mckee@TISSS.RADC.AF.MIL (DAVE MCKEE) (02/27/90)
From Larry: [stuff about being a regular guy deleted]... >until they want to dig into MY POCKET. My indifference stops >there. Right On! >(It's called The Transputer, and they're big overseas, but not >to be seen here.) Actually the Transputer was invented and is marketed by Inmos, a company in Britin(They may own Atari, I don't know). And they are available here in the USA, I Have lloked at them in a local electronics supply house, and I have the complete specifications for them on my desk as I write this. They are quite usefull in Neural network research. >We're here to work and serve the Almighty Myself being an Atheist, the Almighty what??? Larry, You got some great ideas! It appears you at least have a tacit beleife in individual freedom and responsibility. But thopse who hold beleifs and do things that disgust you, must also be allowed to express their personal freedoms, and bear their responsibilities. I do agree 100% with ou when you state they should not be allowed to dig into anyone elses pockets to get what they want, however. Dave McKee
JWALES3@UA1VM.BITNET (Jimbo) (02/28/90)
On Tue, 27 Feb 90 10:03:00 EST <AJP93@CAMPUS.SWARTHMORE.EDU> said: >A nicely stated tirade from R3LLS@AKRONVM. It's amusing to note that he >makes an assumption that somehow it's possible for him to make money without >stepping on other people's ability to do the same... >--andy perrin You are absolutely right, andy! He should know by now that since he is not living in a free capitalistic society, the most likely way for a person to make money is to use the government to take it from someone else. In order to get rich in America today, one of the first things you need is to make sure that your company is able to squash out competition from abroad by having the government impose a tax or quota of some sort. If you are in a big company, like an automaker, you better hope for greater regulation of auto companies to make sure that no one new can enter the market without investing millions of dollars in just satisfying the law. Another good way to get rich: get the government to pass laws which forbid workers to organize for more efficient negotiation. While you are at it, try and get the minimum wage raised so that you can find TONS of out of work poor black people, who will be damn glad to get a job! Or, if you work for a defense contractor, be sure to support wars against countries that the average American couldn't find on a map. One other possibility is to be a banker, and loan tons of money to third world countries, THEN support the war on drugs to drive up the prices, so that these countries can pay that money back, at high interest rates. Oh, but the greatest scams are just now being thought up. If you are a big brokerage house, try and get program trading outlawed so that markets are inefficient enough that you can make arbitrage profits at no risk. AT ALL COSTS support legislation which makes it harder for small companies to raise money without your help. And so on... Larry is foolish to think that his making of money will not affect anyone else! The making of money THESE days depends heavily on making sure the government helps you steal it efficiently. --Jimbo p.s. Who was it who said that we Libertarians only care about making sure no poor people get their hands on our hard earned cash?
ACSH@UHUPVM1.BITNET (James N. Bradley) (02/28/90)
>makes an assumption that somehow it's possible for him to make money without >stepping on other people's ability to do the same; or at least, decides it's >okay to infringe on others' freedom in order to promote one's acquisition of >such necessary staples of life, VCRs, color TVs, and McDonalds hamburgers. Who are you to decide what is a staple? What you're discussing here is competition, and in any system, there's going to be competition. If I succeed, have I stepped on other people? A promotion may only go to one person in a department, but that's not ME limiting those who didn't get the promotion. I'm certainly not infringing on their freedom by earning a better salary, or having a better job. >Problem is, he's wrong. Money he makes comes from somewhere else, unless >he builds things himself, which I doubt. His philosophy is based on an >absurd, simplistic sort of individualism that actually seems to believe that >it's possible to live a life without having an effect on others. >--andy perrin Or, quite possibly, he doesn't care what effect he has on others. Certainly that is well within his rights. The notion that my having something infringes on someone else's right to have something seems absurd. No right to equality of property exists. Jim Bradley