Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

**** **** wrote:

> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote in message <39A9B9EF.8E5357EC@inetnebr.com>...
> >**** **** wrote:
> >Name one national park that something like that has happened to. I'm
> waiting.
>
> Was making a joke, lighten up.

John, all your posts are jokes. And you should tell anyone to lighten with your
foulmouthed posts?

> Besides, it wouldn't be half as funny, if it
> didn't seem like the big corporations would jump at the chance. If something
> of the sort does happen, is it going to shock you?

I remember with joy how Disney's attempt to build a civil war theme park in
Virginia near those hallowed grounds was slammed.

> I don't think I'd even
> blink at that one.
>
> >LOL - what planet are you from? Where is the US is that done? Nowhere,
> which, of
> >course, is what Utopia means....
>
> Again, it was a joke, so this doesn't exactly apply.

So what's the punch line?

>

> Still, to show that it
> isn't so much of a stretch, if #1 were to happen, some companies have
> managed to trademark the shape of a building, or other oddities that don't
> exactly conform to the trademark norm.

Who are you, or I, to determine what the "norm" is? If Metropolitan Life wants
to trade mark the distinctive shape of their building, what do you care? Except
that if any corporation does something you seem to dislike it. Do you realize
that YOU are a corporation?

> Can you really argue this is
> impossible, with all the money-hungry corporate lawyers

As opposed to the altruistic non corporate lawyers?

> trying to justify
> their fat paychecks?

Sounds like envy to me.

>
>
> >>     Roy, it might suprise you, but you can still remain a non-marxist,
> and
> >> see the flaws in capitalism, especially corporatism. \
> >
> >What is corporatism? Where does it prevail? How, if at all, does it bear
> upon
> >capitalism? Please supply facts and sources.
>
> Ah. Nice way to change the subject.

I didn't change the subject, you did. With your fantasy land world and life
view.

> You see the flaws in capitalism, but
> rather than acknowledge anything I say, you simply ignore that I said it.
> Corporatism could be said to be the extreme of capitalism, as Stalinism
> could be said to be the extreme of Marxism.

Corporations existed in western civilization before capitalism did. Stalinism
wasn't an extreme form of Marxism. There isn't an "ism" to Stalin. He was just
an other megalomaniac dictator like Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, etc....

> In the most specific sense,
> corporatism is the philosophy that not only should the law allow business
> entities with no individual  accountability, but that these same
> corporations are in some way arbitrarily superior to any other citizen.

I never encountered that philosophy in my study of philosophy. Nor have I seen
that latter part in our laws, and as for the former, the protection of a
corporation is being torn down in American law in the last few decades, not
being built up.

> That
> these corporations have unwritten privileges to negotiate their own taxes,
> and an open door to the legislature that few citizens enjoy.

Money talks. And as long as it takes money to be a well paid politician this
will happen. Which is why our Congress used to be comprised of people who worked
for a living and only met for a few months each year until FDR got some changes
made.

> Guess these
> aren't facts though. Well, blind or stupid, you'll still hurt as much as the
> rest of us. That kinda makes me feel better.

You're right. These were opinions. Opinions might be based on facts, but are not
facts in themselves. (Except, of course, in the sense that it is a fact that
John has this opinion.) I'm so glad for you that you feel better through the
thought that someone else might suffer.

>
>
> >> One day, physical items
> >> will be just as easily copied as software is today. There might be
> >> limitations, but one day it will happen, even fools should be able to see
> >> that. Whether its 10 years from now, or 50,000 who can say? Should
> today's
> >> rules apply then?
>
> >Been watching a bit too much of Star Trek I'd say.
>
> What, that there will be a "50,000 years from now" ?? Or that there will be
> such technology? If that is your response to the former, hell, you are even
> more depressing than me. If it's the answer to the latter, then you aren't
> only stubborn and mentally retarded, but lack a great deal of imagination.

Thank you, but I'd be happy to match IQs with you, if it meant something. And
while I do have an imagination, it has grown beyond belief in Spiderman.

>
> Where do you come off even saying something like this? I am a skeptic
> myself, so I don't buy into this stuff of "it will be reality by 2010", but
> cmon! Microscopic robots might be difficult to manufacture, that first
> bunch, but only that first batch is ever difficult.

Ah, but this isn't the technology that you were talking about. And it might not
be difficult, it might be impossible. No one today can be sure.

> Afterwards, you have 2
> things in your favor, traditional economics where a 1950/ $10mil computer is
> less powerful than a 1999/$50 calculator, and an almost critical mass-like
> ability to self-replicate.

I understood your former, but not your latter. What on God's green earth is "an
almost critical mass-like ability to self replicate"????

> They'll have a much easier time of building
> polymers and the associated plastics, but it is difficult to imagine them
> not being able to shape metals and most alloys much more economically than
> either cast metal, or die presses. This has to be some joke that I just
> don't get,

And you expect others to get your "jokes"?

> that someone speaking with me through a worldwide computer
> network the likes of which science fiction never managed to predict,

Hmm, I think you haven't read enough science fiction. Or seen enough Science
Fiction movies.

> is
> telling me that technology that is 99% an engineering problem is whimsical
> thinking. Maybe you really did mean the former, and you're dead set on the
> idea we'll still extinct ourselves. This, I could actually agree with as a
> possibility.
>
> >1. I don't think that capitalism "sucks", but some capitalists are rather
> nasty
> >people
>
> Ah. The idea that all things exist to be bought and sold, is ok with you.

The idea that people exchange goods and services is most definitely ok with me.
Without it you wouldn't have all this fine technology like the Internet.

>
> Even though it means people also,

That doesn't logically follow.

> and discovered land whether or not there
> are indigenous people on it

Where, on Mars??

> (they are just another resource to be exploited
> on said land anyway!). No, not "some" capitalists, MANY capitalists are
> nasty people.

How many capitalists do you know? What is a capitalist John, do you know? I
doubt it.

> A large minority at least, and that is being generous. I am
> willing to bet that those who fall into your 'not nasty' category aren't die
> hard capitalists either, just people living however seems the most
> convenient. Capitalism is a BAD idea.

LOL - as you use a machine created by capitalists, via services that are funded
by capitalists, wearing clothing manufactured by capitalists, eating food grown
by capitalists, in a building built by capitalists, and so on. IF capitalism is
so bad, what's better?

> I don't deny there are worse ideas
> (communism, etc), and I don't have a clear BETTER idea as of the moment.

In short, I don't like it, because I'm not successful at this.

>
>
> If people could somehow be taught to feel that they are caretakers, and not
> owners.... of land, of possessions. If they could be taught to trust, and be
> trustworthy. If they could be taught that you don't have to be compensated
> for everything you do immediately, without it turning into usury, the world
> would be a better place.

Utopia. And I don't think you have the foggiest idea what usury is.

> The cool thing though, is that maybe, just maybe,
> those things might not have to happen first. Maybe those are the effects,
> it's the cause that we need to look for
>
> >2. Feudalism. Fascism and it's mirror image Socialism. Anarchy. Theonomy.
>
> You seem so competent at naming all the other failed and/or repulsive
> ideologies. Can you actually think for yourself though?

And do you know that Theonomy is? How it is supposed to work? And it's
connection to capitalism? I didn't think so.

Roy