Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning clarification?

Maybe I'll try briefly to more directly to explain
the political comments I've made on this list. I'll
use a declarative style to save time.

Political discourse is a human behavior, like fishing,
hunting, marriage. I do not see it as privileged in
any way.

Human beings are free to choose their behavior, in
the sense that there is no known way to predict a
person's behavior outside of rigidly-controlled
conditions.

Humans have no a priori obligation to perform any
sort of behavior. And what external forces exist are
roughly constant over time. We are therefore the
authors of our mental and physical environment.

Further, our mental and physical environments reflect
and influence one another.

I have said, "It is not only the results of government
which one may find objectionable, but the process that
gives rise to government itself." The Einstein quote
is relevant.

You might call me an anarchist, but the term has
limited descriptive power, insomuch as any form of
organization could be called government or a lack
of anarchy. But organization can arise in many
ways.

Political structures are not beyond scientific
evaluation. In my estimation, a monarchy at its best
is the best form of government seen on any large scale
in recorded history. But monarchy is very seldom at
its best, and this makes it one of the worst forms of
government overall.

Democracy is one better, but still has its basis in a
crude aggregation of force.

A highly-efficient, locally-administered Common Law
judiciary is one idea I think might bear further
investigation. I have written an expository document
about such a system.

My viewpoint might also be considered a mystical one.
But mysticism is often stigmatized as impractical.
There is nothing impractical about reality. If Bush
makes you hate, you're becoming hateful. If liberals
make me hate, I'm becoming hateful. My favorite
reference here is to The Return of the Jedi, when the
Emperor asks Luke to, "strike me down".

If Bush were as evil as you perceive him, what would
glorify him most?

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

Since I'm brain-dead right now, maybe I can just ask you a question:

Do you think Gandhi was a great man?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Maybe I'll try briefly to more directly to explain
> the political comments I've made on this list. I'll
> use a declarative style to save time.
>
> Political discourse is a human behavior, like fishing,
> hunting, marriage. I do not see it as privileged in
> any way.
>
> Human beings are free to choose their behavior, in
> the sense that there is no known way to predict a
> person's behavior outside of rigidly-controlled
> conditions.
>
> Humans have no a priori obligation to perform any
> sort of behavior. And what external forces exist are
> roughly constant over time. We are therefore the
> authors of our mental and physical environment.
>
> Further, our mental and physical environments reflect
> and influence one another.
>
> I have said, "It is not only the results of government
> which one may find objectionable, but the process that
> gives rise to government itself." The Einstein quote
> is relevant.
>
> You might call me an anarchist, but the term has
> limited descriptive power, insomuch as any form of
> organization could be called government or a lack
> of anarchy. But organization can arise in many
> ways.
>
> Political structures are not beyond scientific
> evaluation. In my estimation, a monarchy at its best
> is the best form of government seen on any large scale
> in recorded history. But monarchy is very seldom at
> its best, and this makes it one of the worst forms of
> government overall.
>
> Democracy is one better, but still has its basis in a
> crude aggregation of force.
>
> A highly-efficient, locally-administered Common Law
> judiciary is one idea I think might bear further
> investigation. I have written an expository document
> about such a system.
>
> My viewpoint might also be considered a mystical one.
> But mysticism is often stigmatized as impractical.
> There is nothing impractical about reality. If Bush
> makes you hate, you're becoming hateful. If liberals
> make me hate, I'm becoming hateful. My favorite
> reference here is to The Return of the Jedi, when the
> Emperor asks Luke to, "strike me down".
>
> If Bush were as evil as you perceive him, what would
> glorify him most?
>
> -Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Friday 11 June 2004 06:45 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Maybe I'll try briefly to more directly to explain
> the political comments I've made on this list. I'll
> use a declarative style to save time.
>
> Political discourse is a human behavior, like fishing,
> hunting, marriage. I do not see it as privileged in
> any way.
>
> Human beings are free to choose their behavior, in
> the sense that there is no known way to predict a
> person's behavior outside of rigidly-controlled
> conditions.
>
> Humans have no a priori obligation to perform any
> sort of behavior. And what external forces exist are
> roughly constant over time. We are therefore the
> authors of our mental and physical environment.
>
> Further, our mental and physical environments reflect
> and influence one another.
>
> I have said, "It is not only the results of government
> which one may find objectionable, but the process that
> gives rise to government itself." The Einstein quote
> is relevant.
>
> You might call me an anarchist, but the term has
> limited descriptive power, insomuch as any form of
> organization could be called government or a lack
> of anarchy. But organization can arise in many
> ways.
>
> Political structures are not beyond scientific
> evaluation. In my estimation, a monarchy at its best
> is the best form of government seen on any large scale
> in recorded history. But monarchy is very seldom at
> its best, and this makes it one of the worst forms of
> government overall.
>
> Democracy is one better, but still has its basis in a
> crude aggregation of force.
>
> A highly-efficient, locally-administered Common Law
> judiciary is one idea I think might bear further
> investigation. I have written an expository document
> about such a system.
>
> My viewpoint might also be considered a mystical one.
> But mysticism is often stigmatized as impractical.
> There is nothing impractical about reality. If Bush
> makes you hate, you're becoming hateful. If liberals
> make me hate, I'm becoming hateful. My favorite
> reference here is to The Return of the Jedi, when the
> Emperor asks Luke to, "strike me down".
>
> If Bush were as evil as you perceive him, what would
> glorify him most?

Good comments Carl.

Briefly, I think sometimes hate performs a positive function. What I mean is,
its a motivator for change.

Like protecting the environment from Bush, etc.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Political structures are not beyond scientific
> > evaluation. In my estimation, a monarchy at its best
> > is the best form of government seen on any large scale
> > in recorded history.
>
> Why? It doesn't have a very good track record, and is
> utterly lacking in logic.

I coverd the track record thing in the next sentence.
The logic is, communication between humans is harder
than communication within a human.

> > But monarchy is very seldom at
> > its best, and this makes it one of the worst forms of
> > government overall.
> >
> > Democracy is one better, but still has its basis in a
> > crude aggregation of force.
>
> Government is by definition based on force.

If you like. The libertarian credo is about *minimizing*
the use of force (or threats) in human societies.

> It is a tacit
> agreement (social contract, if you will) on the question
> of who can use force, and under what conditions.

It shouldn't be tacit. Things like the Constitution are
handy here.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > It shouldn't be tacit. Things like the Constitution are
> > > handy here.
> >
> > Just because there is a consitution does not mean you agree to
> > it.
>
> So? It's hardly tacit, which was what I said.
>
> > You agree to it in some sense by not joining an armed
> > rebellion, but any decent government should manage to get more
> > than this. It hardly means you think every aspect makes sense,
> > or that you must be a Hobbesian in the matter.
>
> Is that what I'm being (I'm not familiar with Hobbs).

Hardly. Hobbes was very far from being a libertarian.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common
power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is
called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For
war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a
tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently
known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the
nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of
foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an
inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war
consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition
thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All
other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man
is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men
live without other security than what their own strength and their own
invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no
place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and
consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the
commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no
instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force;
no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no
letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and
danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.

--from The Leviathan, chapter 13

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>I wasn't trying to evaluate the actions of libertarians,
>>just their claims. There are a lot of different kinds
>>of libertarianism...
>
>I just have never heard the libertarians think that there
>should be restriction on corporations. if their are, i
>have missed them so far.

Libertarianism doesn't require capitalism, though
I don't personally know of any exceptions.

But not all capitalists like big corporations or
monopolies. I've posted at length about monopolies
on this list -- in an debate with John I tried to
demonstrate that antitrust legislation can be
justified with typical capitalist reasoning. Yet,
I'd probably call myself libertarian -- certainly
by the claimed goal of minimizing force in human
relationships (which was and maybe still is the
way the US libertarian party describes itself at
lp.org).

But it's kind of a cop-out, because *everybody*
would probably agree with it. The question is how
to get there. Also maybe not only minimizing force
but increasing happiness would be a good goal.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>>You agree to it in some sense by not joining an armed
>>>rebellion, but any decent government should manage to get more
>>>than this. It hardly means you think every aspect makes sense,
>>>or that you must be a Hobbesian in the matter.
>>
>>Is that what I'm being (I'm not familiar with Hobbs).
>
>Hardly. Hobbes was very far from being a libertarian.
>
> Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a
> common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that
> condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every
> man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only,
> or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the
> will to contend by battle is sufficiently known //
> In such condition there is no place for industry, because
> the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture
> of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that
> may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments
> of moving and removing such things as require much force; no
> knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no
> arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all,
> continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of
> man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Thanks for that. Compare to...

It is said that the modern man has it easy, since he no longer
sweats the rough and tough stuff of survival. In fact the task
of survival is, like everything else, at least as hard today as
ever before.

Civilization of utter comfort can be achieved with a four-hour
work day. But for this to be possible (at contemporary population
densities) so soon, eight hours per day were required. If we
ask, "Where are those who worked four hours a day?", the answer
would be, "Living on reservations." Man is constantly at war with
what he might become. The question, "Does awareness of this mean
we are no longer at its mercy?" remains to be answered.

Is war so hated because it is wasteful? Of young men, of cities,
of time? Then I say avoiding war can be just as wasteful!

...and...

Why is crime bad? Because it spoils human relationships? Then
the fear of crime is worse. One thing lost is a fixed lost, but
crime-fear spreads like a cold, destroying open and productive
interaction wherever it goes. I value such interaction so highly,
I am more than willing to have all my things stolen for the price
of not having to defend them.

...I got my bluff called not long after I wrote this latter
piece. Now I'm a paranoid little bastard. :)

-Carl

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

I would chance to assume that we agree that the anti trust laws have for
the most part been ignored

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >>I wasn't trying to evaluate the actions of libertarians,
> >>just their claims. There are a lot of different kinds
> >>of libertarianism...
> >
> >I just have never heard the libertarians think that there
> >should be restriction on corporations. if their are, i
> >have missed them so far.
>
> Libertarianism doesn't require capitalism, though
> I don't personally know of any exceptions.
>
> But not all capitalists like big corporations or
> monopolies. I've posted at length about monopolies
> on this list -- in an debate with John I tried to
> demonstrate that antitrust legislation can be
> justified with typical capitalist reasoning. Yet,
> I'd probably call myself libertarian -- certainly
> by the claimed goal of minimizing force in human
> relationships (which was and maybe still is the
> way the US libertarian party describes itself at
> lp.org).
>
> But it's kind of a cop-out, because *everybody*
> would probably agree with it. The question is how
> to get there. Also maybe not only minimizing force
> but increasing happiness would be a good goal.
>
> -Carl
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

One thing is for sure...political change happens organically from within. For
better or worse, the USA's history is entrenched in the 2 party system. It
will only change when the majority find that it doesn't suit them. And the
longer someting was, the longer it tends to continue as such. And the vast
majority are ok with this status quo.

For the same reasons, Iraq is destined to be a failure. They are still in
Saddam-head. They don't want American stye democracy. Japan after WWII was
different--we had them on their knees with the A-bomb and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
They surrendered because they had to, and welcomed the American democratic
style system of government because we crushed their will.

Well, we certainly can't drop the bomb on Iraq without dire consequences to
both the world and ourselves. Times have changed since we were the only ones
with the bomb. Certainly Anti-Americanism is at a post WWII high. An dthe
Iraqi insurgents and Arabs have a lot of anger and will that Japan did not
after Hiroshima.

....And many agree that the choice to do that to Japan was perhaps flawed,
even though it swiftly ended the war. (personally I have no idea whether it
was right or wrong--and I don't want to even go there)

-Aaron.

On Monday 14 June 2004 09:58 am, kraig grady wrote:
> I would chance to assume that we agree that the anti trust laws have for
> the most part been ignored
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> > >>I wasn't trying to evaluate the actions of libertarians,
> > >>just their claims. There are a lot of different kinds
> > >>of libertarianism...
> > >
> > >I just have never heard the libertarians think that there
> > >should be restriction on corporations. if their are, i
> > >have missed them so far.
> >
> > Libertarianism doesn't require capitalism, though
> > I don't personally know of any exceptions.
> >
> > But not all capitalists like big corporations or
> > monopolies. I've posted at length about monopolies
> > on this list -- in an debate with John I tried to
> > demonstrate that antitrust legislation can be
> > justified with typical capitalist reasoning. Yet,
> > I'd probably call myself libertarian -- certainly
> > by the claimed goal of minimizing force in human
> > relationships (which was and maybe still is the
> > way the US libertarian party describes itself at
> > lp.org).
> >
> > But it's kind of a cop-out, because *everybody*
> > would probably agree with it. The question is how
> > to get there. Also maybe not only minimizing force
> > but increasing happiness would be a good goal.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

The history of the US has seen the rise of many 3 parties, what happens either
it replaces on e of the parties or the issue(s) that spawn it have been
assimilated by one of the existing two. The main issue of the green party is
that the two majors dod not represent the issues important to them (remember
nader is not a green party member)

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> One thing is for sure...political change happens organically from within. For
> better or worse, the USA's history is entrenched in the 2 party system. It
> will only change when the majority find that it doesn't suit them. And the
> longer someting was, the longer it tends to continue as such. And the vast
> majority are ok with this status quo.
>
> For the same reasons, Iraq is destined to be a failure. They are still in
> Saddam-head. They don't want American stye democracy. Japan after WWII was
> different--we had them on their knees with the A-bomb and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
> They surrendered because they had to, and welcomed the American democratic
> style system of government because we crushed their will.
>
> Well, we certainly can't drop the bomb on Iraq without dire consequences to
> both the world and ourselves. Times have changed since we were the only ones
> with the bomb. Certainly Anti-Americanism is at a post WWII high. An dthe
> Iraqi insurgents and Arabs have a lot of anger and will that Japan did not
> after Hiroshima.
>
> ....And many agree that the choice to do that to Japan was perhaps flawed,
> even though it swiftly ended the war. (personally I have no idea whether it
> was right or wrong--and I don't want to even go there)
>
> -Aaron.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

>
> One thing is for sure...political change happens
> organically from within. For better or worse, the
> USA's history is entrenched in the 2 party system.

i'll venture my opinion that being entrenched in
the 2-party system is for the worse. as Carl said,
having more options can never be bad. (altho i
did disagree with him about the Nader/Bush issue.)

> It will only change when the majority find that it
> doesn't suit them. And the longer someting was,
> the longer it tends to continue as such. And the
> vast majority are ok with this status quo.
>
> For the same reasons, Iraq is destined to be a failure.
> They are still in Saddam-head. They don't want American
> stye democracy. Japan after WWII was different--we had
> them on their knees with the A-bomb and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
> They surrendered because they had to, and welcomed the
> American democratic style system of government because
> we crushed their will.
>
> Well, we certainly can't drop the bomb on Iraq without
> dire consequences to both the world and ourselves.
> Times have changed since we were the only ones with
> the bomb. Certainly Anti-Americanism is at a post WWII
> high. And the Iraqi insurgents and Arabs have a lot of
> anger and will that Japan did not after Hiroshima.
>
> ....And many agree that the choice to do that to Japan
> was perhaps flawed, even though it swiftly ended the war.
> (personally I have no idea whether it was right or
> wrong--and I don't want to even go there)
>
> -Aaron.

approximately 100,000 people died in Hiroshima from
the first atomic bomb that was dropped.

http://www.danford.net/hirodead.htm

the vast majority of those victims were just ordinary
people going to work and doing their usual daily
business.

then it happened again 3 days later in Nagasaki, with
a slightly lower death toll. and i only just found out
now that Nagasaki was not even the original target,
so those people died almost on a whim.

http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/asia/japan/nagasaki.php

yes, dropping the atom-bomb ended the war swiftly,
but at what cost to innocent civilians?

-monz

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

I have some friends who were born in other countries and the idea
that the U.S. won WWII is laughable to them . . . from their point of
view, it's nationalistic indoctrination on the part of American
schools and nothing more.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
>
> One thing is for sure...political change happens organically from
within. For
> better or worse, the USA's history is entrenched in the 2 party
system. It
> will only change when the majority find that it doesn't suit them.
And the
> longer someting was, the longer it tends to continue as such. And
the vast
> majority are ok with this status quo.
>
> For the same reasons, Iraq is destined to be a failure. They are
still in
> Saddam-head. They don't want American stye democracy. Japan after
WWII was
> different--we had them on their knees with the A-bomb and
Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
> They surrendered because they had to, and welcomed the American
democratic
> style system of government because we crushed their will.
>
> Well, we certainly can't drop the bomb on Iraq without dire
consequences to
> both the world and ourselves. Times have changed since we were the
only ones
> with the bomb. Certainly Anti-Americanism is at a post WWII high.
An dthe
> Iraqi insurgents and Arabs have a lot of anger and will that Japan
did not
> after Hiroshima.
>
> ....And many agree that the choice to do that to Japan was perhaps
flawed,
> even though it swiftly ended the war. (personally I have no idea
whether it
> was right or wrong--and I don't want to even go there)
>
> -Aaron.
>
> On Monday 14 June 2004 09:58 am, kraig grady wrote:
> > I would chance to assume that we agree that the anti trust laws
have for
> > the most part been ignored
> >
> > Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > >>I wasn't trying to evaluate the actions of libertarians,
> > > >>just their claims. There are a lot of different kinds
> > > >>of libertarianism...
> > > >
> > > >I just have never heard the libertarians think that there
> > > >should be restriction on corporations. if their are, i
> > > >have missed them so far.
> > >
> > > Libertarianism doesn't require capitalism, though
> > > I don't personally know of any exceptions.
> > >
> > > But not all capitalists like big corporations or
> > > monopolies. I've posted at length about monopolies
> > > on this list -- in an debate with John I tried to
> > > demonstrate that antitrust legislation can be
> > > justified with typical capitalist reasoning. Yet,
> > > I'd probably call myself libertarian -- certainly
> > > by the claimed goal of minimizing force in human
> > > relationships (which was and maybe still is the
> > > way the US libertarian party describes itself at
> > > lp.org).
> > >
> > > But it's kind of a cop-out, because *everybody*
> > > would probably agree with it. The question is how
> > > to get there. Also maybe not only minimizing force
> > > but increasing happiness would be a good goal.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

Well, the Japanese did say that the Asian theatre was crucial in that they
kept seeing 'more marines and then more marines and then more marines. They
eventually surrendered.

Ditto Normandy.

Out of curiosity, what countries were they from? Let's not forget that
Anit-Americanism is high right now, too. Kind of gives doubt to objectivity
of some Europeans about America's good deeds, IMO.

On Monday 14 June 2004 03:54 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:
> I have some friends who were born in other countries and the idea
> that the U.S. won WWII is laughable to them . . . from their point of
> view, it's nationalistic indoctrination on the part of American
> schools and nothing more.
>
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > One thing is for sure...political change happens organically from
>
> within. For
>
> > better or worse, the USA's history is entrenched in the 2 party
>
> system. It
>
> > will only change when the majority find that it doesn't suit them.
>
> And the
>
> > longer someting was, the longer it tends to continue as such. And
>
> the vast
>
> > majority are ok with this status quo.
> >
> > For the same reasons, Iraq is destined to be a failure. They are
>
> still in
>
> > Saddam-head. They don't want American stye democracy. Japan after
>
> WWII was
>
> > different--we had them on their knees with the A-bomb and
>
> Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
>
> > They surrendered because they had to, and welcomed the American
>
> democratic
>
> > style system of government because we crushed their will.
> >
> > Well, we certainly can't drop the bomb on Iraq without dire
>
> consequences to
>
> > both the world and ourselves. Times have changed since we were the
>
> only ones
>
> > with the bomb. Certainly Anti-Americanism is at a post WWII high.
>
> An dthe
>
> > Iraqi insurgents and Arabs have a lot of anger and will that Japan
>
> did not
>
> > after Hiroshima.
> >
> > ....And many agree that the choice to do that to Japan was perhaps
>
> flawed,
>
> > even though it swiftly ended the war. (personally I have no idea
>
> whether it
>
> > was right or wrong--and I don't want to even go there)
> >
> > -Aaron.
> >
> > On Monday 14 June 2004 09:58 am, kraig grady wrote:
> > > I would chance to assume that we agree that the anti trust laws
>
> have for
>
> > > the most part been ignored
> > >
> > > Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > >>I wasn't trying to evaluate the actions of libertarians,
> > > > >>just their claims. There are a lot of different kinds
> > > > >>of libertarianism...
> > > > >
> > > > >I just have never heard the libertarians think that there
> > > > >should be restriction on corporations. if their are, i
> > > > >have missed them so far.
> > > >
> > > > Libertarianism doesn't require capitalism, though
> > > > I don't personally know of any exceptions.
> > > >
> > > > But not all capitalists like big corporations or
> > > > monopolies. I've posted at length about monopolies
> > > > on this list -- in an debate with John I tried to
> > > > demonstrate that antitrust legislation can be
> > > > justified with typical capitalist reasoning. Yet,
> > > > I'd probably call myself libertarian -- certainly
> > > > by the claimed goal of minimizing force in human
> > > > relationships (which was and maybe still is the
> > > > way the US libertarian party describes itself at
> > > > lp.org).
> > > >
> > > > But it's kind of a cop-out, because *everybody*
> > > > would probably agree with it. The question is how
> > > > to get there. Also maybe not only minimizing force
> > > > but increasing happiness would be a good goal.
> > > >
> > > > -Carl
> > >
> > > -- -Kraig Grady
> > > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> > >
> > > To post to the list, send to
> > > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > You don't have to be a member to post.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.dividebypi.com
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > If any war was ever won, WWII was won by the United States.
> >
> > Depends on what you mean. The USSR did the most bleeding.
>
> Since when does bleeding count toward victory?

When the bleeding has been very important to the victory, those who
bore the brunt have some claim. The Russians like to use that metric,
because it favors them as the ones who "won" the war, but there is,
after all, some tradition in its favor. In cold strategic logic, the
huge industrial base, untouched by war, the US could bring to bear
was of enormous importance, but that is only in cold logic. Plane
after plane after plane. Tank after tank. Ship after ship. Maybe my
mother won the war, as a Rosie the Riveter.

If you listen to a Brit, the Brits did not need the US. A Canadian or
Australian will add that their contributions should not be
overlooked, but then back the Brits on how important the British
contribution was. The Russians will tell you they did it all
themselves. And, of course, Americans know we won the war.

In fact, in the war against Japan we were certainly the most
important player, though hardly the only one. Against Germany, I
don't think we can make that claim, but I don't buy the idea any of
the triangle of US-Britian-USSR was unimportant. No one country won
the war in the usual sense; in your sense of reaping the benefits,
the US came out ahead, the post-war empire the USSR carved out
turning out to be fools gold in the end. Britain lost.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> When the bleeding has been very important to the victory,
> those who bore the brunt have some claim. The Russians
> like to use that metric,

I understand the red army couldn't afford parachutes, so
they dumped their men out of planes wrapped in hay bails.

> In fact, in the war against Japan we were certainly the most
> important player, though hardly the only one. Against Germany,
> I don't think we can make that claim, but I don't buy the
> idea any of the triangle of US-Britian-USSR was unimportant.
> No one country won the war in the usual sense; in your sense
> of reaping the benefits, the US came out ahead, the post-war
> empire the USSR carved out turning out to be fools gold in
> the end. Britain lost.

War is ultimately economic and genetic. The US clearly made
more money and had more sex as a result of the war than
anybody else.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Do you think Gandhi was a great man?
>
> I don't know very much about Gandhi.
//

But maybe you were wondering if I would consider
Gandhi a great man and his actions political in
nature. Sure, I have no problem with that. Just
as generals can be great though they wage war.
They can be great at making war, and perhaps even
great at making less of it.

Also: I'm not asking anyone to stop participating
in politics (that would be hypocritical). I'm
just describing *my* beliefs, the reasons I don't
participate, since we're all expressing our views
on this list.

One thing I forgot to relay in my exposition, which
may be helpful, is an experience I had one day many
years ago while watching the news. They were
interviewing some Senator or something, and he was
saying that he was there to change Washington. And
I thought, wait a minute, they're *all* saying that!
There is no status quo. It's nothing but argument,
the least productive kind.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> One thing I forgot to relay in my exposition, which
> may be helpful, is an experience I had one day many
> years ago while watching the news. They were
> interviewing some Senator or something, and he was
> saying that he was there to change Washington. And
> I thought, wait a minute, they're *all* saying that!
> There is no status quo. It's nothing but argument,
> the least productive kind.

Another experience was on a fine snowy day in
Bloomington (Indiana). I was driving out and about
when I saw a billboard ad for some state politician.
A picture of his face, with a three-item list to the
right. Something like,

() AGAINST CRIME
() FOR EDUCATION

I forget the third one. I was like, "What's being
discussed here?" I felt for an instant I was living
in a Huxley novel. In Metamagical Themas, Hofstadter
has a chapter on memes, in which he mentions the
likes of "Save the Whales".

Actually Bradbury has a great scene in Farenheit 451.
These old ladies are talking on the porch or something,
"I just hate that Mr. Hog...".

I'm not alone in Berkeley, either. Just the other
day at the hot dog parlor, buying my usual bochwurst,
I noticed a big, hand-written sign on the door:

Voting is for
Authoritarians

-Carl