The idiocy of Tom Sherman

On Aug 17, 5:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*I've said it before, and it's still true IMO, these folks beliefs and
actions have much more basis in Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky than they do
in Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin.

Sadly, this is a true statement.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in
message ...
Tom Kunich wrote:

Let's remember that the same people who would so instantly and
vocally condemn the US for the slightest problem they see cannot find
anything at all wrong with the Communist domination of their people
in China. They're perfectly willing to look the other way as Tibetans
are murdered in the streets for asking China to get their troops out
of Tibet.

That's not necessarily true; some people bitch about EVERYTHING.

That's true, but they direct it in such a manner in this country that it
appears that they're complaining about democracy and personal freedoms.
Of course they use the argument that it is THEIR personal freedom that's
being somehow interfered with if someone else has a gun to protect
themselves.

Again - the Liberals screamed that there would be wholesale murder in
Florida when they removed the concealed carry permit laws and then
refused to discuss it when exactly the opposite occurred.

I pretty much agree with you. My agreement is only lukewarm, however.
Many gun/pet/car/etc. owners are brain dead, and I can understand why
people sometimes wish for the magic government fairy to swoop in and
make them behave responsibly. I wish that sometimes myself.

On Aug 16, 10:39*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Keats) wrote:

Politics is just a condoned form of piracy. We're /all/ pirates
(especially the Greens.)

Capitalists even more so, not merely condoned but even sanctified in the
country.

"To the intellectual the social device of capitalism
offers a displeasing picture. Why? In his own terms,
here are self-seeking men in quest of personal aggran-
dizement. How? By providing consumers with things they
want or can be induced to want. The same intellectual,
puzzlingly, is not shocked by the workings of hedonist
democracy; here also self-seeking men accomplish their
aggrandizement by promising to other men things they
want or are induced to demand. The difference seems to
lie mainly in that the capitalist delivers the goods."
--Bertrand de Jouvenel,
_Treatment of Capitalism by Intellectuals_

Capitalists deliver goods by voluntary agreement. Politicians, and
government never do this -- they exclusively resort to coercion. That
they can be categorized as similar is a result of fictional history,
and marxist at that. Marxist Klaptrap again.

http://www.amazon.com/treatment-capi...dp/B0007F06J8/

or identically:

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-His...dp/0226320723/

Amazon review by reader "katja_r" (munich, germany)

I am intrigued by this collection of essays in "Capitalism and the
Historians" published in 1954. Professor F. A. Hayek of the University
of Chicago USA is the editor with contributions from Louis Hacker, W.
H. Hutt and Bertrand de Jouvenel. The topic of discussion is
specifically, the "legend of the deterioration of th eposition of the
working classes in consequence to the rise of 'capitalism'", and
generally, "the widespread aversion to 'capitalism'". On a larger
scale, these essays examine what is "history", as apart from
"political legend". Professor Ashton attacks a general pessismism and
lack of economic sense in the commonly accepted views of the economic
developments of the nineteenth century. He opposes the views of
Sombart and Schumpeter which write history "as though it its function
were simply to exhibit the gradualness of inevitability." Rather,
Ashton maintains "that it is from the spontaneous actions and choices
of ordinary people that progress springs." Louis M Hacker addresses
the same themes as Ashton and discusses the present attitude of
American historians toward capitalism. Hacker summarises, "When,
therefore, historians learn to treat their materials more sensitively
and make corrections on the counts indicated, the popularly accepted
notions about profits as exploitation will undergo drastic revision."
Bertrand de Jouvenel examines the treatment of capitalism by
continental intellectuals. He explains that the modern intelligentsia
occupies a similar position as the clerics of Medieval Times although
their authority is undermined because they lack the responsibility of
the clerics who were themselves part of the community. "The study of
the past," writes de Jouvenel, "always bears the imprint of the
present views." In the second part of this book, Ashton examines what
happened to the standard of life of the British working classes in the
late decades of the eighteenth and the early decades of the
nineteenth. W H Hutt also examines the British factory system of this
period. The report of the "Sadler's Commitee" in 1832 is analyzed.
Although this examination and defence of "capitalism" made for
extremely interesting reading, I was more impressed with the methods
these historians used to extract their view of events and thereby,
redefine common misconceptions of an historical period. If you are
interested in the early development of the Industrial Revolution in
Britain, or in history as a dynamic organism, this book will be
interesting to you.

In article d82e357b-cc56-42d8-a7ba-4156c44ebb99
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
Capitalists deliver goods by voluntary agreement. Politicians, and
government never do this -- they exclusively resort to coercion.

I agree with the first sentence, but the second is not universally
correct. Many of the services provided by governments are sought by
most citizens, and in some cases, a majority of citizens believe the
government is the appropriate supplier. However, payment for those
services IS generally coerced.

Java

"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
...

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-His...dp/0226320723/

Amazon review by reader "katja_r" (munich, germany)

I am intrigued by this collection of essays in "Capitalism and the
Historians" published in 1954. Professor F. A. Hayek of the University
of Chicago USA is the editor with contributions from Louis Hacker, W.
H. Hutt and Bertrand de Jouvenel. The topic of discussion is
specifically, the "legend of the deterioration of th eposition of the
working classes in consequence to the rise of 'capitalism'", and
generally, "the widespread aversion to 'capitalism'".

Given a chance the leftists will absolutely deny that the working class's
lot is better at all let alone the fact that the working man in the USA
lives a life of ease, plenty and health denied kings of the 19th century.

On Aug 18, 3:08 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in ...



http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-His...dp/0226320723/

Amazon review by reader "katja_r" (munich, germany)

I am intrigued by this collection of essays in "Capitalism and the
Historians" published in 1954. Professor F. A. Hayek of the University
of Chicago USA is the editor with contributions from Louis Hacker, W.
H. Hutt and Bertrand de Jouvenel. The topic of discussion is
specifically, the "legend of the deterioration of th eposition of the
working classes in consequence to the rise of 'capitalism'", and
generally, "the widespread aversion to 'capitalism'".

Given a chance the leftists will absolutely deny that the working class's
lot is better at all let alone the fact that the working man in the USA
lives a life of ease, plenty and health denied kings of the 19th century.

Capitalism made "their" births and subsequent lives possible by the
high productivity ("carrying capacity") it provided. "They" wouldn't
even be alive or have survived without it. The "working class"
numbers increased because capitalism made it possible. Yet capitalism
is ironically condemned by those who owe their very existence to it.

In article f9180274-3a84-46da-9ffe-b5ae8cf03f88
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, says...

Capitalism made "their" births and subsequent lives possible by the
high productivity ("carrying capacity") it provided. "They" wouldn't
even be alive or have survived without it. The "working class"
numbers increased because capitalism made it possible. Yet capitalism
is ironically condemned by those who owe their very existence to it.

Of course, this happens for the same reason that consumer economies work
-- the more people have, the more they want.

Java

On Aug 18, 3:03*pm, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
wrote:
In article d82e357b-cc56-42d8-a7ba-4156c44ebb99
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says... Capitalists deliver goods by voluntary agreement. *Politicians, and
government never do this -- they exclusively resort to coercion. *

I agree with the first sentence, but the second is not universally
correct. *Many of the services provided by governments are sought by
most citizens, and in some cases, a majority of citizens believe the
government is the appropriate supplier. *However, payment for those
services IS generally coerced. *

I think a marginal case could be made for defense as a public good. I
am quite unconvinced on all others, including police, fire, courts,
roads (transportation), etc.

A "majority of people wanting something" isn't a sufficient moral
argument for guvmint coercion.

Payment for guvmint service/goods is *always* coerced, regardless of
perceived desirability.

On Aug 18, 3:37*pm, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
wrote:
In article f9180274-3a84-46da-9ffe-b5ae8cf03f88
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, says...

Capitalism made "their" births and subsequent lives possible by the
high productivity ("carrying capacity") it provided. *"They" wouldn't
even be alive or have survived without it. *The "working class"
numbers increased because capitalism made it possible. *Yet capitalism
is ironically condemned by those who owe their very existence to it.

Of course, this happens for the same reason that consumer economies work
-- the more people have, the more they want.

You could just say "people want more." People are innately lazy
hogs. That is what drives innovation and productivity advances.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:37 pm, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
wrote:
In article f9180274-3a84-46da-9ffe-b5ae8cf03f88
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, says...

Capitalism made "their" births and subsequent lives possible by the
high productivity ("carrying capacity") it provided. "They" wouldn't
even be alive or have survived without it. The "working class"
numbers increased because capitalism made it possible. Yet capitalism
is ironically condemned by those who owe their very existence to it.
Of course, this happens for the same reason that consumer economies work
-- the more people have, the more they want.

You could just say "people want more." People are innately lazy
hogs. That is what drives innovation and productivity advances.
This is a fascinating discussion, but what does it have to
do with bicycles? Perhaps it would be more relevant elsewhere.

--
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
~Albert Einstein
All wars come to an end, at least temporarily. But the authority
acquired by the state hangs on; political power never abdicates.
~Frank Chodorov