Re: Asimov Site

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <39ADB640.BC8BD955@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> In the early 1970'ies my wife was an excahnge student i the USA.
>> First she lived somewhere in the mid-west, where the family in where
>> she lived claimed that Sweden was a Communist country, where all
>> industry was state owned.  This is blatantly wrong of course, but
>> they refused to admit that until she showed them figures from their
>> own encyclopedia.....
>>
>> Don't you think you'll have to be more careful in distinguishing
>> Socialist states from Communist states?
> 
> But Paul there aren't any communist states. All of them claim to be
> socialist states, as in the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics....
 
:-) ....and there wasn't any Communist Party in the CCCP either?
 
And everything published in Pravda was 100% true?  ("Pravda", the former
major newspaper in the CCCP, is also russian for "truth").
 
Don't believe everything you hear... :-)
 
>>> In other words, no real difference. While it is true that there has
>>> (to my knowledge) never been a democratic Fascist state, it isn't
>>> impossible, just as it isn't impossible to have a democratic Socialist
>>> state.
>>
>> ...and the existence of several deomcratic Socialist states is proof
>> enough that the latter isn't impossible...
> 
> I thought that was what I had said.
 
You didn't point to any examples though.
 
>>> This, BTW is what Mrs. Clinton had proposed in her health care plan
>>> some 6 years ago. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals
>>> would all be privately owned, but they would have to do what the
>>> government told them to do, in setting policies and prices. Both are
>>> equally pernicious. Both rob people of power over their own lives.
>>
>> It would also increase the health of people and reduce your infant
>> mortality, which currently is way above the infant mortality in
>> Europe.  Doesn't that matter at all to you?
> 
> No, in fact, it would probably worsen the situation. Mrs. Clinton
> herself admitted that many doctors would have to go out of private
> practice, and that many small businesses would go out of business.
 
Why?
 
Oh yeah, I know: someone who is deadly ill from e.g. cancer will often
be willing to pay everything he has to remain alive.  Which means if
a doctor can get only rich patients, he can charge outrageous amounts
of money.  With a public health system, he can no longer do that.
 
I think you got it backwards: the health system should be there for
the patients, not for the doctors....
 
> How does putting people out of work improve health care?
 
Will they REALLY do that?  Or are they just trying to scare the
politicians?  As we all know, lobbying is big bu$ine$$ in your
contry.
 
> The strange thing is that we have people coming down from Northernmost
> American (like that Jeff?) to get medical care here that is rationed
> up there, and people from here going north to get drugs that are too
> expensive here. I would suggest that neither system is working as well
> as they could, or should.
> 
>>
>>> So does a monopolistic capitalism, which is why I favor the breakup
>>> of Microsoft, as I favored the breakup of AT&T.
>>
>> And how would one make Microsoft break up voluntarily, without having
>> to involve the government?
> 
> I believe that my sentence was active voice, not passive.
 
You didn't say who you think should be active though...
 
>>> Smaller companies who have a real opportunity to compete are better
>>> for the general good. In this country most people are employed
>>> by small businesses, not major corporations.
>>
>> Small businesses want to grow, and drive other competing businesses
>> out of the market though
> 
> Not necessarily. I know small businesses that don't want to grow above
> a certain size - because then they come under tighter government control.
 
Do they want to avoid that for economical reasons or for other reasons?
If the latter, they aren't acting like genuine Capitalists, and most
likely the profatibility from their business will suffer from that.
 
>> -- if they are able to do it, they will
>> do it.  Nothing in Capitalism can stop them from doing it.
>>
>>>>>> Also, please remember that both of them were born as a
>>>>>> reaction against the Capitalism of the 1800's and earlier -- a
>>>>>> Capitalism which didn't have to "carry the burden" of democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the United States, in the 1800s, we had both Capitalism and a democratic
>>>>> republic.
>>>>
>>>> That's when your forefathers abducted black people from Africa to
>>>> sell as slaves, right?  And they killed off native americans too......
>>>> is that your view of democracy?
>>>
>>> My forefathers were Scotch-Irish, and Swiss and Norwegian peasants.
>>> My paternal great grandfather didn't even arrive in this country until
>>> the 1880s.
>>
>> In English, "you" can be both singular and plural.  Here I didn't just
>> refer to your personal forefathers, but to all the forefathers of your
>> fellow country men.
>>
>>> And 90% of the men who wore gray during the War of Northern
>>> Aggression never owned a single slave.
>>
>> Why do you call it "Northern Agression"?  Do you think it was wrong
>> to fight slavery?
> 
> I think it is wrong benefit from slavery - as the northern merchants did.
> I also think it is wrong to be protectionist, as the northern merchants were.
> `Nuff said.
 
...hmmmm, so the northerners benefited from the slavery in the south
and that was wrong, but the southerners who actually had the slaves
didn't do anything wrong?
 
Anyway, if the northerners benefited so much from slavery, why did
they go to war to stop it?
 
 
>>> I wonder how much of Sweden the Lapps once owned...?
>>
>> Perhaps the northernmost 1/3 -- and about as much from Norway and
>> Finland too, plus a piece of northwesternmost Russia.  Like the
>> Native Americans, the Lapps didn't consider ownership and borders
>> as important as the pig-colored Europeans do -- including those who
>> emigrated to America (North and South!) and Australia.
> 
> You forgot New Zealand.
 
Well, I consider it belonging to Australia (not the country but the
"continent".  BTW here's a REAL problem: the name of that country
*is* actually "Australia" -- not "The United Territories of
Australia" or something similar....)
 
> I'm sure they'll be happy.
 
I guess they frown as much as being called "australians" as Canadians
frown at being called "americans" -- or Quebecians frown at being
called "canadians"... :-)))
 
>>> I hate the Nazi for three reasons: 1) They were the enemies of personal
>>> freedom; 2) They were racists (my son-in-law is of Zulu descent, and
>>> I'm proud to call him "son"); 3) They were anti-Christian pagans.
>>
>> I don't care too much for 3) (there's been too much blood in the name
>> of Christianity as well, and I also strongly dislike an ideology which
>> claims that a minority will go to heaven while most will be sent to
>> eternal pains in hell),
> 
> I think you will find that Holy Scripture says nothing about majority vs
> minority on heaven and hell - both groups are listed as multitudes.
 
Talmud (aka The Old Testament) says a lot about the people of Israel
being "the selected people" though.  And Jehovas Witnesses claim
there are only 144,000 people who can enter heaven.  BUt I must admit
Christians do their best to try to increase their numbers, so now they've
become the worlds largest religion (if you include all the various sects
like the East Roman Church and the West Roman Church... :-)
 
>> but I fully agree with 1) and 2) here.
>>
>>>>> Even Great Britain was developing a democratic element to it's constitution.
>>>>
>>>> To have "democratic elements" and to "be a democracy" is not quite
>>>> the same thing.  Ancient Greece had some "democratic elements" and is
>>>> often considered the birthplace of democracy, but since that society
>>>> officially endorsed slavery, it cannot be considered a democracy in a
>>>> modern sense.
>>>
>>> Now that is arrogant. Democracy is a greek word, and the concept was born
>>> in Athens. Great Britain didn't become a democratic state overnight (and
>>> I doubt that Sweden did either) but she kept progressing. Both of those
>>> countries had monarchies and aristocracies
>>
>> HAD ???   We STILL have them ..... a remniscence of Feudalism.....
> 
> Sorry - we don't, and never have had, at least not since our current constitution
> (1787)
 
But during those glory days of democracy before 1787, you did have a king
and queen.
 
BTW, whenever the Swedish king and queen visit the US, very many people are
interested in them, many more than when they visit e.g. Britain.  This must
be because the british are used to a king/queen, while the americans aren't.
 
>>> and developed into full blown democracies. But Great Britain has been
>>> ruled by Parliament since the English Civil War, long before the time
>>> that you admit that Sweden gave up it's aggressor status.
>>
>> Well, I never argued against that --- I was talking about the state
>> in the US.....
> 
> Which was democratic even before it was independent.
 
In principle but not completely in practice.  You "forgot" your period of
slave trading.  Trading slaves is not compatible with democracy.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch