Weel, I guess this is a start...where intellegent people can go to discus political ideology in a calm, organized manner...So, my question: Where the heck is everyone?

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 16, 2002

Answers

I'm in stasist! Red Dwarf

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 17, 2002.

We are all busy fighting the idiotic left and the fanatical right. But stick around, as you are about to get a ring-side seat.

-- Okie Dan (okiedan@oklahoma.net), January 17, 2002.

Oh, boy! THIS should be fun!

-- Davey Rootbeer (yankeefans2@juno.com), January 17, 2002.

I'm having fun already. Off to Floriduh, now, though

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

I'm here, waiting for some excitment.

-- (apples@eieio.com), January 18, 2002.

Apple cheeks! Hi!

For you, I might even come visit while I'm in Floriduh.

Your pal, JOJ

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

hi JOJ. have a nice florida experience. democrats lean more toward doing what is right and helping fellow humankind. republicans reap and sour and blame and are frigid.

-- (apples@happy.com), January 18, 2002.

Now Jules, some of them are good. Just like some Democrats are bad. You cant say whether a person is good ar bad just by their poltical beliefs Hillary Sucks!. Me and Joe, politically we are enemies. But I have tremindious respect for the man. He is good. We both see the same problem. But we have gone in different dirrections for the answer.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 19, 2002.

Thanks, Appleperson; I'm back from Floriduh, and it was great! My grandbabies were a load of laughs, except when two out of three were screaming brats. The baby girl grandbaby is a little angel. She just sits and watches and listens to her siblings' outbursts with little look of puzzlement, as if to say, "what are you two little brats complaining about?"

Tator, I think that Jules is right about the demos and repubs, for the most part, although there are certainly exceptions. MOST republicans seem to be more interested in ME ME ME. Sad to say, so do most Libertarins, imho.

The one complaint I have about the green party is that many of the folks are very young and inexperienced; thus, many have unrealistic ideas, and do not have the ability to predict the results of their idealistic goals. However, they come closest to sharing my beliefs; therefore, I support them. If they ever come to power (someday), I hope to still be alive to help add some reality to their organization.

The problem with our entire society, as a whole, imo, is that we are ALL too self centered. Maintaining that attitude is what is responsible for the whole "Tragedy in the Commons" scenario.

Are you familiar with that, Tator? If not, go find it on the net, if you would be so kind.

Gotta go save the world...

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

"Tragedy in the Commons", hmmmmm, I've heard the term somewhere before. Just tonight I heard someone on the news asking why the Baby Boomers generation gets such bad press. Several years ago, someone actually gave a plausible answer to this question, he said it because "The Baby Boomers are by and large a generation of spoiled brats in desperate need of a spanking." According to my observations, that assessment appears to be right on the money. (ACK!! I said the "M" word!! :-)) )

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

The Libertarian Party is very me oreinted. But we have one thing that the others dont have. Or do, I should say. We support the Induvidual Rights of All. Even the ones that we disagree with. THat is why I support a persons right to choose his or her sexual lifestile. Even though baning it wouldnt affect me. And I support Abortion. But I think that more humain ways can be found to do the opperation. And Partial Birth Abortions should be oulawed. They are inhumane. Find a better way. I am against Hate-Crime Legislation because government shouldnt regulate or controll how people feel. You are against the war, right? THey might one day deciede that your protests are hate speech!

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

While individual rights are important, they must balanced with the need for the collective good. While some people may care about your individual rights, does that mean that some people that have power over your life (like your boss) care about your rights? Not neccessarily. There needs to be a consensus on what should be Rights, what should just be Privileges, and what should be flat out no-no's.

Does a person have the "right" to subject his fellows to wage slavery?

Does a person have the "right" to dump his poisonous garbage wherever he wants? Potentially poisoning everything for miles around?

Does a person have the "right" to cheat his employees out of their retirements and life savings and run off to Mexico?

Does a person have the "right" to destoy natural treasures that cannot be replaced in our lifetimes so he could have a few extra bucks?

That's what many of the elites in this country want to do, and in many cases, ARE doing. THESE are the type of people that are currently in charge this country, and they obviously don't give a damn about YOUR individual rights, only THEIRS. You know why this country is in such a god-awful mess now? It because of these people who follow the ME FIRST paradigm, or more accurately, the ME FIRST AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE paradigm.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

THost things are not rights. For the retirement thing, that is steeling. And should be punished. The toxc waste, that is a big no-no. There are standards. Your boss' job is to get as much out of you for as little as possable. Just remember one thing. Even he has a boss. And privlages. Driving is a privalige. So is VOTING. The Costitution mearly states conditions that it can be taken away. (cant be taken away for race and sex, ect.) Thats where Ol' Jim Crowe can in. He said you have to be litterate. Now a days you cant be a fellon. And a couple of other things make it to where you cant vote. It is a privalige that can be taken away, for different reasons. No where is the Costitution does it say you have the Right To Vote.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

"Your boss' job is to get as much out of you for as little as possable."

Your bosses' DREAM is to get as much of you for as little as possible, not necessarily his job. Are you saying that it's OK for people to be forced work for next to nothing? In a fair and equitable system, what you get out should be in proportion to what you put in, NOT as little as possible, which is what your boss usually wants to pay you. You like to say that Communism is anathema to initiative. However, a wage slavery system can be just as deadly, if not moreso, to personal initiative as Communism. When you know you're only going to get the bare minimum for your labors, regardless of the effort you put into your job, why bother doing more than just enough to avoid getting fired? Doing anymore is just a waste of energy.

When you work and your company prospers due to your efforts, any sane person would expect to able to share in the bounty that resulted from their hard work. If that doesn't happen, if the boss just sits on his ass and rakes all of the windfall for himself (which is often the case these days...), that just does not seem very fair does it not?

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 27, 2002.

"Even he has a boss."

Oh, really? Who is Bill Gates's boss? Who is Conrad Black's boss? Who is Donald Trump's boss? Who is Ted Turner's boss?

Of course, you can say that the Board of Directors in their respective companies can fire them. But really, that is only a symbolic gesture. When one already has amassed enough wealth to sustain an extravagant lifestyle for several lifetimes, would they really give a shit if they WERE fired?

"Consequences, consequences, as long as I'm rich...."
- Daffy Duck

That kinda sums up the attitude of our Big Business communities nowadays.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 27, 2002.

Much like a Politition we are Bll Gates' boss. If we dont buy his shit he dont get no money. But we have rewarded him with so much bonus' and the like now, it doesnt matter if we Fire him or not. He is paid. For life. And it is our fault. You cant blame the man for being rich. We made him that way. Of course he kinda helped us along, too.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 27, 2002.

"We are his boss."

I knew you'd say that, and illusion of us being in charge is the one they wish to project. Sure, you can decide not to buy his stuff, of course, then you've just severely curtailed your software selection and abilities in cyber-space. However, since Gates only has control over one limited, and expendable aspect of people's lives, the overall result of boycotting Microsoft isn't so bad (I know a few people that have).

However, there are OTHER mega-corporations that control far many more aspects of the people's material welfare (i.e. Monsanto, General Electric and so forth). By that I mean transportation, fuel, electricity, FOOD, many of the things people here in America take for granted. The effect on a person's lifestyle by boycotting THEM is much more drastic, since these companies essentially have a near- monopoly on so many aspects of people's material well-being. By boycotting these Bad Boys, you could run the risk of being consigned to a Stone Age type of existence. Most people in this country will simply not stand for that kind of hardship. The companies know this, and thus they feel secure concerning their stranglehold on our economy.

You like to think that you somehow have control over them in an economic sense, when actually, they yanked the rug out from under our collective feet. Think about it, if we really WERE in charge, I seriously doubt we would have allowed stuff like that bullshit that happened at Enron to occur.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 28, 2002.

Its not my fault that most everyone 15-10 years ago put Bill where he is today. Think Coke. We have two main producers of soft drinks today (and many small ones too). Coca~Cola and Pepsi. The reason we have two is because people buy two. But if we started only buying coke then thats what would be more avalible. It would be in schools, at your job, on the streets, and in restraunts. No sign of Pepsi. Except for the rare occation. Bill didnt force us to put him on top. But he will make sure he stays there.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 28, 2002.

Interesting thread you two have going here. I don't have a lot of time today, but just let me add that Bill Gates basically stole "windows" from MacIntosh,and somehow managed to win a lawsuit (judge for sale???)

He also got busted for the bit about forcing everyone who buys windows 98(?) to buy his netscape program, or something like that, and lost the lawsuit that resulted from that one. (I can't remember the details, as I'm a mac person, and don't keep up with all the windows stuff)

This kind of behavior indicates to me that he got to the top by less than honorable means.

My understanding of Libertarian philosophy, Nexar, is that people's rights only exist to the extent that they don't negatively affect others' rights. I agree with this part of Libertarianism.

Read the tragedy of the commons, guys. It will help explain why only looking out for oneself results in disaster for society as a whole. That's one reason I don't join the Libertarian Party; they don't give enough attention to the big picture.

It's really a good read. If you don't want to search for it, do you want me to post it here?

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 28, 2002.

We arent against helping people, Jumpoff Joe, we are just against the government forcing us to do it. They might have us paying for things that we consider wrong for one reason or another. Like Homosexuality. Christians and Jews consider it a sin. Should they be forced to pay for something that the government decides that is nessesary for them. Like a special "Gay Church"? If they want a church then they can build one. Thats how everyone else does it. And they can get a Tax Exempt Status, too. The only things that I am willing to pay for is defence, a postal service, and our federal employies. And they should be cut down. We only need about 5% of what we got. They could turn their jobs into the privite sector.

Oh, and post that Commons thing. I'll read it.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 28, 2002.

And maybe a few other things. But paying for the above things are a must.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 29, 2002.

Problem is with many of you Libertarians, Tator, is that many of you are so obsessed with the Big Bad Government that you are overlooking other threats to freedom and well-being.

Besides, the Government you're trying to take down is but a puppet. Don't waste time with the puppet, go after the puppet MASTERS!

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 29, 2002.

Like who? If the boys in the Government would quit taing money from all these companies then we would have things alot better. But you cant just blame the Companies. Or the Government. It takes two to Tango and theyve been fucking us good.

Did you know that Libertarians wont accept the money that the Government gives to canadates? The Reform Party, who is suppossed to be for Monitary Reform, fought over it. That whole "I won the Primary, not you!". The only time that the LP accepts it is when the only way we can get invited to the debates is to accept their money. As is the case with all New York LP canidates. We dont have Ross Perot's Billions, nor do we have Ralph Nadars money that he made from the stock market (utilizing those buisnesses that he "hates" so much). We have induviduals, like myself, contribting what they can. I only wish I could give more. But with Taxes as they are and LP isnt deductable I cant give what I would like to. Also another organisation I give to isnt Tax deducatable. The Missisippi Faternal Order Of Police.

St. Jude is though. Yall know about St. Jude's Childrens Hospital, right? It gives children with cancer free treatment (but many parents start donating after the fact that they started using it). I would give them alot more if I didnt have there hefty taxes. Check them out. Im sure they got a site somewheres.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 29, 2002.

"Like who? If the boys in the Government would quit taing money from all these companies then we would have things alot better."

ROTFLMAO!!! Are you so NAIVE as to believe that? The Government isn't taking money from companies! They are GIVING money to companies! TONS of money! YOUR tax dollars! That's what Bush recently tried to do with his "economic stimulus" package. He's planning to put money in your BOSS'S pocket, NOT yours, and don't expect to see any of that money headed back your way.

Get that notion of trickle-down economics out of your head, it doesn't work. Never has, never will. The only folks that benefit from that system are the ones up top, and expect the "trickle down" to be just that, a trickle.

-- Nexar (Arax7@mvn.net), January 30, 2002.

I heard of St. Jude and know they are a non-profit organization. However, they only reason why they're staying afloat is because they are so widely known that they have an exceedingly broad base from which to recieve donations. And the reason that so many know of them is because of wealth of founder (Danny Thomas) and some other backers made it possible to spread word about them far and wide.

There other such enterprises out there, but for most of them, their situation is much more precarious. In fact, many of these organizations, are currently in danger of shutting down.

-- Nexar (Arax7@mvn.net), January 30, 2002.

St. Jude is close by me. I like to support area charities. Something that I can see, you know what I mean? It is sad when a person has to do that but there are so many bad people wanting to scam you.

And let me clarify something. What I meant was that Buisnesses give to a canidate. And then, like you said, that now elected canidate gives to the buisness. Not just money but also favorable votes. And the Left does this too. Just look at the Entertainment Industry and at Labor Unions. Most every canidate has done this, therefore, I was right. Government and Buisness are doing the Tango. But were the ones getting screwed.

Maybe we should have the networks give free airtime to all caidates. The FCC does after all controll that stuff. Then we wouldnt have them showing favoritism toward one canidate like Fox for Bush and NBC for Gore. Then we could get real reporting and it might make this whole "who evers got the most money wins" nonsence go away. At least a little. You could agree with that little bit couldnt you, Nexar, Jumpoff Joe?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 30, 2002.

Tator, you said, "We arent against helping people, Jumpoff Joe, we are just against the government forcing us to do it. They might have us paying for things that we consider wrong for one reason or another."

Then you tell us all the programs YOU think are ok.

What if I, or someone else, thinks some of YOUR programs are bad? What then? Are YOU the wise one who decides which programs are ok? I don't think so.

I agree that there is way too much government. But neither you, nor I, can decide which programs are ok. That's why we have this allegedly representative government, so that consensus, or at least majority, opinion can be reached as to which programs should be paid for, and which should be axed.

Certainly I, for one, don't agree with much of what the representatives decide on, but so it goes. That's why I try to change various government types' minds.

I agree with Nexar: go after the puppet masters.

You go on to say, "If the boys in the Government would quit taing money from all these companies then we would have things alot better." I agree. I also think that, conversely, if the companies would "quit taking money from the government, things would be a whole lot better. There IS no free enterprise in the usofa. Big business doesn't want free enterprise. Surely you must see that!

Ah... I see that Nexar caught that one, too!

"Maybe we should have the networks give free airtime to all caidates. The FCC does after all controll that stuff.". Yep, I agree. Only "serious" candidates would qualify for the free airtime, though, or you'd have 50,000 presidential candidates on the air, and no one would pay any attention.

My suggestion: each candidate has to PERSONALLY collect a certain number of signatures, in order to be considered a "serious" candidate. For my county, the commissioners should have to get, say, five hundred. For governor, maybe five thousand. For president? How about 100,000,000 signature; that would keep them out of trouble for a while!

We could also make all campaign contributions of over ten bucks or so illegal. No more payola!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 30, 2002.

How about $100 or even $1000. $10 no one would agree with. They can make more than that having a car wash. 100,000,000 signatures? But then that would eliminate your third party people like Nader and Browne. How about just 1,000,000? That is still a serious canidate. Free Airtime! See? We agree on something!

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 30, 2002.

Tator, I was joking about 100,000,000 signatures. It clearly would eliminate ANY candidate. (just figuring one minuter per signature, it would take 190 years to gather the signatures, assuming the candidate were to spend 24/7 gathering them!

As far as "only" a million signatures, if a candidate spent forty hours per week getting on signature per minute, he'd have to spend eight years gathering signatures. Maybe a somewhat smaller number would be in order. Otherwise, it's nice to agree on something.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 31, 2002.

Well, they do have those lists that people just pass around. The camidate wouldnt have to personally get them. And the internet. They could do something with it. Just a thought. They need to start some sort of internet voting. And make it secure. Dont do it until its secure. Lets start where we agree and go from there, Joe. Then maybe we can find a solution that we both agree upon.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), February 01, 2002.

OK.

Meanwhile, when are you going to read the Tragedy of the Commons?

-- joj (jump@off.c), February 01, 2002.

Ive read it. I dont know what to think. That sounds more like Socialism than Libertarianism to me. In Libertarianism we would have fences. If I over graze then I would suffer. But if I held it to a minimum I would prosper. But in communism, everyone suffers because of the few. I will read it again. That was just from memory of a quick glance.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), February 02, 2002.

It''s not about politics. It's about life, and the fact that selfishness causes "tragedy"

-- joj (jump@off.c), February 03, 2002.