Re: Asimov Site

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

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....

>
>
>
> > 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.

>
>
> > 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. How does putting people out of work improve
health care? 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.

>
>
> > 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.

> -- 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.

>
> > 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. I'm sure they'll be happy.

>
>
> >> Perhaps you view Nazi Germany as a good democratic example too?  They too
> >> had racism -- and Hitler got to power by a democratic election, in 1933...
> >> (don't take this last sentence too seriously -- it was intended to be
> >> heavily ironic.  I'm not suggestiong you actually have nazi sympathies)
> >
> > 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.

> 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)

>
> > 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.

Roy

>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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