
Birth-fever kills women in labour, increasing the child-death
percentage among the "chronically unemployed" to something around the
level of Pakistan. Average life expectance of US citizen: 40 years.
Crime rates explode. Prisons overextend their capacity, leading to
hellish conditions and prison revolts.

Post by Scott Lowther
Okay, what do we get from the above;
1: A lot of annoyed farmers, factory owners, etc. who are now deprived
of a very low-cost labor force
2: A very large, basically unskilled labor force with no income
3: A governm,ent with much more money than previously due to the endign
of numerous extremely costly social programs

4: Millions of dead bodies, which might be utilized for fertilizer,
glue, soap etc, and plundered to further increase state income.

5: Even more millions of widows, bereaved, diseased, starving and
criminals, a large number of which would probably be quite willing to
blow His Majesty Scott the First, Emperor of the United States,
Protector fo Canada, to high heaven along with the white house and all
his now extremely rich cronies.

Post by Scott Lowther
1: The farmers, factory owners, etc. pay the American laborers the same
low wages they paid the illegals. This keeps the businesses in business,
and the prices at the market low.
2: The government uses the money formerly spent on social programs to
directly subsidize the farm/factory workers. The workers get their buck
fifty an hour (or whatever) from Farmer Fred... and they get an extra X
dollars per hour from Uncle Sam to have a decent living wage.
1: We no longer import poverty via illegal immigrants
2: The prices stay low

The prices skyrocket as all legitimate governments boycott the US
Fascist regime, and rampant inflation sets in.

Post by Scott Lowther
3: More people can actually speak English

Unless they're dead, or pissed off to some other place where people
also understand English, where they can get free health care and a job
not subsidized with the blood of innocents.

Post by Scott Lowther
4: We still shell out a lot of money through the social spending... but
now it's given out as wages, for people who are actually working, rather
than as a handout to people who are not.
Would this be a hard sell? Would this be difficult to actually
implement? You bet your ass. Is a difficult challenge that results in a
better, richer nation a better solution than simply waiting for the
nation to collapse into general poverty and chaos? You bet your ass.

No, it would cause economical collapse, millions of deaths and quite
possibly a revolt or international action.

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.

Never point a gun on anyone unless you intend to use it. I see dead
people in this plan.

There're dead people NOW. Importation of poverty leads to criem in the
streets.Closign the borders with force woudl lead to some deaths as
peopel try their luck... it'll soon come to an end, especially when the
other plans kick in which wipe out the whole point of sneaking in.

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.

I see people starving.

Then you see bullhit. The illegal aliens get deported or leave on their
own.

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.

Good idea. I'm sure they'll want to take them. What are these illegals
going to do once they're there, then?

What do they do here? Did *WE* want to take them?

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

More deaths, spread of communicable but easily cured diseases.

By definition, this will be amongst those unwilling to work. Strange
thing... a refusal to work leads to bad results.

I note that your resposne is that those unwilling to work should
continue to have all theior needs and wants provided at taxpayer
expense.

Post by Njygaard
The prices skyrocket as all legitimate governments boycott the US
Fascist regime, and rampant inflation sets in.

Hardly. This sort of government would be about as far from fascist as
you can get. The "worst" aspect here is the expulsion of illegal
aliens... and since when is it "fascist" to control your own borders?

It's reasoniong like yours that has caused the US budget to balloon to
trillions of dallars, most of which is spent on social programs for
those who are perfectly capable of takign care of themselves, but who
have been sucked into a cycle of perpetual poverty and crime and
reliance upon government handouts. It's reasoning like yours ("There'll
be people dyign in the streets!!!") that constantly screams whenever
anyone attempts to fix the nightmarish welfare system... and it's
reasoning like yours that is perpetually proven wrong. When the
governemtn stops being a sugar daddy... people DO go out and get jobs.

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:01:35 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.

Never point a gun on anyone unless you intend to use it. I see dead
people in this plan.

There're dead people NOW. Importation of poverty leads to criem in the
streets.Closign the borders with force woudl lead to some deaths as
peopel try their luck... it'll soon come to an end, especially when the
other plans kick in which wipe out the whole point of sneaking in.

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.

I see people starving.

Then you see bullhit. The illegal aliens get deported or leave on their
own.

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.

Good idea. I'm sure they'll want to take them. What are these illegals
going to do once they're there, then?

What do they do here? Did *WE* want to take them?

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

More deaths, spread of communicable but easily cured diseases.

By definition, this will be amongst those unwilling to work. Strange
thing... a refusal to work leads to bad results.
I note that your resposne is that those unwilling to work should
continue to have all theior needs and wants provided at taxpayer
expense.

Post by Njygaard
The prices skyrocket as all legitimate governments boycott the US
Fascist regime, and rampant inflation sets in.

Hardly. This sort of government would be about as far from fascist as
you can get.

<laughter>

Be comfortable in your delusion Scott.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Hardly. This sort of government would be about as far from fascist as
you can get.

<laughter>
Be comfortable in your delusion Scott.

Perhaps you'd care to define "fascism." Here's the dictionary
definition:

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system
of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

None of these definitoons fit what I suggested, which boils down to:
1) Control of the borders
2) Reduction in the size of social spending
3) Promoting a work ethic rather than a nanny ethic

Nothing I suggested amounts to dictatorship (well, except for the
Emperor bit, but that was obviously a joke), stringent socioeconomic
controls (my system would greatly REDUCE the governemnts involvement in
that), censorship, nationalism or racism.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Hardly. This sort of government would be about as far from fascist as
you can get. The "worst" aspect here is the expulsion of illegal
aliens... and since when is it "fascist" to control your own borders?

So, after you get rid of the illegals, the lettuce crop rots and the garbage
starts to build up in the office buildings, whatcha gonna do about South
Central?

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Nobody with a functioning mind and the ability to communicate is
incapable of some form of gainful employment.

Never been around some of the more unfortunate members of society, have you?
Their communication skills leave a bit to be desired. Especially the ones
with clinically diagnosed psychological problems that the social support
systems prefers to warehouse on the streets.

Post by Scott Lowther
Exactly. Here's the first year of the reign of Scott the First, Emperor
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a
guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity
for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to
sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign
nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Post by Scott Lowther
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually
and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the
interests of the universality, but must have its result within the

Post by Scott Lowther
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand
that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August
1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the
mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of
physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and
sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with
the physical instruction of the young.

Post by Scott Lowther
Okay, what do we get from the above;

Cyanide or a bullet?

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Nobody with a functioning mind and the ability to communicate is
incapable of some form of gainful employment.

Never been around some of the more unfortunate members of society, have you?
Their communication skills leave a bit to be desired. Especially the ones
with clinically diagnosed psychological problems

AHEM: Please read before you respond:
"Nobody with a functioning mind..."

Nuts don't have functioning minds. They have malfunctioning minds, by
definition.


Ah, yes. The old tactic of making comparisons between any idea and the
Nazis...

Post by bowman
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a
guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

And this is wrong?

Post by bowman
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity
for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

And this is wrong?

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually
and physically.

Non sequitur.

Post by bowman
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented.

And this is wrong?

Post by bowman
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the
mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of
physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and
sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with
the physical instruction of the young.

Oh, the horrors!!!


Now: can you show why the above are bad? Or do you go off the assumption
that anything related to Nazi Germany is by definition Wrong and Evil?
Do you feel the same about jet engines, Volkswagons and really nice
highways?

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Now: can you show why the above are bad? Or do you go off the assumption
that anything related to Nazi Germany is by definition Wrong and Evil?

A couple of the points are no longer relevant and a few others could use
light editing. Other than that, I have no problem with the 25 points at
all.

In practice what is one to do with those who do not fit in with the culture?
Can a nation say "this group does not share our goals and aspirations" and
request them to leave? Is force appropriate when they do not wish to leave?
Or if they are willing to go but no one else will welcome them?

The question can also be presented as "when a significant portion of the
population in a geographic area do not support the culture of the nation as
a whole, can they withdraw?"

I'm not asking the questions lightly; it is something that has troubled me
all my life. Utopian political theory is nice and there are plenty of
people who will explain how things ought to be. But if we look at the
facts, what is the course to take with a dissident minority?

Another question is "had the third Reich not been as aggressive in its
pan-Germanic expansion or expelling Jews, would England, France, the US and
the USSR allowed them to develop a national socialism in peace?"

These questions certainly are pertinent today. If Irak really wants an
Islamic theocracy will the US allow it? If Israel wants to expel
Palestinians who are never going to fit in, can she? What's France going to
do with 6 million Arabs? What's the Terminator going to do with the lazy
and inefficient?

Post by Scott Lowther
Do you feel the same about jet engines, Volkswagons and really nice
highways?

Prop planes get the job done, and I never had a Volkswagen. I did have one
of the early Audis and that wasn't exactly the zenith of German engineering
and manufacturing expertise. I should have bought a Super Beetle.

The US would have built the interstate system in any case. If they had
really followed the script, they would have designed for more than a twenty
year lifetime.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman
In practice what is one to do with those who do not fit in with the culture?

There is a difference between social misfits and people from other
countries who sneak into yours illegally.

Post by bowman
The question can also be presented as "when a significant portion of the
population in a geographic area do not support the culture of the nation as
a whole, can they withdraw?"

They can try.

Post by bowman
Another question is "had the third Reich not been as aggressive in its
pan-Germanic expansion or expelling Jews, would England, France, the US and
the USSR allowed them to develop a national socialism in peace?"

Probably not the USSR. They would've tangled regardless how nice Hitler
was.

Post by bowman
These questions certainly are pertinent today. If Irak really wants an
Islamic theocracy will the US allow it?

Almost certainly.

Post by bowman
The US would have built the interstate system in any case.

But the US highway system was modeled on the Autobahn, and pushed
forward by Eisenhauer, who saw the advantages of the system in
Germany... and saw the disadvantages of the lack of one in the US.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
In practice what is one to do with those who do not fit in with the culture?

There is a difference between social misfits and people from other
countries who sneak into yours illegally.

I didn't mean misfits, though you might consider them as such. For instance,
let's say 2 or 3% of the population were utterly opposed to capitalism and,
for historical reasons, had political power disproportionate to their
numbers?

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
In practice what is one to do with those who do not fit in with the culture?

There is a difference between social misfits and people from other
countries who sneak into yours illegally.

I didn't mean misfits, though you might consider them as such. For instance,
let's say 2 or 3% of the population were utterly opposed to capitalism and,
for historical reasons, had political power disproportionate to their
numbers?

Just don't let 'em get access to the public purse.

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:14:46 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Sure. Find jobs for them. Make jobs for them. Put them to work. They
don't want to work... they don't have to eat.

I know you'll find it unbelievable, but there are people who are not capable
of gainful employment.

Nobody with a functioning mind and the ability to communicate is
incapable of some form of gainful employment.
Beyond, that, exactly what sort of jobs did you have

Post by bowman
in mind? Something that would displace already marginally employed people?

Exactly. Here's the first year of the reign of Scott the First, Emperor
1) Borders close; illegal immigrants faced with live ammo.
2) All social programs... health, food, housing, education - removed
from illegal immigrant.
3) Forced deportations of illegal immigrants to Tierra Del Fuego, or NEw
Zealand. Whichever happens to be most convenient.

Tierra Del Fuego would be more convenient because you could force them
to actually walk there as opposed to New Zealand where some swimming
would be required.

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

How do you determine that?

Post by Scott Lowther
Okay, what do we get from the above;
1: A lot of annoyed farmers, factory owners, etc. who are now deprived
of a very low-cost labor force
2: A very large, basically unskilled labor force with no income

Who then commit crime just to meet their needs. Thus passing,
inefficiently, social welfare costs onto involuntary people who might
not be able to shoulder the load and who also may be subject to
violence as a result....

Post by Scott Lowther
3: A governm,ent with much more money than previously due to the endign
of numerous extremely costly social programs
1: The farmers, factory owners, etc. pay the American laborers the same
low wages they paid the illegals. This keeps the businesses in business,
and the prices at the market low.
2: The government uses the money formerly spent on social programs to
directly subsidize the farm/factory workers. The workers get their buck
fifty an hour (or whatever) from Farmer Fred... and they get an extra X
dollars per hour from Uncle Sam to have a decent living wage.
1: We no longer import poverty via illegal immigrants
2: The prices stay low
3: More people can actually speak English

Speak English or die eh Scott? Very enlightened of you.

Post by Scott Lowther
4: We still shell out a lot of money through the social spending... but
now it's given out as wages, for people who are actually working, rather
than as a handout to people who are not.
Would this be a hard sell? Would this be difficult to actually
implement? You bet your ass. Is a difficult challenge that results in a
better, richer nation a better solution than simply waiting for the
nation to collapse into general poverty and chaos? You bet your ass.

The American Dollar is certainly weak now...under the Bush
Administration.

Nik

[bowman]

Post by Nik
The American Dollar is certainly weak now...under the Bush
Administration.

All part of the master plan. A weak dollar limits imports while stimulating
the export economy. Damn! I had my heart set on one of those new Minis.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Nik
The American Dollar is certainly weak now...under the Bush
Administration.

All part of the master plan. A weak dollar limits imports while stimulating
the export economy. Damn! I had my heart set on one of those new Minis.

Ew. Why? The cars are fricken' *tiny.*

[bowman]

Ew. Why? The cars are fricken' tiny.

Yeah :) But a Geo Metro isn't exactly a stretch limo. I'd rather just ride
the bikes year round, but this isn't San Diego. I also have an old F150 to
haul stuff and go camping, but the Geo gets about 40 mpg and is a lot
easier to park.

The original Mini Coopers were a ball to watch at SCCA races. They would eat
the big cars lunch in the esses, get lost on the straight, and catch up on
the next curve. We were running a Lotus Super 7 which made the Mini look
like a luxury car.

From what I've been reading the new Minis are just as good.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
4) All social spending for those capable of work, but chronically
unemployed ceases.

How do you determine that?

Interviews. We waste all kinds of money on Gubmint social workers...
might as well put 'em to work.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Okay, what do we get from the above;
1: A lot of annoyed farmers, factory owners, etc. who are now deprived
of a very low-cost labor force
2: A very large, basically unskilled labor force with no income

Who then commit crime just to meet their needs.

You really need to read ahead before responding.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
1: We no longer import poverty via illegal immigrants
2: The prices stay low
3: More people can actually speak English

Speak English or die eh Scott?

Where do you get that? Nothing in The Plan says anything of the kind.
Butthe fact is... those in the US who do not speak English not only do
not earn as much, they cost society more.

You use of hyperbole is entertaining, but dishonest.

Post by Nik
The American Dollar is certainly weak now...under the Bush
Administration.

You mean as we recover from the Clinton Recession?

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
Also, thinking people are aware that there will always be poor people
and if they aren't catered for at the basic level i.e. food for
example, those people will steal to survive.

Along with the Get A Damned Job program, basic food needs should be met
with programs for thigns like "foodloaf." Foodloaf is used in prisons...
it is a persons entire days meals fed through a blender and then baked
into dry meatloaf-like consistency. Apparently it tastes bad. But... so
what. It's nutrition is not to be denied, and it'll last forever, and it
can be made in vast quantity for very low cost. And... unlike food
stamps, it's barter value for things like drugs, booze and cigarretes is
probably zero, and it's not something that people will likely be willing
to spend the rest fo their life eating... consequently, it serves all
absic needs, AND it doesn't promote crime, AND it promotes getting off
the dole.

There can of course be special "cultural" meals made, like vegan
foodloaf made from tomatos, potatoes, treebark and cheese (as a binder),
and special Muslim meals made of beef, chicken, fish, taters and bacon.

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:50:49 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
Also, thinking people are aware that there will always be poor people
and if they aren't catered for at the basic level i.e. food for
example, those people will steal to survive.

Along with the Get A Damned Job program, basic food needs should be met
with programs for thigns like "foodloaf." Foodloaf is used in prisons...
it is a persons entire days meals fed through a blender and then baked
into dry meatloaf-like consistency. Apparently it tastes bad. But... so
what. It's nutrition is not to be denied, and it'll last forever, and it
can be made in vast quantity for very low cost. And... unlike food
stamps, it's barter value for things like drugs, booze and cigarretes is
probably zero, and it's not something that people will likely be willing
to spend the rest fo their life eating... consequently, it serves all
absic needs, AND it doesn't promote crime, AND it promotes getting off
the dole.
There can of course be special "cultural" meals made, like vegan
foodloaf made from tomatos, potatoes, treebark and cheese (as a binder),

Then it wouldn't be vegan now would it?

Post by Scott Lowther
and special Muslim meals made of beef, chicken, fish, taters and bacon.

You're all heart Scott. I guess thats what I love about ye.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
There can of course be special "cultural" meals made, like vegan
foodloaf made from tomatos, potatoes, treebark and cheese (as a binder),

Then it wouldn't be vegan now would it?

Nag, nag, nag.

[Nik]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:27:08 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
There can of course be special "cultural" meals made, like vegan
foodloaf made from tomatos, potatoes, treebark and cheese (as a binder),

Then it wouldn't be vegan now would it?

Nag, nag, nag.

Simple fact. You have difficulty with that?

Nik

[Njygaard]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...

Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Wow, talk about a non sequitur. Gee, maybe it's because I'm "tru" to the
"Aesir." You might want to look 'em up.

[Nik]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:40 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Wow, talk about a non sequitur.

You're speaking about the "civilzations that replaced it" meaning the
Old Norse society...the Old Norse society was the one that practiced
Heathenry ergo my comment does in fact follow.

Post by Scott Lowther
Gee, maybe it's because I'm "tru" to the
"Aesir."

To your mind, do they actually exist?

Post by Scott Lowther
You might want to look 'em up.

Hahaha....might want....

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:40 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Wow, talk about a non sequitur.

You're speaking about the "civilzations that replaced it" meaning the
Old Norse society...the Old Norse society was the one that practiced
Heathenry ....

Amongst other things that are NOT followed. Modern Greeks use the same
alphabet that their ancestors 2,500 years ago used... but ancient Greek
civilization is dead. It's been replaced, even if the people, alphabet,
language and cultural heritage might still be there.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Gee, maybe it's because I'm "tru" to the
"Aesir."

To your mind, do they actually exist?

Yes. The question is "as what." That I have no answer for. But that's
something I *need* no answer for.

[Njygaard]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:14:05 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:40 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Wow, talk about a non sequitur.

You're speaking about the "civilzations that replaced it" meaning the
Old Norse society...the Old Norse society was the one that practiced
Heathenry ....

Amongst other things that are NOT followed. Modern Greeks use the same
alphabet that their ancestors 2,500 years ago used... but ancient Greek
civilization is dead. It's been replaced, even if the people, alphabet,
language and cultural heritage might still be there.

...

Ah. They look greek, talk greek, write greek, think greek and worship
greek. Can't possibly be greek, then, can they?

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard

Post by Scott Lowther
Amongst other things that are NOT followed. Modern Greeks use the same
alphabet that their ancestors 2,500 years ago used... but ancient Greek
civilization is dead. It's been replaced, even if the people, alphabet,
language and cultural heritage might still be there.

...
Ah. They look greek, talk greek, write greek, think greek and worship
greek. Can't possibly be greek, then, can they?

Sigh. Are you that dumb, or are you being intentionally dense for some
sort of school project?

Ancient Greek civilization is dead. Roman civilization is dead. Old
Norse civlization is dead. Aztec civilization is dead. Royal French
civilization is dead. Slaveholding American civilization is dead.
Czarist Russian civilization is dead.

Aspects of them continue. But the old civilizations have been replaced.

[Nik]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:14:05 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:16:40 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Tell us again, what is it that makes you Asatru again Scott?

Wow, talk about a non sequitur.

You're speaking about the "civilzations that replaced it" meaning the
Old Norse society...the Old Norse society was the one that practiced
Heathenry ....

Amongst other things that are NOT followed. Modern Greeks use the same
alphabet that their ancestors 2,500 years ago used... but ancient Greek
civilization is dead. It's been replaced, even if the people, alphabet,
language and cultural heritage might still be there.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Gee, maybe it's because I'm "tru" to the
"Aesir."

To your mind, do they actually exist?

Yes. The question is "as what." That I have no answer for. But that's
something I *need* no answer for.

I can accept that.

Nik

[Njygaard]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:51:18 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:06:13 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
The main argument against calling the Norse capitalist, however, is
the fact that they had no grasp of the concept whatsoever. I can agree
that a lot of the ideas which would be components of capitalism later
was present, but they just weren't wired up in any way resembling our
modern conception of capitalism.

Oh, sure. it's nutty to look at somethign a thousand years in the past
in a civilization long dead,

...
Dead? I'm not talking to you from beyond the grave, am I?

I dunno. Are you of the Old Norse civilization under discussion... or
from, perhaps, one of the civilzations that replaced it?

Hmm... Let'see.

I am eligible to vote for the Fylkesting and the Storting, and have
done so.

I am the subject of Hans Majestet Harald, Konge av Norge, the fifth to
bear that name since Harald Hårfagre united the Lords of Norway in the
900's.

I was thaught that lying and stealing is "uærlig", dishonourable,
rather than "sinful". Tales of gods and heroes were part of my
childhood.

I speak a language directly descended from Norse. I can read the names
of the runes without a dictionary. I know what the names of the people
in the sagas mean, because people are still called by those names
here.

I, and my ætt as far back as it can be traced, have made its home in
Norway.

If I take a stroll down to the harbour, I can visit a fort whose
oldest standing walls were constructed in the 1200's, when the king of
Sweden was a heathen, and runes were a common form of writing. It's
still a military base.

I, like everyone else follow Norse customs, involving such basic
things as hospitality, offering, greeting, food and holy days.

I live in a Fylke, a geographical, political and military unit
originally required to raise one longship and enough men to crew it
once word of a war came.

So, yes, like any ethnic Norwegian, Icelender, Swede, Færøying or
Dane, I am Norse. Religion has very little to do with such things.

It's very disturbing to be told that your culture is dead. One of the
most central purposes of Norse spirituality is to ensure that the
thread of the family is not broken. Making sure as much as possible is
passed on to the next generation - and that there _is_ a next
generation - is our road to immortality. I'm pretty sure my ancestors
didn't fail there, as that's what we're still doing.

...

[bowman]

Post by Njygaard
It's very disturbing to be told that your culture is dead. One of the
most central purposes of Norse spirituality is to ensure that the
thread of the family is not broken. Making sure as much as possible is
passed on to the next generation - and that there is a next
generation - is our road to immortality. I'm pretty sure my ancestors
didn't fail there, as that's what we're still doing.

Consider yourself very, very fortunate.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard
It's very disturbing to be told that your culture is dead.

*Your* culture isn't dead. The culture that produced the Vikings *IS*
dead, long dead. It has descendents, but it no longer exists.

[Njygaard]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:18:08 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Njygaard
It's very disturbing to be told that your culture is dead.

*Your* culture isn't dead. The culture that produced the Vikings *IS*
dead, long dead. It has descendents, but it no longer exists.

Um... that's sort of the point, Scott. It keeps existing because it
has descendants. If it didn't have descendants, it would be dead.

...

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
I was thinking on the fact that the old Norse were quite experienced
traders and merchants, selling whatever they coudl to whomever they
coudl and gettign as much as they could for it, and only occaisionally
deciding to just take somebody else's stuff. This would have been the
accepted norm of business when the Havamal was in general effect.

Would you quate the Norse with the overseas Chinese then? A bunch of sharp
traders with a little piracy on the side when they could get away with it?
Do you think the Havamal as exclusively a Norse work, or had it survived
from earlier times? Would it work in a pastoral culture, or does it just
apply to merchants?

I've never viewed mercantilism as an plus for a society.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

You really need to work on your definition of capitalism, specifically the
formation of capital and the implications of usury. At least the Moslems
got that part right.

Some of the kennings for a respected leader suggest gold didn't accumulate
at the top of the heap for long.

The is also the Gulveig sequence; it's a little cryptic and lends itself to
several interpretations, but one of them doesn't show gold as a positive.
Rhe Nibelungenlied and Volsung saga also show gold in an equivocal light.

Wagner's rework of the latter was an interesting critique of 19th century
Europe. follow the money as they say.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman
Some of the kennings for a respected leader suggest gold didn't accumulate
at the top of the heap for long.

Well... those who get rich get the envy of others.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

You really need to work on your definition of capitalism, specifically the
formation of capital and the implications of usury. At least the Moslems
got that part right.

Lemme see:
"cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Hmm. No mention of formation of capital or the implications of usury.
Capitalism is real simple: You own what you make, you sell it for what
you can.

[Nik]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:19:55 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal.

Bwuh? Wealth is mentioned as a general positive, and the purpsoe of
wealth is to buy stuff. That's basic capitalism.

Post by bowman
Capitalism, to me, implies individualism and a system of values based on
"can I make a buck on this?" to the exclusion of any responsibilty to the
social matrix that the capitalist exists in.

Yes. Social responsibility is the responsibility of the person, not of
the economy. A capitalist who makes as many bucks as possible in order
to spend those bucks on soup for the poor is, after all, still a
capitalist.

Post by bowman
Marxism just turns the workers into little capitalists.

Okay, I don't get that. Marxism is specifically, "How can I keep anybody
from making a buck on this?"

No its not. Don't misrepresent it. If Marxism can be summed up in one
sentence, it is, "From each according to their abilities to each
according to their needs."

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, capitalism can easily thrive in
Marxism... ain't been a MArxist society yet that didn't have a black
market - capitalism at its finest. But a Marxist underground economy
within a capitalist one? By definition it'd have to be a small separated
commune, separated from the capitalist economy.

Hippies you mean?

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
Marxism just turns the workers into little capitalists.

Okay, I don't get that. Marxism is specifically, "How can I keep anybody
from making a buck on this?"

No its not. Don't misrepresent it. If Marxism can be summed up in one
sentence, it is, "From each according to their abilities to each
according to their needs."

And the practical upshot of that is... "How can we keep someone from
making a buck?" because if someone makes a buck that they don't throw
into the communal pot, then the system is beginning to break down.
You'll have one guy making bucks on his owbn, and living better than
everyone else, and then the fighting starts.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, capitalism can easily thrive in
Marxism... ain't been a MArxist society yet that didn't have a black
market - capitalism at its finest. But a Marxist underground economy
within a capitalist one? By definition it'd have to be a small separated
commune, separated from the capitalist economy.

Hippies you mean?

Indeed. They need to separate themselves from the larger capitalist
society in order to live under a communistic society... while devious
capitalists got along just fine under communism. Lots of money to be
made when the government controlls the means and ends of production.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Indeed. They need to separate themselves from the larger capitalist
society in order to live under a communistic society... while devious
capitalists got along just fine under communism. Lots of money to be
made when the government controlls the means and ends of production.

By selling smuggled Levis for handfuls of rubles? Smuggling is not
capitalism. A bale of contraband is NOT the means of production. If
anything, it is the precursor to capitalism, mercantilism. Buy cheap, sell
dear. This does not create wealth, just redistributes it and always results
in someone getting screwed, be it the individual or a nation.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Indeed. They need to separate themselves from the larger capitalist
society in order to live under a communistic society... while devious
capitalists got along just fine under communism. Lots of money to be
made when the government controlls the means and ends of production.

By selling smuggled Levis for handfuls of rubles? Smuggling is not
capitalism. A bale of contraband is NOT the means of production.

One does not need to own the means of production to be a capitalist.
Hell, there are people who sell *water,* the single most common liquid
on the planet. It even falls from the sky.

If

Post by bowman
anything, it is the precursor to capitalism, mercantilism. Buy cheap, sell
dear. This does not create wealth,

Sure it does. The smuggler/seller gets rich, the manufactuerer gets a
profit, and the buyer gets happy. Everybody wins, so long as we're
talking about products unlike drugs that don't hurt people.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
One does not need to own the means of production to be a capitalist.
Hell, there are people who sell water, the single most common liquid
on the planet. It even falls from the sky.

CAPITALISM
Pronunciation: 'kapi`tlizum

Definition: [n] an economic system based on private ownership of capital

In classical economics, 'capital' is one of the factors of production, along
with land and labor. It can be used in the production of other goods, it is
man-made (not land or labor in other words), and is not used up in the
process of production.

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
anything, it is the precursor to capitalism, mercantilism. Buy cheap,
sell dear. This does not create wealth,

Sure it does. The smuggler/seller gets rich, the manufactuerer gets a
profit, and the buyer gets happy. Everybody wins, so long as we're
talking about products unlike drugs that don't hurt people.

Wealth is created by the comination of raw material, capital, labor, and
land.

The definitions change with the neo-classical schools or the Austrian
school. Strangely, classical economics is preferred by free-tradres -- and
Marxists. Which set of definitions would you prefer? Remember, now, that we
are discussing economics and not the warm, fuzzy social systems that a site
like www.capitalism.org espouses. Ayn Rand is not a goddess in my pantheon,
and Murray Rothbard ain't there either.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman
Wealth is created by the comination of raw material, capital, labor, and
land.

What land did Bill Gates own? And did he *need* to own land to get rich?
One can get rich with nothing more than ideas... no land needed, no raw
materials save the food you eat.

[DaRC]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
Wealth is created by the comination of raw material, capital, labor, and
land.

What land did Bill Gates own? And did he *need* to own land to get rich?
One can get rich with nothing more than ideas...

Yep - somebody else's ideas. So we're back to the old Capitalism is
theft idea.
Of course to a communist (or politically aware thief) there is no
theft just liberation.

Post by Scott Lowther
no land needed, no raw
materials save the food you eat.

Just $100,000 of Daddy's money. Now if everyone in the world had that
grub stake it would be an equal playing field.

[Nik]

Post by DaRC

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
Wealth is created by the comination of raw material, capital, labor, and
land.

What land did Bill Gates own? And did he *need* to own land to get rich?
One can get rich with nothing more than ideas...

Yep - somebody else's ideas. So we're back to the old Capitalism is
theft idea.
Of course to a communist (or politically aware thief) there is no
theft just liberation.

Post by Scott Lowther
no land needed, no raw
materials save the food you eat.

Just $100,000 of Daddy's money. Now if everyone in the world had that
grub stake it would be an equal playing field.

Thats one of the big problems with neo-Liberal economics - the 'level
playing field' is one of its key assumptions but it just isn't the
case and that, leads to further inequities inevitably...

Nik

[bowman]

What land did Bill Gates own? And did he need to own land to get rich?
One can get rich with nothing more than ideas... no land needed, no raw
materials save the food you eat.

What ideas? Since his days of peddling traffic control systems, he has been
quite good at appropriating the ideas of others. It was a sad day when IBM
refused to sign a standard non-disclosure agreement for Dorothy Kildall. It
was even sadder when they chose an inferior processor for their initial
venture because IBM was in a pissing contest with Exxon, and Exxon owned
Zilog.

If you ever need to dial 911, think about the emeergency dispatcher sitting
in front of a Windows XP box... "Excuse me, could you put your coronary on
hold? I have to reboot."

I will admit I haven't been able to grasp modern economics. It seems to be
based on smoke and mirrors. Then a stiff breeze blows the smoke away, along
with the dotcom millionaires.

Sent from SuSE 8.1, an open source operating system created by the
community. Heil Tux!

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 05:59:12 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
Wealth is created by the comination of raw material, capital, labor, and
land.

What land did Bill Gates own? And did he *need* to own land to get rich?
One can get rich with nothing more than ideas... no land needed, no raw
materials save the food you eat.

Bill Gates is a rip off creep who stole someone else's intellectual
capital...

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
Bill Gates is a rip off creep who stole someone else's intellectual
capital...

So he's a Socialist, then.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
So he's a Socialist, then.

Pirates are not socialists. Unless Walt Dizzy wrote the story.

[Nik]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:35:12 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
Bill Gates is a rip off creep who stole someone else's intellectual
capital...

So he's a Socialist, then.

That, is not the definition of Socialism. Your comment is a rather
blatant laying waste of a straw man.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:35:12 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
Bill Gates is a rip off creep who stole someone else's intellectual
capital...

So he's a Socialist, then.

That, is not the definition of Socialism.

Actually, it's pretty close. Socialism takes your stuff, whether you
want them to or not... that is by definition theft.

[Nik]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:14:50 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:35:12 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
Bill Gates is a rip off creep who stole someone else's intellectual
capital...

So he's a Socialist, then.

That, is not the definition of Socialism.

Actually, it's pretty close. Socialism takes your stuff, whether you
want them to or not... that is by definition theft.

And the Petit Bourgeois takes the worker's labour but does not equally
share in the profits...that is also theft...

Nik

[Njygaard]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Indeed. They need to separate themselves from the larger capitalist
society in order to live under a communistic society... while devious
capitalists got along just fine under communism. Lots of money to be
made when the government controlls the means and ends of production.

By selling smuggled Levis for handfuls of rubles? Smuggling is not
capitalism. A bale of contraband is NOT the means of production.

One does not need to own the means of production to be a capitalist.
Hell, there are people who sell *water,* the single most common liquid
on the planet. It even falls from the sky.

Transport. Storage. Purification.

...

[Njygaard]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal. It would also be hard to derive democracy
from the Rigsthula.
It may be possible to beat Iceland into some sort of proto libertarian
democracy, but it doesn't seem to be a system that existed on the
continent.

...

Er... where did you think the Icelenders got the idea from? They were
basically expatriate Norwegians. They had no king, because kings were
interfering with the parliaments back in the old country...

...

[bowman]

Post by Njygaard
Er... where did you think the Icelenders got the idea from? They were
basically expatriate Norwegians. They had no king, because kings were
interfering with the parliaments back in the old country...

First, I used 'continent' is the sense it is often used -- the other side of
the sea from Norway.

My take on the Icelanders is sort of like the Pilgrim emigration. They were
the malcontents that did not fit into the Norwegian society of the time and
headed West. Several, of course, were outlaws that were spending the time
of their outlawry in a safe place.

A more modern example is Sweden. A large percentage of their population
moved to the US in the 19th century. Were they representative of the social
structure of the country they left?

Even better, the '48ers. They took a shot at radically changing their
society, lost, and emigrated in large numbers.

This is not to say any of the above were bad peope, or their ideas were not
valuable, but just to question if they are a true reflection of the
societies they left.

[Nik]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.

The concepts of both capitalism and marxism, which are two sides of the same
coin, are foreign to the Havamal. It would also be hard to derive democracy
from the Rigsthula.
It may be possible to beat Iceland into some sort of proto libertarian
democracy, but it doesn't seem to be a system that existed on the
continent.
Capitalism, to me, implies individualism and a system of values based on
"can I make a buck on this?" to the exclusion of any responsibilty to the
social matrix that the capitalist exists in.

Thats right. To my mind the Sagas central theme is about resolving the
conflict between individualism i.e. maximising individual freedoms,
whilst recognising the necessary limitations of living in a life
sustaining society. The worst punishment in the old days was, after
all, outlawry, i.e. removing people from the benefit of society.

Nik

[DaRC]

Post by Scott Lowther
In another thread, I mentioned that Marxism was anti-Democratic; Nik
seems to dispute that.

Technically Marxism (as per Marx' doctrine rather than Communism which
is another flavour) is supposed to be 'Democratic'. I think the
philosophical point, much like the Levellers, is that this utopia is
filled with people educated enough to understand why it is the 'right'
choice.

Post by Scott Lowther
With pure (i.e. theoretical rather than realistic) capitalism... a
person can opt out. Live on your own, grow your own food, whatever. but
with Marxism... a person does not have a choice.

Yep the problem with communism and uncontrolled corporate capitalism.
By uncontrolled I mean that eventually one dominant corporation will
take over thus creating a monopoly.

Post by Scott Lowther
1) A nation of non-ambitious idealists. people willign to accept that
what they see is all they will every be.
2) A nation of oppressed people, with gun-toting thugs enforcing the
rule of the Great Leaders.

Yep people - crap design you only have to look at Stalin for that.

Post by Scott Lowther
Since 1) obviously does not exist, certainly not for any length of time
(especially when one of the idealists notices that the slackers eat just
as well as he does), Marxism inevitably devolves into 2). people do not
have a choice in the matter; the choices are made by the leaders...

who

Post by Scott Lowther
*inevitably* wind up living a whole lot better than the serfs.

And the difference between that and Capitalism is? The illusion of
voting.

Post by Scott Lowther
Democracy cannot exist when the people die of starvation.

Democracy is (and always has been) an oxymoron. Even Athenian
'democracy' gave few rights to women and relied heavily upon a
non-voting labour force.

Lets think Oligarchy or Tyranny.

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, it's also a fact that Marxism involves Central Planning.

Basically,

Post by Scott Lowther
the Governemnt determines for a several year span (think "Five Year
Plan") what the nation will produce in terms of food, cars,

appliances,

Post by Scott Lowther
etc. Beyond being merely inefficient (as opposed to capitalism, where
the busienssmen will make what sells, and not make what doesn't), it
limits not only the choices of the consumers... it limits the choices of
the producers. The producers aren't given a choice... if a corn

farmer

Post by Scott Lowther
wants to grow something else, it's not his choice... it's not his land.

Agreed people need a socio-political model that rewards hard work.
I believe Thatcher wanted to create a meritocracy and look how wrong
she went.

Post by Scott Lowther
And of course, Central Planning requires... central planners. Since
Central Planning is Very, Very Important... it's not open to the vote,
but is left to the leaders.

Central Planning is essential to any political system within a complex
social group.

Post by Scott Lowther
In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbooks, even in tyrannies. If
Farmer bob's yams suck, he goes out of business, and Farmer Jim makes
more money.

A naive argument - Farmer Bob's Yams may suck but when the supermarket
has driven prices so low that both Farmer Bob and Farmer Jim's Yams
suck you're given Hobson's choice.

Post by Scott Lowther
As far as the Asatru position on collectivism...

A rather dogmatic statement relying upon written doctrine. Almost
worthy of a Christian theologian ;-)

<snip Havamal quotes>

Post by Scott Lowther
The Icelanders knew the value of privatization, and kept at it until the
Christians came along and messed everything up with centralized
government <snip url>

It is a rather biased historical argument that pre-supposes without
those economic, social and political forces society could have got to
the position whereby we are communicating via computers!
Now as to whether that was a good thing or not is another debate.

Cheers, Dave.

[Nik]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:32:02 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther
In another thread, I mentioned that Marxism was anti-Democratic; Nik
seems to dispute that.

The idea that Marxism isn't democratic is not a necessary truth.

Post by Scott Lowther
With pure (i.e. theoretical rather than realistic) capitalism... a
person can opt out. Live on your own, grow your own food, whatever. but
with Marxism... a person does not ahve a choise.
1) A nation of non-ambitious idealists. people willign to accept that
what they see is all they will every be.
2) A nation of oppressed people, with gun-toting thugs enforcing the
rule of the Great Leaders.
Since 1) obviously does not exist, certainly not for any length of time
(especially when one of the idealists notices that the slackers eat just
as well as he does), Marxism inevitably devolves into 2). people do not
ahve a choice in the matter; the choices are made by the leaders... who
*inevitably* wind up living a whole lot better than the serfs.
America has had it's flings with Marxism, and abandoned the concepts
long before Marx was even born.
http://www.lizmichael.com/thanksgi.htm
http://www.foldvary.net/works/thanksgi.html
Democracy cannot exist when the people die of starvation.
Now, it's also a fact that Marxism involves Central Planning. Basically,
the Governemnt determines for a several year span (think "Five Year
Plan") what the nation will produce in terms of food, cars, appliances,
etc. Beyond being merely inefficient (as opposed to capitalism, where
the busienssmen will make what sells, and not make what doesn't),

That isn't necessarily so either.

Post by Scott Lowther
it limits not only the choices of the consumers... it limits the choices of
the producers. The producers aren't given a choice... if a corn farmer
wants to grow something else, it's not his choice... it's not his land.
And of course, Central Planning requires... central planners. Since
Central Planning is Very, Very Important... it's not open to the vote,
but is left to the leaders.
In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbooks, even in tyrannies. If
Farmer bob's yams suck, he goes out of business, and Farmer Jim makes
more money.
As far as the Asatru position on collectivism...
Havamal stanzas regarding capitalism/private ownership/reliance on self
35
The tactful guest will take his leave Early,
He starts to stink who outstays his welcome
In a hall that is not his own.
(Own your own home)
36
A small hut of one's own is better,
A couple of goats and a corded roof
Still are better than begging.
(Own your own home and herd)
37
A small hut of one's own is better,
His heart bleeds in the beggar who must
Ask at each meal for meat.
(Own your own home)
40
Once he has won wealth enough,
What he saves for friends, foes may take;
Hopes are often liars.
(It's okay to be rich, but don't go nuts)
59
Early shall he rise who rules few servants,
Much is lost by the late sleeper,
Wealth is won by the swift
(work for wealth)
60
A man should know how many logs
And strips of bark from the birch
To stock in autumn, that he may have enough
Wood for his winter fires.
(Provide for your own needs)
75
The half wit does not know that gold
One is rich, one is poor
There is no blame in that.
(AHEM!!!!)
79
In the fool who acquires cattle and lands,
Or wins a woman's love,
His wisdom wanes with his waxing pride,
He sinks from sense to conceit.
(Private ownership of herds and lands are okay, but don't get too
prideful)
Now, the Havamal also makes several clear exhoratations to be a generous
host, and to help the needy. This is not the same as Marxism, and is
fact quite then reverse. Charity does not exist when it's at the poitn
of a sword.
The Icelanders knew the value of privatization, and kept at it until the
Christians came along and messed everything up with centralized
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Your verses from the Havamal are well chosen. It is always good when
people re-read or indeed read for the first time, the Havamal.

Hail Odin!

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:32:02 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther
In another thread, I mentioned that Marxism was anti-Democratic; Nik
seems to dispute that.

The idea that Marxism isn't democratic is not a necessary truth.

Sure seems that way. It's basic tenet is that you deposit what you make
into a big pot and take out only what you need ("from each, to each,
blah, blah, blah"). You don't get a choice to deposit what you feel like
into that pot, or get a choice to take out what you like. Choice and
free will are the building blocks of democracy; take them away, and even
if the trappings are there, democaracy ain't Liek the numerous nations
that have one name on the ballot... theyclaim democracy, but it's not.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Now, it's also a fact that Marxism involves Central Planning. Basically,
the Governemnt determines for a several year span (think "Five Year
Plan") what the nation will produce in terms of food, cars, appliances,
etc. Beyond being merely inefficient (as opposed to capitalism, where
the busienssmen will make what sells, and not make what doesn't),

That isn't necessarily so either.

Almost inevitably works out that way. Even the Very Greatest Idea on
paper is worthless if the practical application of it inevitably
devolves almost instantly into something really quite bad. Communisim,
at least to many people, sounds absolutely fantastic. It never works.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
75
The half wit does not know that gold
One is rich, one is poor
There is no blame in that.
(AHEM!!!!)

By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is. Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?

But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad. Don;t feel bad; you'll
get over it with age.

[Nik]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:58:32 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:32:02 GMT, Scott Lowther

<cut>

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is.

I'll answer that later, it includes notions of private property, for a
start...

Post by Scott Lowther
Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?
But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad.

Fad....yeah right...not.

Post by Scott Lowther
Don;t feel bad; you'll get over it with age.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm 36.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is.

I'll answer that later, it includes notions of private property, for a
start...

So long as by "property" you mean land, stuff, factories and the money I
make, hey, that's great!

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?
But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad.

Fad....yeah right...not.

It's a fad that has passed most places where it has popped up.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Don;t feel bad; you'll get over it with age.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm 36.

Well, then according to Churchill, you've only 4 years left: "Any 20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

Churchill was a wise and quotable feller:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

"We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English."

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result. "

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms
that have been tried from time to time."

"It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice; I consider the
real vice is making losses."

"Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality."

"A communist is like a crocodile: when it opens its mouth you cannot
tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up."

[Njygaard]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is.

I'll answer that later, it includes notions of private property, for a
start...

So long as by "property" you mean land, stuff, factories and the money I
make, hey, that's great!

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?
But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad.

Fad....yeah right...not.

It's a fad that has passed most places where it has popped up.

...

Been going well for about 60 years here. Norway's been a social
democracy since the wars. Among the three biggest parties are the
Workers Party and the Socialist Left party. Both they and their
opposition is made up of extremely capable people with decades of
hands on government experience. More importantly, they are politicians
first and foremost, with little or none interest in the business
world.

A system which ensures that no one gets left behind is also an
insurance against social unrest and crime. People don't like to leave
other people in the gutter to die, and they become a lot happier and
nicer just for knowing that their government agrees on this point. A
successful state must treat its citizens as people, not as mechanical
production units, consumers or capital owners.

...

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Njygaard
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is.

I'll answer that later, it includes notions of private property, for a
start...

So long as by "property" you mean land, stuff, factories and the money I
make, hey, that's great!

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?
But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad.

Fad....yeah right...not.

It's a fad that has passed most places where it has popped up.

...
Been going well for about 60 years here.

Marxism?

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Well, then according to Churchill, you've only 4 years left: "Any 20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

Right. His heart led to Gallipoli, his brain to WWII.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Well, then according to Churchill, you've only 4 years left: "Any 20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

Right. His heart led to Gallipoli, his brain to WWII.

He didn't start WWII.

Chamberlain did.

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:49:42 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman

Post by Scott Lowther
Well, then according to Churchill, you've only 4 years left: "Any 20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

Right. His heart led to Gallipoli, his brain to WWII.

He didn't start WWII.
Chamberlain did.

Errr...no, it wasn't Chamberlain who invaded Poland...

Nik

[Nik]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:37:04 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
By the way, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Social Democrat.

Whatever the hell *that* is.

I'll answer that later, it includes notions of private property, for a
start...

So long as by "property" you mean land, stuff, factories and the money I
make, hey, that's great!

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Is that the New Zealand chapter of the
Yahoo Serious Fan Club?
But the views you've expressed ("I'm a collectivist," and a thrill over
Allende) seem to indicate Marxism. It's a fad.

Fad....yeah right...not.

It's a fad that has passed most places where it has popped up.

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
Don;t feel bad; you'll get over it with age.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm 36.

Well, then according to Churchill, you've only 4 years left: "Any 20
year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English."

Quoting Churchill to me does nothing at all to recommend you or him.

At the same time that he was telling Devalera 'A nation once again' if
you help Britain with her war, he was also telling Craigavon 'Ulster
is safe'.

The man was a lying two faced prick.

Post by Scott Lowther
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

I'm actually quite tolerant. Its you thats the intolerant one Scott. I
recall you saying some quite strongly worded statements about what
should be done with people found guilty of the heinous crime of
inhaling Nitrous Oxide....

Post by Scott Lowther
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result. "

Yeah, so?

Post by Scott Lowther
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms
that have been tried from time to time."
"It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice; I consider the
real vice is making losses."
"Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you wake up to reality."
"A communist is like a crocodile: when it opens its mouth you cannot
tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up."

Quoting Churchill to me does nothing at all to recommend you or him.

At the same time that he was telling Devalera 'A nation once again' if
you help Britain with her war, he was also telling Craigavon 'Ulster
is safe'.

The man was a lying two faced prick.

Nik

[bowman]

Post by Nik
At the same time that he was telling Devalera 'A nation once again' if
you help Britain with her war, he was also telling Craigavon 'Ulster
is safe'.
The man was a lying two faced prick.

What do you really think of him? Scott should read David Irving's
'Churchill's War". The photo of him, FDR, and Uncle Joe defines the term
'lying pricks' quite well.

[Nik]

Post by bowman

Post by Nik
At the same time that he was telling Devalera 'A nation once again' if
you help Britain with her war, he was also telling Craigavon 'Ulster
is safe'.
The man was a lying two faced prick.

What do you really think of him?

I think that he was a lying two faced prick.

Post by bowman
Scott should read David Irving's
'Churchill's War". The photo of him, FDR, and Uncle Joe defines the term
'lying pricks' quite well.

Quite.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

I'm actually quite tolerant. Its you thats the intolerant one Scott.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I

Post by Nik
recall you saying some quite strongly worded statements about what
should be done with people found guilty of the heinous crime of
inhaling Nitrous Oxide....

Please, let's see that again. I'm curious, as I don't recall that.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

btw, maybe you were right:

High-Tech Jobs Dwindle by 12 Percent

About 12 percent of the nation's high-tech jobs have evaporated,
but the meltdown appears to be in its final stages, according to
an industry report.
http://eletters.eweek.com/zd1/cts?d=79-324-2-3-66288-39054-1

but engineers are still second class citizens:

This week on the Embedded.com web site, editor Michael Barr asks: Why don't
people regard engineers as professionals? It's a good question, one that
most of us have probably asked ourselves.

It's hard to figure out why the public views engineers as they do. The best
explanation I've ever heard probably came from author Tom Wolfe, in his
essay, "Two Young Men Who Went West," about Intel founder Robert Noyce.
Wolfe wrote that "Engineering was looked upon as manual labor raised to the
level of a science. There was pure science, and there was engineering,
which was merely practical." That attitude, he said, was most prevalent in
the northeast states, where engineers ranked socially below doctors,
lawyers, Army colonels, Navy captains, college professors, and business
executives.

Too often, I think Wolfe may be right. But, like Michael Barr, I still don't
know why. Engineers, it seems to me, are as professional as doctors,
lawyers, or accountants.

Use the link below to take a look at Michael's article.
http://newsletter.embedded.com/cgi-bin4/DM/y/edzP0FSQ1z01p0CEAS0Ad

[Scott Lowther]

Post by bowman
This week on the Embedded.com web site, editor Michael Barr asks: Why don't
people regard engineers as professionals?

Probable reason: engineers think for a living... we don't *feel* for a
living. Consequently, we don't scream and holler for recognition. Our
motivation is to get the job done, not to backstab and preen. There are
exceptions, of course.

[Rorik]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
This week on the Embedded.com web site, editor Michael Barr asks: Why don't
people regard engineers as professionals?

Probable reason: engineers think for a living... we don't *feel* for a
living. Consequently, we don't scream and holler for recognition. Our
motivation is to get the job done, not to backstab and preen. There are
exceptions, of course.

A possible alternative: people don't regard engineers as professionals
because they're not. "Professional" as an occupational classification
refers to a field like law or medicine, that requires years of
specialized education. Engineers are more akin to accountants --
white-collar workers with a college degree, but not professionals.

regards,
rorik

[Nik]

Post by Rorik

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by bowman
This week on the Embedded.com web site, editor Michael Barr asks: Why don't
people regard engineers as professionals?

Probable reason: engineers think for a living... we don't *feel* for a
living. Consequently, we don't scream and holler for recognition. Our
motivation is to get the job done, not to backstab and preen. There are
exceptions, of course.

A possible alternative: people don't regard engineers as professionals
because they're not. "Professional" as an occupational classification
refers to a field like law or medicine, that requires years of
specialized education. Engineers are more akin to accountants --
white-collar workers with a college degree, but not professionals.

From where I'm sitting these comments seem to me, to be more about
winding Scott up than anything else. Where I come from an Bachelors
Degree in Engineering is at least a 4 year degree...that, to me, is a
professional qualification.

Nik

[bowman]

Post by Nik
From where I'm sitting these comments seem to me, to be more about
winding Scott up than anything else. Where I come from an Bachelors
Degree in Engineering is at least a 4 year degree...that, to me, is a
professional qualification.

There was a bit of winding involved, but the original reference was from a
newsletter I get in connection with Embedded Systems magazine. It, and
Software Development are the two trades that I bother to read.

Engineers have an odd postion in the US. It is changing, but often the first
child in a family to go on to college became an engineer. I had little
desire to go to an engineering school, but my parents forced the issue.

Even then, I was involved in a study of the incoming students that had been
selected for advanced placement. After a battery of tests that took up most
of the week, I was advised that I'd really do better as a scientist based
on my creativity and IQ scores. Even in the oldest engineering school in
the country, engineers were sort of second class citizens.

The other factor is, again because of class, many families do not have the
connections to get a child into medical school or the better colleges.
There have been attempts to get a more diverse student body but typically
Joe Prole doesn't wind up in Yale, or if he does, doesn't wind up in the
old boy network. The US pretends this doesn't exist, but it is alive and
well.

After graduating college, an engineer finds himself regarded as an
interchangeable commodity by many firms. Skilled, yes, but there are many
more where they came from. For his part, the engineer often considers
himself a 'professional', which means he is above any sort of union to
further his cause, and works for a yearly salary, meaning he can put in 70
hour weeks with no overtime or comp time.

While some companies talk of dual career paths, most engineers who survive
get shunted into management where they no longer get to play with stuff.
Depending on the economy, some do not survive. The defense, semiconductors,
and automotive industries can be horribly cyclical (no planned economy,
doncha know). Bad years in Boston, engineers pumped gas. Back before
self-serve stations, of course. Now they probably flip burgers.

After the engineer notices all this HIS kid gets pressured to become a
doctor or lawyer. Doctors have a very good union to keep themselves in
short supply, so the choice in the 70s was law. So now lawyers flip burgers
or sue each other.

And now the corporations are finding that Vietnamese engineers and
programmers are almost as good as the native variety and a hell of a lot
cheaper. Just as well I don't have children; I haven't a clue what might
serve them well in the next thirty years.

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Rorik
A possible alternative: people don't regard engineers as professionals
because they're not. "Professional" as an occupational classification
refers to a field like law or medicine, that requires years of
specialized education.

And what is an engineering degree? It's evidence of "years of
specialized education."

There are very few engineers without such a degree. There are some,
though, and some of them are damned good, just as there have been some
damend good lawyers who didn't go to law school.

[bowman]

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Rorik
A possible alternative: people don't regard engineers as professionals
because they're not. "Professional" as an occupational classification
refers to a field like law or medicine, that requires years of
specialized education.

And what is an engineering degree? It's evidence of "years of
specialized education."

I'll ignore law as sort of a self-perpetuating, er, profession. Consider
that there are many more engineers than doctors. Consider that each year in
the US approximately 100,000 people die through medical misadventure and it
largely goes unnoticed. Admittedly some engineers design weapons systems
that are supposed to kill people, but how many people die a year due to
engineering flaws?

Does a teflon coating go with those years of specialized education in
medicine? I know a coating of bullshit goes with a law degree (and i guess
i'll find out how many lawyers read this ng)

[Scott Lowther]

bowman wrote:
Consider

Post by bowman
that there are many more engineers than doctors. Consider that each year in
the US approximately 100,000 people die through medical misadventure and it
largely goes unnoticed. Admittedly some engineers design weapons systems
that are supposed to kill people, but how many people die a year due to
engineering flaws?

A lot. And it always makes the news. Tires fail and cause cars to flip
because the tire design was fundamentally flawed, etc. But there are
also engineering failures, such as the chunk of foam fallign off the
SHuttle, that are flaws the engineers coudl do little about: foam
*didn't* fall off the Shuttle when they used the foam that the engineers
wanted; it only started falling off when NASA gave in to the Greens and
started using "environmentally friendly" foams that didn't stick worth a
shit at low temperature.

When doctors fuck up, it's One Of Those Things. It's accepted and to a
degree expected. But when engineers fuck up, even when it's not truly
the engineer's fault, it's news because engineers *really* *are*
expected to be wholly professional and never fail. It's impossible, and
it has led to a culture of extreme weeniness in the various engineering
fields. in my own, rocketry, great strides are made when you designa dn
test at the very margins. Testing to destruction is the best way to go.
Pressurize it till it blows up. Add more RDX to the mix till it goes
unstable and shakes the hillside. But now, failures are the sort of
thing that cause customers to run away shrieking, and taking their
contracts with 'em.

[Nik]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

I'm actually quite tolerant. Its you thats the intolerant one Scott.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I

Post by Nik
recall you saying some quite strongly worded statements about what
should be done with people found guilty of the heinous crime of
inhaling Nitrous Oxide....

Please, let's see that again. I'm curious, as I don't recall that.

From:

http://www.google.co.nz/groups?q=+%22Nitrous%22+group:alt.religion.asatru+author:Scott+author:Lowther&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3ED8E887.731C%40ix.netcom.com&rnum=2

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Anybody who intentionally asphyxiates their brain deserves to fall over
dead, and society is better off without 'em.

That, is ample demonstration of your intolerant nature Scott.

Nik

[Scott Lowther]

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

I'm actually quite tolerant. Its you thats the intolerant one Scott.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I

Post by Nik
recall you saying some quite strongly worded statements about what
should be done with people found guilty of the heinous crime of
inhaling Nitrous Oxide....
Anybody who intentionally asphyxiates their brain deserves to fall over
dead, and society is better off without 'em.

Uh... HELLO... you claim that I had ideas of "what hould be done with
people found guilty of the heinous crime of inhaling Nitrous Oxide," and
as evidence, you produce something entirely unlike that.

Don't make me bring out the definition of "to lie" again.

[Nik]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:17:21 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Scott Lowther

Post by Scott Lowther

Post by Nik

Post by Scott Lowther
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

I'm actually quite tolerant. Its you thats the intolerant one Scott.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I

Post by Nik
recall you saying some quite strongly worded statements about what
should be done with people found guilty of the heinous crime of
inhaling Nitrous Oxide....
Anybody who intentionally asphyxiates their brain deserves to fall over
dead, and society is better off without 'em.

Uh... HELLO... you claim that I had ideas of "what hould be done with
people found guilty of the heinous crime of inhaling Nitrous Oxide," and
as evidence, you produce something entirely unlike that.
Don't make me bring out the definition of "to lie" again.

A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. I was working on memory and
I mistakenly attibuted you as saying that these people should be
subject to punishment...sue me...in any event though, I have shown,
yet again, that you're actually a narrow minded person....wishing that
people who occasionally indulge in the practice of inhaling nitrous
oxide is intolerance, plain and simple.

Nik