Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 > > > Hi All, > > > > > > So what's wrong with Ayn Rand? > > > >Libertarian let-them-eat-caker from hell! > > Heh, no, she wasn't a libertarian. She referred to libertarians as > " anarchists " and was disgusted when libertarians quoted her > work. > > is right. Rand disliked libertarians because they used her political assertion of " prohibiting the initiation of physical force " without accepting her ethical and epistemological ideas. DH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 At 01:51 AM 1/26/01 +0000, you wrote: [snip of much goofiness] >And it is all like this. Much as I eschew labelling, sometimes it is >helpful, so I'll do it. You're a nut, aren't you. The guy who invented this particular brand of insanity, Wallace, began his writing career with a book about how to win at poker. I read his poker book once upon a time. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752226/qid=980478178/sr=1-29/ref=sc_b\ _4/107-6045183-5458943 It was quite sound statistically, but even that book was a little strange in places (talking about hypnotizing the other players by swirling your finger around in the pot, for instance). You can still see his origins as a flaky card sharper in the way the ranting refers to bad people as " neocheaters. " Cheating at poker would be a sign of a bad player, after all. Interestingly, he seems to have written a book which is pro-neocheating: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752293/qid=980478178/sr=1-26/ref=sc_b\ _1/107-6045183-5458943 That must have been during some kind of transition phase from slightly-flaky poker theorist to full-blown loon and/or fraud. I got some junk mail once from these guys which said they wouldn't sell you their products unless you signed a statement that you were neither a politician nor a priest. Apparently those professions are both filled with neocheaters. Whatever neocheaters are. I think this stuff is related to the " Speed Seduction " junk too, which is some kind of lame how-to-get-laid scam. Those guys also talk about zonpower and neocheating. They created their own alt.* newsgroup at one point, four or five years ago. I never saw anyone do anything but mock the idea, but they went ahead anyway. These guys have been around quite a while, and they're really a hoot. In a weird way I feel almost like I know them, since I've encountered the stuff in so many different guises over the years. Go zonpower! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 Hunter- Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it. I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation for why you're here. Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not making much sense and that "become invisible" site of yours is the stuff Unabomber Manifestos are made of. Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Here are R. Wallace's poker manuals: 1. Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life http://www.neo-tech.com/poker/ 2. Neocheating: The Rising Menace http://www.neo-tech.com/neocheating/ > [snip of much goofiness] > >And it is all like this. Much as I eschew labelling, sometimes it is > >helpful, so I'll do it. You're a nut, aren't you. > > The guy who invented this particular brand of insanity, > Wallace, began his writing career with a book about > how to win at poker. I read his poker book once upon > a time. > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752226/qid=980478178/sr=1- 29/ref=sc_b_4/107-6045183-5458943 > > It was quite sound statistically, but even that book > was a little strange in places (talking about hypnotizing > the other players by swirling your finger around in the > pot, for instance). > > You can still see his origins as a flaky card sharper in > the way the ranting refers to bad people as " neocheaters. " > Cheating at poker would be a sign of a bad player, > after all. > > Interestingly, he seems to have written a book which > is pro-neocheating: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752293/qid=980478178/sr=1- 26/ref=sc_b_1/107-6045183-5458943 > > That must have been during some kind of transition phase from > slightly-flaky poker theorist to full-blown loon and/or fraud. > > I got some junk mail once from these guys which said they > wouldn't sell you their products unless you signed a statement > that you were neither a politician nor a priest. Apparently > those professions are both filled with neocheaters. Whatever > neocheaters are. > > I think this stuff is related to the " Speed Seduction " junk too, > which is some kind of lame how-to-get-laid scam. Those guys > also talk about zonpower and neocheating. They created > their own alt.* newsgroup at one point, four or five years ago. > I never saw anyone do anything but mock the idea, but they > went ahead anyway. > > These guys have been around quite a while, and they're really > a hoot. In a weird way I feel almost like I know them, since I've > encountered the stuff in so many different guises over the years. > > Go zonpower! :-) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 > > Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it. > I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation for why you're here. To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life. That and becoming invisible, right? Nate > Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not making much sense > and that "become invisible" site of yours is the stuff Unabomber Manifestos are made of.http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against anyone for any reason. Remember to read what I write, jackass. That's not what I said, which I think is evident to everybody but you. I was referring to that type of rambling and aimless writing, gratuitously lined with $10 words, and only understandable to the individual hacking away at the keyboard. Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 > > Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it. > I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation for why you're here. To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life. That and becoming invisible, right? Nate > Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not making much sense > and that "become invisible" site of yours is the stuff Unabomber Manifestos are made of.http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against anyone for any reason. Remember to read what I write, jackass. That's not what I said, which I think is evident to everybody but you. I was referring to that type of rambling and aimless writing, gratuitously lined with $10 words, and only understandable to the individual hacking away at the keyboard. Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Damn things coming in now with a generic email address for all emails making it impossible to sift through posts. I swear their making it real easy to say good bye to this shit. > Re: Lessons > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2001 Report Share Posted January 26, 2001 Damn things coming in now with a generic email address for all emails making it impossible to sift through posts. I swear their making it real easy to say good bye to this shit. > Re: Lessons > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 ? who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 ? who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 > I smeared > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit their > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get the > best value at the least cost. So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and automobile. Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does not belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for consumers. Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how to entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause prices to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only cause prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of living for everyone. Hunter http://www.localgroup.net/public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats? At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name. I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as it is you can fuck off. > > > > > I smeared > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > their > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > the > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > automobile. > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does not > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > consumers. > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how to > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause prices > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only cause > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > living for everyone. > > > > Hunter > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 geez Re: Lessons > Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats? > > At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name. > > I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical > thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this > kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as > it is you can fuck off. > > > > > > > > > I smeared > > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > like > > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > > their > > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT > get > > > the > > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects > of > > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > > automobile. > > > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was > $30,000 > > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > not > > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora > of > > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > > consumers. > > > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a > computer > > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > to > > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens > of > > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > prices > > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for > everyone. > > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > cause > > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > > living for everyone. > > > > > > Hunter > > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 geez Re: Lessons > Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats? > > At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name. > > I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical > thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this > kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as > it is you can fuck off. > > > > > > > > > I smeared > > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > like > > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > > their > > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT > get > > > the > > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects > of > > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > > automobile. > > > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was > $30,000 > > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > not > > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora > of > > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > > consumers. > > > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a > computer > > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > to > > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens > of > > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > prices > > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for > everyone. > > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > cause > > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > > living for everyone. > > > > > > Hunter > > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Can I translate that to mean that you and Dave (and apparently I) will never agree and you will only " waste your time " with people who are at least willing to believe the Pete Watts' " government is good for you " (because Pete Watts says so) bullshit. Thats how I took it. No offense. However I think you should try to " waste your time " and prove to Dave why he is wrong. If you spend enough time and effort, you'll prove the exact opposite. Re: Lessons > I should stick a label on my monitor: > > " Do not feed the Morons " . > > Indicating that a person is a fool is no pleasure when they are so > great a fool that they are incapable of realizing it, no matter how > clear the demonstration. If you're not going to get it from your own > demonstrations you arent going to get it from mine. > > I will waste no more time on you > > > > > > > I smeared > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > like > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > their > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > the > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > automobile. > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > not > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > consumers. > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > to > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > prices > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > cause > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > living for everyone. > > > > Hunter > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Can I translate that to mean that you and Dave (and apparently I) will never agree and you will only " waste your time " with people who are at least willing to believe the Pete Watts' " government is good for you " (because Pete Watts says so) bullshit. Thats how I took it. No offense. However I think you should try to " waste your time " and prove to Dave why he is wrong. If you spend enough time and effort, you'll prove the exact opposite. Re: Lessons > I should stick a label on my monitor: > > " Do not feed the Morons " . > > Indicating that a person is a fool is no pleasure when they are so > great a fool that they are incapable of realizing it, no matter how > clear the demonstration. If you're not going to get it from your own > demonstrations you arent going to get it from mine. > > I will waste no more time on you > > > > > > > I smeared > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > like > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > their > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > the > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > automobile. > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > not > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > consumers. > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > to > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > prices > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > cause > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > living for everyone. > > > > Hunter > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Can I translate that to mean that you and Dave (and apparently I) will never agree and you will only " waste your time " with people who are at least willing to believe the Pete Watts' " government is good for you " (because Pete Watts says so) bullshit. Thats how I took it. No offense. However I think you should try to " waste your time " and prove to Dave why he is wrong. If you spend enough time and effort, you'll prove the exact opposite. Re: Lessons > I should stick a label on my monitor: > > " Do not feed the Morons " . > > Indicating that a person is a fool is no pleasure when they are so > great a fool that they are incapable of realizing it, no matter how > clear the demonstration. If you're not going to get it from your own > demonstrations you arent going to get it from mine. > > I will waste no more time on you > > > > > > > I smeared > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > like > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > their > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > the > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > automobile. > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > not > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > consumers. > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > to > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > prices > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > cause > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > living for everyone. > > > > Hunter > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Obviously anonymous coward you have no more brains than the Neo-Tech maniac does. Do you REALLY think any of you jerks is ever going to be persuaded by anything that I might say? The Lord Almighty and Einstein could expalin it to you in babytalk and you still wouldnt get it. Of course youre not, so what is the point of trying you dumbfuck? I discussed Ayn Rand civilly, at length, with " Pupship " a long time back, and we agreed to disagree. I was the first to abuse Dave but he is an obvious nut. You came out with that " brown-nosing " stuff without provocation, because I believe in DEMOCRACY and a decent sociey where the vulnerable are guaranteed help. Tell me, which tastes better, Rand's ass or Bill Gates'? Now, as these flame wars do NOT achieve anything, do yout counter-abuse thing and I will NOT answer it. > > > > > > > I smeared > > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > > like > > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > > their > > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > > the > > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > > automobile. > > > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > > not > > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > > consumers. > > > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > > to > > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > > prices > > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > > cause > > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > > living for everyone. > > > > > > Hunter > > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Obviously anonymous coward you have no more brains than the Neo-Tech maniac does. Do you REALLY think any of you jerks is ever going to be persuaded by anything that I might say? The Lord Almighty and Einstein could expalin it to you in babytalk and you still wouldnt get it. Of course youre not, so what is the point of trying you dumbfuck? I discussed Ayn Rand civilly, at length, with " Pupship " a long time back, and we agreed to disagree. I was the first to abuse Dave but he is an obvious nut. You came out with that " brown-nosing " stuff without provocation, because I believe in DEMOCRACY and a decent sociey where the vulnerable are guaranteed help. Tell me, which tastes better, Rand's ass or Bill Gates'? Now, as these flame wars do NOT achieve anything, do yout counter-abuse thing and I will NOT answer it. > > > > > > > I smeared > > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > > like > > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit > > > their > > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get > > > the > > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of > > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today. > > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and > > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus > > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and > > > automobile. > > > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000 > > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and > > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does > > not > > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of > > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for > > > consumers. > > > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer > > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super > > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price? > > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how > > to > > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of > > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > > prices > > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone. > > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > > cause > > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of > > > living for everyone. > > > > > > Hunter > > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 Everybody believes in Democracy these days, but you believe in bureaucracy. I don't have to agree on it and I don't have to agree to disagree with you either. Until you get past this mental block in your head I am not just going to ignore every assinine thing you say. What makes you expect that I should allow you to voice your opinion without me being able to voice mine? I can't stop you from saying anything, except my name, while you, Pete Watts can't stop me from saying anything either. I don't know who the NeoTech or Pupship is. You ask me whose ass tastes better, as if Mr Gates hasn't used your beloved system every step of the way in constructing his empire. A system with holes will be taken advantage of until the holes are fixed, so I thank Mr Gates for being bright enough to notice them and take advantage of them, all the more quicker they will be fixed (one hopes). No thanks to you for trying to build more holes in the system. You have the typical bureaucrat talk - when there is light at the end of the tunnel its time to build more tunnel. Re: Lessons > Obviously anonymous coward you have no more brains than the Neo-Tech > maniac does. > > Do you REALLY think any of you jerks is ever going to be persuaded by > anything that I might say? The Lord Almighty and Einstein could > expalin it to you in babytalk and you still wouldnt get it. Of course > youre not, so what is the point of trying you dumbfuck? > > I discussed Ayn Rand civilly, at length, with " Pupship " a long time > back, and we agreed to disagree. I was the first to abuse Dave but he > is an obvious nut. You came out with that " brown-nosing " stuff > without provocation, because I believe in DEMOCRACY and a decent > sociey where the vulnerable are guaranteed help. > > Tell me, which tastes better, Rand's ass or Bill Gates'? > > Now, as these flame wars do NOT achieve anything, do yout > counter-abuse thing and I will NOT answer it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I smeared > > > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants > > > like > > > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered > exploit > > > > their > > > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT > get > > > > the > > > > > best value at the least cost. > > > > > > > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the > > > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain > aspects of > > > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have > today. > > > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, > and > > > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher > thus > > > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home > and > > > > automobile. > > > > > > > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was > $30,000 > > > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 > and > > > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because > > > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it > does > > > not > > > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora > of > > > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and > > > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices > for > > > > consumers. > > > > > > > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super > > > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a > computer > > > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the > super > > > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in > price? > > > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out > how > > > to > > > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens > of > > > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws. > > > > > > > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause > > > prices > > > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for > everyone. > > > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only > > > cause > > > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard > of > > > > living for everyone. > > > > > > > > Hunter > > > > http://www.localgroup.net/public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2001 Report Share Posted January 30, 2001 In a message dated 1/25/01 7:46:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, malgeo@... writes: << also talk about zonpower and neocheating. They created their own alt.* newsgroup at one point, four or five years ago. I never saw anyone do anything but mock the idea, but they went ahead anyway. These guys have been around quite a while, and they're really a hoot. In a weird way I feel almost like I know them, since I've encountered the stuff in so many different guises over the years. Go zonpower! :-) >> LOL my stomach hurts. Pipes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2001 Report Share Posted January 30, 2001 In a message dated 1/25/01 7:46:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, malgeo@... writes: << also talk about zonpower and neocheating. They created their own alt.* newsgroup at one point, four or five years ago. I never saw anyone do anything but mock the idea, but they went ahead anyway. These guys have been around quite a while, and they're really a hoot. In a weird way I feel almost like I know them, since I've encountered the stuff in so many different guises over the years. Go zonpower! :-) >> LOL my stomach hurts. Pipes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 In a message dated 1/25/01 6:05:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, egroups@... writes: << is right. Rand disliked libertarians because they used her political assertion of " prohibiting the initiation of physical force " without accepting her ethical and epistemological ideas. DH >> well i'll be damned. Ya learn something new every day. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 In a message dated 1/25/01 6:05:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, egroups@... writes: << is right. Rand disliked libertarians because they used her political assertion of " prohibiting the initiation of physical force " without accepting her ethical and epistemological ideas. DH >> well i'll be damned. Ya learn something new every day. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.