h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Where did I say I wanted the proposition of this hypothetical, Taff?

I think government is just fine changing in increments, and I would not want to eliminate it or change it drastically overnight.

post 779, amd then you add, so whats the point?

>>Cunnilingus is defined as 'sodomy' in some jurisdictions.<<

I didn't know that, Taff. Mind, a friend tells me that was his favourite number - until she discovered h2g2.

Well, I'll take up TRiG's correspondent's challenge....

"It seems like half his posts are just him clarifying that he is not saying the things that are being put into his mouth."

I think that's profoundly misunderstanding the discussion. Of course Iluvatar isn't in favour of the various nightmare scenarios that are being put forward, but then no-one thinks that he is. The disagreement is about whether they would happen or not - plenty of evidence has been given to say that it would, not to say that it wouldn't.

A lot of the post's content is US-centric, but we're not talking about America, we're talking about general principles. But allow me to repeat that propertarian has no significant support in any nation that has historically tried it. The British welfare state, as I've said before, arouse from the utter failure of something like laissez faire neo-liberal propertarianism.

"Congress-people in the United States were not paid until roughly 100 years after the nation was founded; it's called "public service" for a reason. It's volunteer-work (or should be). I don't see how any of our politicians can call themselves "public servants" today, when they make six-figure salaries at the expense of the taxpayer."

This is just a weird view. MPs (Members of Parliament) were unpaid in Britain for a very long time, and a salary for MPs was among the very first demands from reformers. Why? Because not paying a salary means that only those who are rich can stand for election. So you get what we had in the UK for centuries - a Parliament of the hereditary wealthy, passing legislation in the interests of, er... the wealthy. It would be an absolute disaster to de facto restrict the field of possible representatives to the independently wealthy.

"if the people of, say, New York, want to build a subway system, then BY ALL MEANS, LET THEM. That is perfectly in keeping with the ideals of libertarianism."

I know. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I couldn't have been clearer on this point. The problem is that you get monopolies, and monopolies out of democratic control, but in the hands of a few oligarchs. Competition in certain sectors, if left unchecked, leads not to the vast array of competing little and large businesses of Propertarian fantasy, but to monopoly or duopoloy, where a handful of organisations are in total control. Left unchecked, they can deny service to anyone, for any reason or none. Had a bad break-up with the son of the owner of MegaSubwayInc? That's the last train you'll ever be allowed to get.

"As for welfare, well, the poverty rate hasn't declined in America since we first started dishing out welfare during the Johnson administration -- and we've spent nearly $9 trillion. That's absurd, and it's not helping."

Not being American, it's difficult to discuss America, and to be honest I'm not really interested. But I don't see how it follows to say that
(a) we've spent a lot of money trying to alleviate poverty
(b) it's not made it any better
therefore
(c) We should stop

That's just a bizarre. How bad would things have got without the poverty relief? And if the amount spent hasn't worked, might it not be to do with wider systematic problems in your society? Or because it's been spent in the wrong places? Or that it's not enough?

I also don't understand the logic behind the view that the way to make the rich work harder is to give them more, but the way to make the poor work harder is to give them less. As I've said before, the fact that there is unemployment and a bottom rung in a capitalist society is inevitable - the only question is who, and how far below everyone else they are to be, and what realistic chance those born there are to have of competing.

"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished."

Not being starving doesn't mean being not poor. Because a capitalist society is a competition for scare resources, the definition of poverty has to be relative, not absolute. And doesn't the world's richest country have higher aspirations for its citizens than just not starving? In any case, it can easily be cheaper to eat badly than to eat well.

"And I don't see any evidence that they were any worse-off before welfare started."

Now I'm no expert on American history, but I'm pretty sure the poor were far worse off in the Great Depression than they are now. And if you want a comparison, as others have said, read some books by Charles Dickens. 'Oliver Twist' and 'A Christmas Carol' aren't cute olde worlde fairy tales - they're an attempt by a fairly wealthy writer to depict what he saw around him.

>> ...an attempt by a fairly wealthy writer to depict what he saw around him. <<

To be fair, while Dickens enjoyed immense success financially once he'd established his career (because public education had begun providing a new literate readership and his work was mostly serialised in penny newspapers) it must be noted that Dicken's knew of child labour and debtor's prisons because his father was often in the latter leaving 'poor' Charles to work in the former.

Yes, he died chocking on his dinner but that does not imply gluttony, only a lack of education or understanding of the Heimlich manoeuvre.


~jwf~

TRiG's e-mail.

All very, very true. To a large extent, the US is a communitarian, welfarest society in which much of the infrastructure is supported by government, local and national.

BUT: The Big Fat American Lie is that it is all done by The Little man doing it for himself, upon whom taxes are a massive burden.

And there's also the unspoken Historical Dialectic at the heart of American society: They still haven't got over or entirely owned up to the fact that their wealth was created by using humans, black, yellow and white, as expendable machines.



Oddly enough, I touched on these things tonight with a charming USAnian couple in their late 50's he a socialist, she a Republican. (and both delighted to be standing outside their Glasgow hotel sharing a crafty )

At one point, I quoted something, and she, the Republican exclaimed 'Exactly! Exactly!...and then couldn't work out why I was suddenly helpless with laughter. The quote?

'[Well the way we should organise taxation and society in general is on the simple basis of] to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.'

The reason that some Americans dislike unions is that some union branches are Mafia franchises. We touched on this also - they were in Construction. But they also understood that this was not rue of all unions. They had, for example, heard of Cesar Chavez.

nice use of the quote

were they bright americans or the type that think central america is kansas

They were from Philly. The guy said that they travel..to learn things. He was grooving off sitting in a cool, 30% gay bar, watching the Polis arrest Gers fans in the street outside while a well-spoken psychopath in a Black Panthers t-shirt made a charcoal drawing of his wife and explained Marx to her. They're in town as guests of a well-known musician. (I shan't name drop - but we all know him)

'This is why we travel!', he kept saying.

(and it's for not dissimilar reasons that I frequent that hotel bar myself. That and the amazing food. And the pretty barmaids. And the fact that the management are not averse to stepping out for a wee if there's any going)

Maaaaaan...I LOVE my city!

Plus...I made an *expetionally* useful business contact with someone else.

>>the type that think central America is kansas

Certainly not. Her favourite vaction spot is Guatemala


But, hey, enough with this anti-American stereotyping scheisses. I know *plenty* of English colleagues who, when I suggest that they come up to Glasgow, they make a kissing noise and pull a face that means 'Isn't that a dirty place where people knife you?'

Sheer bloody ignorance through lack of travel. Many English people don't seem to even realise that they are adjoined to two foreign nations.

(Needless to say - for that kind of English colleague - I don't bother offering hotel recommendations. )

never been to glasgow, been to edinburugh to see the castle, one day while we were staying near berwick.

'Sheer bloody ignorance through lack of travel'



a conversation I've had countless times with Britons:

them: 'Are you American'

me, annoyed both by the ignorance already displayed and by the co-opting of my continent by my southern neighbor: 'No. Canadian.'

them: 'oh. same thing.'


me in my imagination: 'you know, I've never forgiven the Jews for sinking the Titanic.

them in my imagination: 'the Jews? But the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg'

me in my imagination: 'iceberg, goldberg, greenberg. same thing.'

spent a week with the canadian army....odd??

Yes. They are odd, aren't they. They seem to be able to beat the tar out of Jerry when the rest of the Empire just gets bogged down in the mud of Flanders, what?

i meant operating with a bilingual army

we would all be stood on parade and get a briefing, then it would all be said again in french,

or depending on the officer

given a brieffing in french and then have it all translated into english

made the whole thing seem very combersome

looked like a lot of the troops only spoke one language?????

"Women give birth, women decide. No one has that right on My body nor on My life."

Nor did I say anyone does. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement as much as I wholeheartedly believe that statement applies to all humans. Therefore, a woman has no right to decide for someone elses body, nor on their life. Why should a pregnant woman be above the law? If I kill you, I go to prison. Yet if a pregnant woman kills a human that happens to be living inside her, she doesn't. It is completely immoral to NOT protect the baby's right to life the same as you would anyone else's.

"Women can get pregnant without wanting it."

Yes, in the case of rape. Or maybe sleepwalking sex. But other than that, I am pretty sure sex is consentual. I am also certain that sex has been scientifically proven to be a leading cause of pregnancy.

"I would think that other countries have similar provisions in their Constitutions and criminal codes."

One can make up any rule they wish and then justify it in a constitution. That is your logical reason for determining what is right? If a special person puts it on a special piece of paper, it is automatically morally right? I think you need a better argument.

"I find it remarkable that Iluvatar is willing to make up legal definitions from whole cloth in order to avoid obeying a law he doesn't like"

I do obey it. I obey it because it is forced on me. If I ignore it long enough, I will eventually be put in prison by force.

"...and yet he is willing to have the entire force of the state come down on the head of a teenage girl who thought the birth control pill she borrowed from her mom's medicine cabinet would protect on that special night with Johnny."

You are changing the subject. This has nothing to do with what she did with Johnny. I really don't care. Ignorance of the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy is no excuse to take an innocent humans right to be alive. The state is only there to protect people from other people.

It is our duty to remove from society anyone who directly harms someone else. It is not our duty to remove from society those who want to mind their own business and keep their material stuff.

"Maybe the state could get her for theft of a birth control pill as well."

Sure they could if the mom wants to take it to court for compensation for one lousy pill. I see that as a waste of time on the mother's part.

"Job stability is an important ingredient in basic mental health"

Agreed. Maybe then the majority of the population would actually be good at their jobs then haha

Otto,

"Under Propertarian scenario 1, anyone can be kicked out of the entire education system and ostracised for any reason or none."

Even though I do not agree with the concept in the first place, if there is a state run system, then it is owned by the entire population, and therefore should not discriminate against anyone. A private school however, I believe should be allowd to decide based on whatever they want. Individual rights.
Example: If I am gay, and employer A hates gay people and won't hire them, why would I even want to force my way in to work for him??? But if a company called government is owned by every single human in the country, then of course the gay guy has the same rights. He owns the same portion of the company.