Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
Regnirps <regnirps@aol.com> wrote:
 
>OK, so by "serious socialists" you mean a fundamentalist extremist,
>who follows the texts of Marx to the letter?  OK, in that case there
>are no "serious Capitalists" either, simply because all Capitalist
>countries allow some things which aren't profitable.

There are serious capitalists but there are no free places for them to
practice. Homg Kong was close.

> People aren't
>executed when they no longer can work due to old age, for instance,
>even though it's unprofitable to keep them alive when they're old.
>In a Serious Capitalism they would, because Capitalism is about
>maximizing efficiency and profit, remember?

Please, lets not get into science fiction. Who would do the executing and why?
How would they profit by executing people who you say have nothing to offer
anyway? How could they be a burden if they are not profitable?

No, capitalism is about the private ownership of capital and the freedom to do
with it as you please provided it does not involve the initiation of the use of
force.


>> Ah, its the money! 
>Yes, Capitalism is about money -- didn't you know that?

It is about freedom.
 
>BTW *all* political systems are about two things: money and power.

Capitalism is not a political system, it is a philosophy.
 
>Money: let anyone grab as much money as they can = Capitalism.  Distribute
>the money evenly among the people = Socialism.

Yes, Socialism says that an individual who wants something has a moral claim on
the life's work of one who has it.

>Power: let anyone grab as much power as they can = Dictatorship.  Distribute
>the power evenly among the people = Democracy.

Distribution = the tyranny of democracy. That is why the USA is a
representative republic and not a democracy.
 
>> This is an impass. In the USA conservatism = individual freedom and
>> liberalism = government control and bigger government.
 
>I thought liberalism was about individual freedom and conservatism
>was about preserving the remains of fedualism..... at least the
>conservatives here in Europe tend to support monarchy, etc.

Yes, todays USA conservatives used to be called Classical Liberals. The USA
liberals would be called social democrats in England or elsewhere but they
avoid the taint of terms like Socialist or Communist left by the Cold War. Some
call themselves Professives which the the term approved by the American
Communist Party after the House Un-American Activities Hearings. BTW, its funny
that with the KGB files opened up we see that Joseph McCarthy turns out to have
been right.
 
>> What is the incentive for creation in a philosophy of selflessness?
 
>The common good for everyone -- any individual will gets its share
>of that too.

But only a share while others sit and watch? What do you do with those who
don't want to help? Is the story of the Little Red Hen common in Sweden?
 
>Using selfishness as the base of how to rule a country will yield
>a cold and hard country, with a lot of criminals (if selfishness
>is the norm, why obey the law if you can profit more on breaking
>the law?) --- pretty much like today's USA....

Selfishness merely means freedom to own yourself and the fruits of your labor.
If you think the USA has a lot of criminals, the vast majority are created by
government and the law enforcement unions building up a huge dependence on
criminals for governmetn employment. They jail people for victimless crimes
from prostitution to marijuana possesion. This is NOT a result of increased
freedom, it is the result of oppression. Whenever you see large smuggling you
know the government is preventing people from making choices about their lives.

>> The unions and socialists and communist activists like to claim
>> responsibility for all this but it was really Ely Whitney, McCormick,
>> Edison, Ford (who raised wages enough that a typical employee could
>> buy a car), etc.
> 
>See?  GIving the majority decent living conditins isn't such
>a bad idea after all.  Thus Capitalism and Socialism needn't
>necessarily be absolute opponents -- it's possible to merge
>the two.

I think you are too steeped in these ideas. Giving? Who is giving? The
government? The government cannot give without taking. Business? Business
cannot give without adding value to raw materials or providing service.

It also helps that you live in a monoculture not unlike Japan. It is easier to
get everyone to cooperate and play the tribal sharing selfless role despite how
it subverts the ego.

>> The country was not exactly filled from edge to edge with occupied
>> land or land even used or traveled over by the Natives. My great great
>> grandmother was born in Fort Stillicoom (A Hudson's Bay trading post)
>> in 1864 not far from where I live. Herman Springer arrived from Germany
>> in 1632. Like the black plague in Europe, the smallpox and chicken pox
>> and measles epidemics dramatically reduced the native poulation and
>> like in Europe, people moved into empty areas.
 
>Well, that's one way to do it:  travel to a new continent, bring
>new diseases along with you against which the original population
>has no resistance, watch them die off and then take over their land...

You may live on land taken from the dead of the Black Death. Do you feel
responsible? Should my English and German ancestors who came here in the 1630's
feel guilty about the epidemics brought 200 years earlier by the Spanish?

>> It wasn't till Andrew Jackson that Indians were forced to the west
>> by the military and he defied the Supreme Court to do it. (The
>> court doesn't have an army but the President does).
 
>...those few that survived the diseases you gave them...

Like you gave the Plague to Europe?
 
>Next: what excuses do you have for abducting blacks from Africa
>and making them slaves in America?

You are thinking of the English slave traders and the Spanish before them. My
family is in an area that was not part of the USA in slave times though the
local Indian tribes enslaved captives.

>So you want competition among armies, so you can choose which one
>will defend you incase Saddam Hussein would attack?   <g>
> 
>Or do you want competition between different systems of currency,
>so you can choose which currency to use the next time you go
>and buy groceries?
> 
>Or competition between different law systems so you can choose
>which law system to use the next time you want to do something
>and you're nnot sure whether it's legal?
> 
>Sorry, but competition doesn't always make sense...

I never said any of that. The Consititution charges the federal government with
the common defense and the coining of money. The Bill of Rights and
Constitution implicitly define the law as well as each State's Constitution and
the Common Law. Even Objectivists aknowledge a need for government.

All the other survices the government has usurped that are not explicit in the
Constitution would be better with competition.

>>>> Buy your .50 cal Browning now beore they are made illegal!
  
>>> I don't even know what that is..... lemme see, .50 cal is that half
>>> a calorie?  Is Browning some kind of fuel which produces heat?
>>> Why is fuel soon becoming illegal?
 
>> Machine gun. Penetrates one inch of steel. Mounting in the wings
>> of planes, on jeeps, tanks, and carried by troop teams. Helped push
>> NAZIs out of Scandinavia.
 
>To what legal purpose would a private citizen want such a thing?

I don't know what you mean by legal purpose. Shooting it for fun is legal. The
knowledge by the government that individuals have these kinds of weapons is a
very good thing. Why do you suppose the English pay $6 ($5.40 in taxes) a
gallon for petrol when their own North Sea wells are putting out as much oil as
Kuwait? Maybe because the government knows the people are impotent?

>> We can still buy the ammunition and rifles that use it as well as
>> semi-automatic version of the machine guns but a group of liberal
>> congressmen fear the long range sniper ability and want them all
>> made illegal as well as the sale of the ammunition.
 
>I sincerely hope they succeed!!!  Didn't you learn the slightest
>thing from all those deaths from shootings among schoolkids in
>the US in recent years?
 
>If the USA would want to apply for membership in the European Union,
>you'd be disqualified for membership, for two reasons: 1. you still
>have capital punishment, and 2. you have far too liberal gun control
>laws.

Yes that would be great. We could become like Europeans. When the next
totalitarian spasm sweeps across Europe there will be nowhere to turn for help
because we will be part of it. Or maybe the Chinese will come and "help".

Charlie Springer