Interesting reading ---> Orwell Today... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Canada wheat shortage... And I love pasta..... Glad I am not there.......

This was my personal favorite:

"You must love BIG BROTHER. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him."

Odd that my Holy Scripture teaches me to obey the rules of this world, yet love what is good and hate what is evil... ;)

(Of course, evil doesn't always see itself as being evil. Which, I suppose, is the reason for the enforcement of the 'luv me' rule.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No matter what the Scriptures teach, I always tried to live after a mixture of the rule: "Do as you wish but do not harm anyone", and the rule: "Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself"

And regarding Orwell today: Having grown up in East GErmany, I do have an idea of being watched by Big Brother, and being taught to love him.

---

Account frozen...

No matter what the Scriptures teach, I always tried to live after a mixture of the rule: "Do as you wish but do not harm anyone", and the rule: "Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself"

And regarding Orwell today: Having grown up in East GErmany, I do have an idea of being watched by Big Brother, and being taught to love him.

Here, let me fix this for you: "Use massive gov't force to make other people do as I think fit for them without regard for what they would have chosen for themselves to do freely."

You forgot your third rule.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No matter what the Scriptures teach, I always tried to live after a mixture of the rule: "Do as you wish but do not harm anyone", and the rule: "Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself"

And regarding Orwell today: Having grown up in East GErmany, I do have an idea of being watched by Big Brother, and being taught to love him.

Here, let me fix this for you: "Use massive gov't force to make other people do as I think fit for them without regard for what they would have chosen for themselves to do freely."

You forgot your third rule.

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.
Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

---

Account frozen...

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Oh my... always the same lame arguments...

Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

Hence, the gov't should stop support the interests of the rich and rather support the interests of the not-so-rich (or: poorer) majority.
And, btw: there are actually companies which have guns and the right to use them - they're called Private Security (or Milicia as I call them)

---

Account frozen...

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Oh my... always the same lame arguments...

A "lame" argument supported by the actions of every single communistic society that has ever existed.

Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

Hence, the gov't should stop support the interests of the rich and rather support the interests of the not-so-rich (or: poorer) majority.
And, btw: there are actually companies which have guns and the right to use them - they're called Private Security (or Milicia as I call them)

At some point you're just going to have to accept the FACT, that no other country spends more on welfare than America...2.7 trillion dollars is pretty much the exact opposite of ignoring the needs of the poor...and that figure doesn't even include the costs of sending aid to foreign countries.

BTW, Private Security does NOT grant one the right to bear arms in public or use deadly force at any time. For someone who appears to be adamantly against the use of propaganda, you sure don't seem to have any problems dishing it out!

---

[Off topic]

It looks to me, Thorin has found a real friend LOL

[/Off topic]

---

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Oh my... always the same lame arguments...

A "lame" argument supported by the actions of every single communistic society that has ever existed.

You're ignoring that, as far as written history reaches back, a communistic society actually never has existed. Not even those countries calling themselves communistic are or were communistic: In theory, real Communism has no government nor police, no private property (since property is theft); in real Communism money (if even existing) is nothing but a medium of exchange, not able to be hoarded. In real Communism, there is no poor nor rich, not even the tiniest gap in wealth - all wealth is distributed equally to everyone. In real Communism, one hour of work is paid (if there even is money) as one hour of work, no matter what work. The only rule in real Communism is: "Everyone distributes according to their skills and abilities, like it is distributed to everyone according to their needs"

[quote]Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

Hence, the gov't should stop support the interests of the rich and rather support the interests of the not-so-rich (or: poorer) majority.
And, btw: there are actually companies which have guns and the right to use them - they're called Private Security (or Milicia as I call them)

At some point you're just going to have to accept the FACT, that no other country spends more on welfare than America...2.7 trillion dollars is pretty much the exact opposite of ignoring the needs of the poor...and that figure doesn't even include the costs of sending aid to foreign countries.

Wow, I'm impressed! Strange that these 2.7 trillion dollars are not enough to avoid people having to pay for education, to avoid people becoming homeless, to avoid people having poor health care, to avoid people having to use food stamps or to line up at churches to get something to eat...
If there were NO poor people in the States then I would call it a social country.

BTW, Private Security does NOT grant one the right to bear arms in public or use deadly force at any time. For someone who appears to be adamantly against the use of propaganda, you sure don't seem to have any problems dishing it out!

Well, I've seen enough "Security" people bearing a gun in public as if they were cops despite they are working for a private company - and I know of at least one private company which had their mercenaries over there in Iraq. So much for "dishing out propaganda".

---

Account frozen...

[Off topic]

I looks to me, Thorin has found a real friend LOL

[/Off topic]

LOL
Oh, we've been crossing horns since I ever entered the Political threads - and our opinions almost always have been opposite of each other. But still I hope he will listen to reason and become less right-wing at some time ;)
Sometimes it's like discussing with someone from the NPD, though. :(

---

Account frozen...

Thorin, you can be sure, that i follow the political forum very close. (Like Orwell)

I have seen your discusses with Brainsmasher, but if you all follow the rules, i have no problem with that.

---

No disrespect meant, but, Emporer qin unified china {1.6 billion}, the standard of medical knowledge of average farmers is approaching if not the same as modern western world doctors. Unifying the feudal systems of China isn't the same as shooting indians brandishing bow and arrows, so, my guess is the development of that particualr regime needs some thought {considering modern America is new age}. Building the great wall is a, national task, treasure and iconistic accomplishment. America hasn't got much bragging about achievement concerning historic accomplishment yet. So, I'd be thinking, well hey, what is America doing with all that cash, those brains, the infrastructure, the organisation and the modern social mainframe. It that the truth?


John f Kennedy is ''the'' man.

Who else?

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Oh my... always the same lame arguments...

They certainly aren't lame because you said so. Refuse them. If they're so easy, that should be really really simple.

Here, I'll start it for you, "I would never, ever, use the gov't to force my will upon others because...." Or, "Here is evidence from my prior posting history that shows evidence of my extreme unwillingness to make others do as I want them to do...."

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

Hence, the gov't should stop support the interests of the rich and rather support the interests of the not-so-rich (or: poorer) majority.

More accurately, the gov't should not be promoting the interests of anyone over the interests of anyone else, nor at the expense of someone else. Not Northern Rock, not some wino.

And, btw: there are actually companies which have guns and the right to use them - they're called Private Security (or Milicia as I call them)

Those companies derive the force they use from gov't sanction. Overwhelmingly, private security firms do not have sanction to use armed force. Even those that do, can only enforce the law as the gov't has forced it upon people.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You're ignoring that, as far as written history reaches back, a communistic society actually never has existed. Not even those countries calling themselves communistic are or were communistic: In theory, real Communism has no government nor police, no private property (since property is theft); in real Communism money (if even existing) is nothing but a medium of exchange, not able to be hoarded. In real Communism, there is no poor nor rich, not even the tiniest gap in wealth - all wealth is distributed equally to everyone. In real Communism, one hour of work is paid (if there even is money) as one hour of work, no matter what work. The only rule in real Communism is: "Everyone distributes according to their skills and abilities, like it is distributed to everyone according to their needs"

Which is of course, utterly naive because without gov't or police, people like me and those who agree with me will NEVER play along with you. I'll start making things and selling them. I'll make money to buy and sell them with. I won't give my best effort to the collective, in fact, I won't give the collective ANYTHING at all, I won't distribute ANYTHING to anyone else.

For example, here in the U.K. I am exempt from Council Tax because I am a student. They keep trying to collect it from me, but I haven't told them I'm a student. I keep calling, and they keep sending me payment books for the monthly plan, and letters with the amount due, et cetera. All I'm doing is running them about, wasting their time, effort, and money, and what they will get from me is zero. I'm costing them FAR MORE than it's worth to them and laughing like a hyena.

So what happens, Thorin, in your perfect communistic plan, when I don't play along, when I sell things to your people and I get richer than they do, and I refuse to "distribute" anything freely. There isn't any gov't or police to stop me. What then?

Wow, I'm impressed! Strange that these 2.7 trillion dollars are not enough to avoid people having to pay for education, to avoid people becoming homeless, to avoid people having poor health care, to avoid people having to use food stamps or to line up at churches to get something to eat...
If there were NO poor people in the States then I would call it a social country.

That's because people don't have a right to education, a home, health care, or not being poor. If you think they do, you should provide it to them because no one else is doing it. You should be providing 100% of what you earn because they have a right to what you earn. All of it.

Why aren't you?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Nope, that's not my third rule. I just think that a government is there to do and to support what is best for the vast majority of the citizens instead of doing and supporting what is best for the rich minority only.

Sure it is your third rule, because if those individuals don't want to do as you think they should, you're perfectly happy to force them to do so.

Oh my... always the same lame arguments...

A "lame" argument supported by the actions of every single communistic society that has ever existed.

You're ignoring that, as far as written history reaches back, a communistic society actually never has existed. Not even those countries calling themselves communistic are or were communistic: In theory, real Communism has no government nor police, no private property (since property is theft); in real Communism money (if even existing) is nothing but a medium of exchange, not able to be hoarded. In real Communism, there is no poor nor rich, not even the tiniest gap in wealth - all wealth is distributed equally to everyone. In real Communism, one hour of work is paid (if there even is money) as one hour of work, no matter what work. The only rule in real Communism is: "Everyone distributes according to their skills and abilities, like it is distributed to everyone according to their needs"

I'm not ignoring the fact that a truly communistic society has never existed. I'm waiting for you to realize it's an impossibility.

You say we can all live happily if we pool our resources, I say I can live longer and happier if I take yours. Since you own nothing, you have nothing to trade, and since you have no government or police, you have no protection from those of us with ambition and the desire for a better than average lifestyle.

Perhaps it time you left fantasyland and came back to Earth...

[quote]Unfortunately there is no country with a political and economic system which I would regard as an optimal social system - all actual countries I know (except a few) only support the interests of the rich and (more or less) ignore the interests of the poor majority. And the few exceptions don't have enough mone to give their people what they need because their economy is squeezed out directly or indirectly by other, richer countries.

The only thing that can support the interests of the rich is gov't because Nike (any company) has no power over you. They cannot make you do anything, ever. Only the gov't can because it has guns and has taken the right to use them.

Hence, the gov't should stop support the interests of the rich and rather support the interests of the not-so-rich (or: poorer) majority.
And, btw: there are actually companies which have guns and the right to use them - they're called Private Security (or Milicia as I call them)

At some point you're just going to have to accept the FACT, that no other country spends more on welfare than America...2.7 trillion dollars is pretty much the exact opposite of ignoring the needs of the poor...and that figure doesn't even include the costs of sending aid to foreign countries.

Wow, I'm impressed! Strange that these 2.7 trillion dollars are not enough to avoid people having to pay for education, to avoid people becoming homeless, to avoid people having poor health care, to avoid people having to use food stamps or to line up at churches to get something to eat...
If there were NO poor people in the States then I would call it a social country.

Welfare isn't for buying homes or for going to school or for going to the doctor. We have different forms of financial aid for those, such as free clinics, grants and scholarships, and first-time home buyer loans.

BTW, Private Security does NOT grant one the right to bear arms in public or use deadly force at any time. For someone who appears to be adamantly against the use of propaganda, you sure don't seem to have any problems dishing it out!

Well, I've seen enough "Security" people bearing a gun in public as if they were cops despite they are working for a private company - and I know of at least one private company which had their mercenaries over there in Iraq. So much for "dishing out propaganda".

You haven't seen it in America

---

I'm just visiualizing Rush and BrainSmashR desperately trying to sell stuff in a society with no money, or to hoard stuff in a society were everything is available for free
I suppose they would be asked to attend a counsellor (or therapist)...

But to comment BrainSmashR's last post:

[...] - and I know of at least one private company which had their mercenaries over there in Iraq. So much for "dishing out propaganda".

You haven't seen it in America

What about the Private Military? What about private cops? Don't tell me this is not to be seen in America. It would be an outright lie.


This is not a cop! That's a private security officer! See his gun?

---

Account frozen...

...........For example, here in the U.K. I am exempt from Council Tax because I am a student. They keep trying to collect it from me, but I haven't told them I'm a student. I keep calling, and they keep sending me payment books for the monthly plan, and letters with the amount due, et cetera. All I'm doing is running them about, wasting their time, effort, and money, and what they will get from me is zero. I'm costing them FAR MORE than it's worth to them and laughing like a hyena.

Why don't you inform them of your status Rush, all you need is a letter from where you are studying to say you are a student? I am glad you are having fun with the taxes I pay..

No, commmunism doesn't have much of a chance until more people grow up and display less anti social tendencies.

I'm just visiualizing Rush and BrainSmashR desperately trying to sell stuff in a society with no money, or to hoard stuff in a society were everything is available for free. I suppose they would be asked to attend a counsellor (or therapist)...

Except that everything wouldn't be available for free, certainly not because you said it would be. I (we) would be providing things that you could not, or providing the same things at much higher quality, or with much better features. Initially, people would trade with me for money and then use that money to buy other things.

What about private law-enforcement companies? Don't tell me this is not to be seen in America. It would be an outright lie.

They simply enforce Federal/state or local law, the University of Chicago used to have the largest police force in the world, but they weren't enforcing U of C laws.

Why is that so hard?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...