OT? Why should I give what I have worked for to someone who hasen't?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have often wondered why Liberals feel that the working people ( the haves' ) are obligated to give to those people who dont work, ( the have nots )that just sit around all day, or who steal from the working people. I dont understand this idea. Surely some of the wealthy people that are liberal have an answer for this train of thought. I'll even listen to someone who isn't rich, or working, if your answer doesn't require me to give you something, other than a listen. Perhaps you might enlighten me. I just hate to just give away my life (what I've earned) by working untill I die, to those that think they deserve it more than I do. Go ahead, so tell me why I should become a liberal.I dare you. I am truley interested as to why you think I would want to just give away the thngs I have worked for to someone to lazy to work for the same things.

-- Why should I (Why@why.com), November 26, 1999

Answers

You can't just "become" a liberal. Besides, what makes you think anyone wants you to be a liberal. From what I see here, I seriously doubt they would want you in their group.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 26, 1999.

Can I take a shot at this? 1. Why should JQPublic turn down something that is free and easy, namely a percentage of your earnings? (remember, it is not "PC" to apply YOUR morality to his situation...)

2. What do you have to gain by him accepting your wages?

3. Who else gains by him accepting your wages?

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 26, 1999.


PS--I find this Aristophanes essay morally offensive, and challenge it as being OT, and in violation of the rules for this forum as I understand them, heh.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), November 26, 1999.

Definitely off topic, Hokie.

But as far as it goes, the basic situation is rooted in a perverted concept of "justice" which is not based on reason but based on envy.

It is not reasonable for a man to work for others; sacrificing his life and labor for others. To do so, causes enmity, and inefficiency on the part of the laborer.

To make this possible, coercion is used. With religion, this coercion is threats of damnation and hell for not "helping your brother". In government it is simple jail or confiscation of property.

People who live off the labor of others are parasites. But their very nature, parasites decrease the efficiency of their host(s). In addition, the parasite creates a culture of envy. The have-nots envy the haves, and wish to become parasites themselves. Envy is a form of hatred. The culture becomes awash with hatred for each kind of group; each seeking to leech off another group to make "equalization of outcome" the norm.

True justice would mean that man survives by the fruits of his own labor. If he does not produce, he dies. That may sound harsh, but it is justice. To force productive people to do anything else is unjust. And once justice is discarded in one realm, how can it not be discarded in ALL realms?

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), November 26, 1999.


Everybody breaks down sooner or later.

-- A Car (bumper@sticker.beep), November 26, 1999.


Thank you Jolly; precise, cogent and spot on.

I submit your analysis goes a long way toward explaining the exponentialy declining social helix that America and indeed most of the productive world has experienced over the past 50 odd years.

Socialism was, is and shall always be the bane of freedom!

-- Yan (no@no.no), November 26, 1999.


"Definitely off topic, Hokie."

I don't think so. I don't thinks so at all. If Y2K computer failures become a reality, this issue will become VERY important. In fact, I think this will be one of the most important issues to come out of Y2K. Assumptions and decisions in this area comprise many of the under-pinnings of all Government.

Helping those in need is important, but like anything else, balance is required. The current system in the USA has caused the emergence of a large number of people who "think the Government 'owes' them".

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), November 26, 1999.


Why should I, You shouldn't. You don't have to. You can shrug and walk away. Otherwise you are allowing them to, no, you are giving them your permission to take from you. You are the guilty one.

now, WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH PREPARING FOR Y2K?

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.


Why should I: that's socialism, not liberalism per se. If you're talking about people who WON'T work, then I don't think you'll find many people who will argue with you. Screw 'em. But if you're talking about people who CAN'T FIND work despite making genuine efforts, then doesn't it make sense to bail them out until they can support themselves? They won't just meekly starve. They'll do what they have to to put food in their - and their children's - mouths. Your choices are: cull them, give to them, or have them take from you. Is that simple enough?

And if you can come up with an efficient (i.e. affordable, achievable, reliable) way of separating out the grey area in the middle, then let's hear it. Otherwise you'll withhold benefits from some people who can't work, and then you're down to two choices: cull them or have them take what they need from you.

Cull them? Sure, that very efficient, and there's historical and contemporary precedent. And I'm sure your conscience will be able to cope, right up to the point where "them" becomes anyone you know - or you yourself. If you lose your job through no fault of your own (can we think of an upcoming event that might effect people's job security?) then feel free to step forward and volunteer to stop parasiting off of those still producing. Or perhaps you'd like to start with your loved ones? "Didn't get a job today, honey, better throw another kid in the grinder!"

Short version: It's easy to be objective when you're not hungry.

Cherri: I think it IS a troll, but it's also a valid question when you apply to sharing with non-preppers, who either haven't "done the work" to find out that there might (gosh darn) be a problem, or don't have the resources to prepare. I've bought enough so that I can split with my DGI friends, family and neighbours, because I don't relish the thought of watching them suffer. Does that help to answer your question, WSI? It's because I'm a superficial bleeding heart liberal who's assauging his conscience without making at attempt to deal with the larger issue.

I hope you can retain your clarity of thought if your neighbours' hungry children come knocking on your door. Remember to keep your shotgun handy, it's for the good of society!

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.


Troll. Period.

-- Old (timer@helping.out), November 26, 1999.


Bull. Period.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 26, 1999.

Why should you share? Golly! Jesus told you to, that's why.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

You are correct... you cannot just 'become' a liberal. You have to accept the basic tenets, which are:

7You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding. 7You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

7You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

7You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

7You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

7You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

7You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, visionist activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

7You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

7You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

7You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

7You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

7You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

7You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

7You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

7You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV. 7You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is not really a man.

7You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

-- Bill (president@whitehouse.gov), November 26, 1999.


Bill (president),

"You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it."

That alternative to "self-esteem" was called self respect when I was a boy almost 50 years ago.

You forgot one:

You have to believe that all veterans are nothing better than trained killers, and that all Vietnam Vets are, and will always be, baby burners, and therefore deserving of nothing better than a sewage drain to die in.

-- hunter (way@up.north), November 26, 1999.


Jolly and others of like mind,

Regarding your very true statement---

-----"People who live off the labor of others are parasites.---- But their very nature, parasites decrease the efficiency of their host(s). In addition, the parasite creates a culture of envy. The have-nots envy the haves, and wish to become parasites themselves. Envy is a form of hatred. The culture becomes awash with hatred for each kind of group; each seeking to leech off another group to make "equalization of outcome" the norm."

----True justice would mean that man survives by the fruits of his own labor.------ If he does not produce, he dies. That may sound harsh, but it is justice. To force productive people to do anything else is unjust. And once justice is discarded in one realm, how can it not be discarded in ALL realms? #####

NOW if you really look at the big CEO's who earn millions of dollars per year or the business owners who live in million dollar houses while the people who work to run their business live in middle to lower middle class surroundings barely able to get by day to day and put the "parasites" title on the ones who are living off the work of another.

Who other than the poor in this world is also a parasite? Who is living well, off the hard work of others? WHO ELSE HAS EARNED THE TITLE OF PARASITE? Why it is the CEO's with the big FAT pay checks and stock options, the big business owners and many of the VP staff under them. This is something many, for some reason, do not even want to look at in our society. WHY?

In my view there are poor parasites and well to do parasites.

I think helping others should be an individual choice from each person not a government or company controlled policy.

I am a Christian and believe in "ME" by my choice helping those who are not as well off as I am. I do have a problem with mine and others work efforts (work efforts = money) contiually more and more being taken to increase the well beinging of those "parasites" who have set themselves up as Gods on a hill, sucking the life blood out of the middle classes.

Let the CEO's etc. start living on what is the true percentage of THEIR labor only. I do not care what a person contributes to an organization there is nothing "ONE person alone" can do to make them worth a million dollars when the office staff is just getting average 10 to 15 dollars per hour. There is a GROSS miscalculation of value of efforts spent and money rewarded for efforts spent, in our current economy. The total monetary percentages divided in current companies needs serious changes. Welfare to the wealthy needs to stop;----- no longer should the priviledged wealthy continue living on welfare by taking what is not theirs, the money that was earned for the company by the efforts of the middle and lower middle classes.---

Jolly I agree with your statement ---- "True justice would mean that man survives by the fruits of his own labor."------

So may true justice come for all INCLUDING THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES!

-- Onebyone (susanwater@excite.com), November 26, 1999.



You don't recognize that people have unavoidable problems in life-- illness, old age, mental disabilities, unpreparedness for the work force? You want to pin the blame on them and let them starve for their sins? I call that a lack of compassion. And, yes, one basic tenet of ALL world religions is to share what with have with others less fortunate.

Come to think of it, what have you been able to do by yourself, without those around you and the Grace of God? Honestly. We cannot stand each of us alone, nor are we meant to. We are obliged not only to work for ourselves, but to work to help others. Why do you refuse to hear that call? Is it the hardness of your hearts?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 26, 1999.


Mara, I don't think all religions have that as a tenet. Aren't there some in India that think what you are born with is all you deserve and all you get because of your Karma from a last life?

True there are reasons why people need help at certain times of their lives, illness, women with no skills except homemaker with small children who are left with no income from a spouse who has departed, old and infirm and even someone who has made bad life decisions I think deserves help to re-establish themselves to get going again. After all no one is perfect and always makes all the right decisons. If I have anything to help with I try to help anyone I can like this.

I think what most people get tired of is ---the government "taking" their hard earned dollars by force and giving it to people. --- It is the ---taking--- of the dollars. Most people are charitable and will help when they see a need but do not like to be "FORCED" to help everyone the government chooses to help.

It is true many who have never been in need truly do not understand how the persons get there and most did not choose to be there and would very much like to get out of the circumstances and live a normal life having a job that pays a supportable income. If I have it I will help anyone who wishes to try again even if they have fallen into bad circumstances through bad choices. But those are my beliefs and I do not think they should be forced one anyone else by government (welfare state), church or society.

If someone wants to be totally selfish and never share what they have then that is their choice; let them do it and then when the judgement comes (yes I personally do believe in God) then let God be their judge, not me.

-- Onebyone (susanwater@excite.com), November 26, 1999.


http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/faq.html

Liberalism FAQ

This page is an exact mirror of the original at http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt/home.informal/lounge/politics/liber alism.html, which is often unavaliable to readers in the States due to the nature of the Internet. It was written by Chris Holt Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk

This is a quasi-FAQ, presenting a vastly oversimplified view of some basic tenets of liberalism:

A. Definitions, Principles and History 1. What is a liberal? 2. What do liberals want to do? 3. Where does liberalism come from? 4. How do liberals differ from "libertarians" and "conservatives"? 5. How do liberals differ from "socialists" and "communists"? 6. What do liberals want the government to do? B. Politics and Consequences 7. What is the liberal position on abortion? 8. What is the liberal position on minority, gay & women's rights? 9. What is the liberal position on gun control? 10. What is the liberal position on art, pornography and censorship? 11. What is the liberal position on the draft? 12. What is the liberal position on the "drug war"? 13. What would liberals do about concentrations of corporate power? C. Standard Criticisms 14. But what about the environment? 15. What is the role of property rights? 16. Would liberals just give money to the poor? 17. What about national defense? D. Prospects 18. How can I get involved? 19. Is liberalism likely to get a practical test in my lifetime?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) Subject: Questions that should be Frequently Asked about Liberalism Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 22:44:36 GMT

[Spurred on by Eric Raymond's admirable attempt to produce an FAQ for libertarianism, that might reduce bandwidth on politics groups, I thought I'd use his document as a template for an equivalent one on liberalism. I hope he doesn't mind. Any comments welcome.

There are a number of standard discussions about liberalism that have been periodically resurfacing in the politics groups for years. This posting attempts to answer some of them. I make no claim that the answers are complete, nor that they reflect a (nonexistent) unanimity among liberals; the issues touched on here are tremendously complex. This posting will be useful, however, if it successfully conveys the flavor of liberal thought and gives some indication of what many liberals believe.

A. Definitions, Principles and History

1. What is a liberal?

The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"; "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties"; "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends.

2. What do liberals want to do?

Help individuals take more control over their own lives. This requires (a) providing an environment that does not arbitrarily remove choice; (b) ensuring that isolated failures of judgment are not catastrophic, removing choice; (c) offering enough information so that choices can be understood and made intelligently; and (d) giving people responsibility and encouraging self-reliance within a social framework. It is important to distinguish different levels of choice; alternative kinds of toothpaste are not more important than (e.g.) career options.

3. Where does liberalism come from?

Modern liberalism has multiple roots. An important one is the provision of human rights, from the Magna Carta through the US Constitution to the International Declaration of Human Rights. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the "classical liberals" of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were another influence. The recognition that the social and economic patterns of large populations are qualitatively different from those of small groups draws upon insights of Marx, Weber, and Keynes. Modern liberalism is virtually alone among 20th-century movements in trying to synthesize classical-liberal individualism with the Marxist critique of capitalism, adding a heavy sprinkling of pragmatic compromise.

4. How do liberals differ from "libertarians" and "conservatives"?

Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the social) front.

5. How do liberals differ from "socialists" and "communists"?

Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action. Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty. [This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.

6. What do liberals want the government to do?

Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society. Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education should be universally available, since without either, individual choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that cause harm.

B. Politics and Consequences

The liberal approach to controversial issues is to recognize that there are usually conflicting principles involved, neither of which always dominates. It is necessary first to discover the conflict, and then to find the best tradeoff in any given situation; i.e. absolute priorities, while simple, are almost always wrong.

7. What is the liberal position on abortion?

Most liberals are in favor of abortion rights. Although a foetus is a pre-human, and should be accorded as many rights as possible all else being equal, the quality of life of existing human beings can at this level outweigh the potential life of the baby. It is, however, a difficult question that involves tradeoffs among very important conflicting goals, so no dogmatic yes/no answer can be found; it depends on circumstances.

8. What is the liberal position on minority, gay & women's rights?

Liberals believe that every human being is entitled both to equality before the law and equal opportunity in society. Systematic discrimination causes unequal opportunity by removing choice; it is not enough to say that the victim(s) could go elsewhere, if there is nowhere else to go. It is true that legislating beliefs cannot work; but legislating that actions cannot discriminate unfairly treats the symptom while a cure is sought. The danger is that the underlying problem is then ignored or exacerbated; this is why education plays such a vital role.

9. What is the liberal position on gun control?

The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.

10. What is the liberal position on art, pornography and censorship?

Liberals are opposed to government-enforced limits on free expression; this, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, is the issue on which they come closest to taking an absolutist line. This extends to the propagation of ideas; in our mass media age, an opinion or argument that is not conveyed to large numbers of people is effectively censored. Thus, not only should anti-pornography laws be removed, but the active promotion of alternative and controversial viewpoints should be encouraged and financially supported. This can give people a better idea of the arguments both for and against a given position.

11. What is the liberal position on the draft?

The argument against the draft is that it coerces people, and it reduces the overall effectiveness of the army. The argument for the draft is that in an emergency, manpower may be required that otherwise would not be available, and depending entirely upon supply and demand places the poor at risk more than the rich. In ordinary peacetime, the draft should not exist. In foreign adventures, some liberals feel that only volunteers should be sent to fight. In genuine emergencies that threaten the nation, where volunteer forces are not sufficient, the draft is preferable to simply increasing wages until enough people are willing to fight.

12. What is the liberal position on the "drug war"?

This country went through Prohibition once, and its only long-term result was to corrupt law enforcement and create a vicious and entrenched criminal class. It's happening again, and (just like last time) selective enforcement is making the "war on drugs" a war against the poor and black and downtrodden and a pretext for dangerous expansions in police power (through confiscation laws, "no-knock" warrants and a thousand other "anti-drug" measures). In any case, the government has no right to tell us what we can or cannot put in our bodies. Only the individual can decide to "say no"; the drug problem is not one of supply but of *demand*. Total legalization of everything is the only way to break the drug gangs. However, restriction of access to children should be ensured, as with tobacco and alcohol; and taxes should be used to reduce the potential for abuse.

13. What would liberals do about concentrations of corporate power?

Provide a regulatory mechanism to ensure that abuses of power towards both customers and employees carry severe penalties, and offer a whistle-blowing office to encourage the reporting of breaches of human rights, in terms of safety and environmental consequences. It is not feasible to abolish limited liability, because people are going to be manipulating resources well beyond the scope of individual repayment, and assuring them of disaster if they make a mistake simply ensures that such officers are drawn only from the imprudent. However, no liability whatsoever is also to be avoided.

C. Standard Criticisms

Liberals are often accused of being wishy-washy, of sitting on the fence and refusing to accept that the world can be viewed in black and white. This does not mean that they lack principles, and have no ideas for change, however.

14. But what about the environment?

The environment is important both for quality of life, and for the preservation of resources that are as yet unvalued. However, it should not be given absolute priority over human welfare. Changes that need to be made to deal with the environment include the widespread introduction of quality of life into economic evaluations, and the idea that economic decisions need to err on the safe side whenever it is known that there is not enough information for an accurate evaluation to be made. Such radical changes to standard economic analyses can only be brought about through legislation; otherwise short-term interests will outweigh longer term considerations.

15. What is the role of property rights?

Property is a social convention that allows people to claim priorities for certain kinds of interactions with their environment. To own something is to be able to use it in particular ways. The kinds of changes that a person can make to an object depends on its value to others, and the degree of ownership. For example, renting a house confers a certain amount of freedom in remodelling it, owning it (but not the land it rests on) adds to this freedom, and owning both it and the land adds more. If the house is of value to the community, this restricts the possible modifications; if the house is sufficiently important to be of value to the nation as a whole, this adds further restrictions. Property rights are always a compromise between those who are most directly involved and others whose interest is indirect.

16. Would liberals just give money to the poor?

No, though paying the poor might be an improvement over what government has done to them. As the level of "anti-poverty" spending in this country has risen, so has poverty, because so much money is being spent on bureaucratic administration. Liberals want to break this cycle by eliminating marginal tax rates of over 100%, allowing the poor to *keep* most of what they earn instead of removing it by reducing benefits. The simplest scheme to administer is universal welfare, combined with a relatively high flat rate income tax. This removes the demeaning aspect of receiving charity, which encourages dependency, and ensures that the inadequate levels of charity offered are not stretched to the breaking point in trying to cope. It is important to remember that education and training also need to be provided to offer a realistic way to find jobs.

17. What about national defense?

This issue is inevitably combined with that of foreign aid; to what extent does it make sense to give money to others so that they won't be inclined to attack us? The bottom line seems to be human rights; a country in which human rights are respected is far more stable than one in which they are not. In the latter, a ruler is more likely to seek external adventures, so as to bolster internal support; and also, dictators are more likely to support one another in pacts against potential victims than rulers of democratic republics. The goal should be to maintain a defense against potential threats, but to spend most of the defense budget on increasing the standard of living and level of democratic participation in other countries.

D. Prospects

18. How can I get involved?

Think about freedom, and act on your thoughts. Spend your dollars wisely. Oppose the expansion of corporate power, and state power when it exceeds its limits. Promote "bottom-up" solutions that encourage local solutions to local problems, within a universally agreed framework, and that empower individuals to make decisions affecting their lives. Join a liberal organization; the ACLU (NCCL in the UK), Amnesty International, Oxfam, Shelter. Encourage others to think about issues without stereotyping and oversimplifying; show what being a liberal means by example. Support voluntary cooperation.

19. Is liberalism likely to get a practical test in my lifetime?

Many non-liberals seem to think that liberalism is what is currently being practiced in the Western world; of course they are mistaken. Your author thinks that liberalism is on the brink of a revival, with the collapse of command economies in Eastern Europe and the failure of the voodoo economics of the '80s; the alternative is further bloodshed, suffering, and a retreat towards "strong" leaders who can get the trains to run on time. Some liberals believe that the fundamental changes in society over the past few decades will make most of the favoured ideologies obsolete, just as the industrial revolution did. Only time will tell.



-- alan (foo@bar.com), November 26, 1999.


no responses.... hmmmm.... interesting......

-- alan (foo@bar.com), November 26, 1999.

7You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty, visionist activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

Pasty huh??? Ever hear of skin cancer???!! Huh Huh?? well we don't have a big problem with THAT here in Seattle!

Our dark drizzley weather works to make us what we are here in the Emerald City. Because it causes us to stay inside and do things that take thinking as apposed to sun worshiping places where cooking in the sun brainlessly. A good cup of coffee/latte snuggled in a warm building talking, thinking, communicating keeps out brains active. Parents spend time with their kids here, doing things together, snuggled in their warm adobes. Couch potatoes and couch pouches are acceptable wear to the market. Why do you think Microsoft prospers here? If it were warm and sunny the workers would hurry to get out in it. Here they are content to stay inside to avoid it and work contentedly for hours without noticing wheather it is day or night.

Sunny places get baywatch and boobs, we get drizzle and brains.

Pasty PAH!!! I'll have you know my left arm is darker than my right one!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.


To the top--Ah now I see how that works!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ