CONTROL FREAKS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Where do I begin?  Jim Choate has now retreated into subjectivism
rather than

Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore
economics.  Answer my questions.  How long did the "Thousand Year
Reich" last?  What totalitarian states can you name that have had
any legs at all?  There are none.

    I take it you don't take the comparison between the
    Roman circuses where prisoners and other misfits (ie
    Christians) were fed to the lions and and the Tutonic
    cirucses of the 30's and 40's (ie prison or relocation
    camps) where the criminal and other misfits (ie Jewish)
    were fed to the masochistic 'system' as comparable? The
    Warsaw Ghetto was not a form of 'circus' then?

No, of course not.  The Roman circuses were public spectacles.
They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports
today).  Their propose was to distract the populace, not to
eliminate enemies of the state.  That's what Crucifixion and
other types of execution were for.  Often, the participants were
pros, free men who did it for gold and glory.  Hell, Rome wasn't
even a totalitarian state.  Where do you get these ideas?  The
Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut.
Show me your successful totalitarian states.

    'They' are the persons with money and influence and have
    also made it in their best interest to sustain the
    status quo. Just take a look at the Federal Reserve and
    how they manage the money in this country. Take a look
    at the special interest political groups who make it
    their job to get law-makers to look at it 'their' way.

I've looked.  I repeat, who are "they"?  You know, like some
names.  They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal
non-compliance is a growth industry.  God, what the hell are
you so afraid of?

    Just exactly whose reality are we talking about ruling
    here?...  people do not analyze their choices the same
    way  you analyze some physical problem like building a
    bridge....

But that's the point.  Economics *is* like building a bridge.
You can't spend money you don't have.  You can't create wealth by
printing money.  There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism
or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them.
But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states
that have "created their own reality."  I bet you can't.

When I alluded that "they" weren't spending *my* money you wrote:

    I can assure you that the folks out there will spend
    their money if it is clear that they will make more of
    it in the long run. While it is true that public monies
    are the easiest to spend because of its anonymity it is
    not the only resource that is there. Consider
    under-the-table bribes and such.

I give up, I don't have a clue what you're taking about.  Do you?
If so, please elucidate.

Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you
could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the
speed of light.

FLAME ALERT:  All Cypherpunks who disdain flamish exchanges
should tune out now.  I'm feeling peevish today and this sort of
mindless drivel pisses me off.  I have decided, therefore, to
amuse myself by fucking with Mr. Choate's head for the remainder
of this post.

    I am afraid [we know that, the question is why you are
    afraid?] that if you ignore a control freak  you build
    the perfect environ [I'm sure you don't mean "environ,"
    a verb.  Perhaps "environment" or "environs" would be more
    suitable.  Sloppy thinking; sloppy language.] for their
    growth. We are  not talking about roses [now you've
    gotten SOMETHING right] here but rather ideas, a
    decidedly different animal.  [Neither roses nor ideas
    are animals, Mr. Choate.  Can you say mixed metaphor?]
    Ideas can grow long after the original thinker is gone.
    [Yes, but what has that got to do with our discussion.
    Focus, Mr. Choate.] To ignore rather than [to?] confront
    and expose [them?] is the best way possible [possible is
    redundundundant, Mr. Choate] to get what you  don't
    want.  [Interesting use of the negative in your sentence
    construction, but you never addressed my thesis, to wit:
    it is possible to structure your life so that you can
    ignore would-be controllers.  There is no substitute for
    critical thinking, Mr. Choate.]

Love and kisses,


 S a n d y

      "Who promises to go back on his medication tomorrow."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To try to cool the flames a bit...

In article <Pine.3.87.9409091434.A20129-0100000@crl2.crl.com>,
Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> wrote:
>Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore
>economics.  Answer my questions.  How long did the "Thousand Year
>Reich" last?  What totalitarian states can you name that have had
>any legs at all?  There are none.

I think the point isn't that totalitarian states won't last: we know
that.  The point is that those trying to establish a totalitarian
state can do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of us before they
fail.
-- 
L. Todd Masco  | "Hide, witch, hide!  The good folk come to burn thee, their
cactus@bb.com  |  keen enjoyment hid behind a gothic mask of duty." -JS/BATE

> 
> Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore
> economics.  Answer my questions.  How long did the "Thousand Year
> Reich" last?  What totalitarian states can you name that have had
> any legs at all?  There are none.
> 
You have obviously misinterpreted my statements intent. I do not hold that
any government can ignore economics. As a matter of fact, back there a ways
I alluded to the fall of most totalitarian regimes being linked to the
economics of open trade. As long as their is a market outside the totalitarian
keen there is a threat to its stability.

The Thousand Year Reich lasted less than a thousand years. I fail to see
how this is relevant to the discussion. I have not addressed in any manner
the concept that governments, totalitarian or otherwise, are guaranteed a 
endless bounty of curruption. All governments and structures fail.

As to legs, I assume you mean sufficient force to exist? The fist couple
that come to mind are China and Singapore. Neither are at this moment in 
any kind of collapse that is apparent. As to their being good examples from
your point of view, they have only existed since the end of WWII so they may
be too  young...

> 
> No, of course not.  The Roman circuses were public spectacles.
> They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports
> today).  Their propose was to distract the populace, not to
> eliminate enemies of the state.  That's what Crucifixion and
> other types of execution were for.  Often, the participants were
> pros, free men who did it for gold and glory.  Hell, Rome wasn't
> even a totalitarian state.  Where do you get these ideas?  The
> Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut.
> Show me your successful totalitarian states.
>
I fail to understand how 'public' the spectacle needs to be before it 
qualifies under your definition. Littery thousands of Christians were 
killed in the Arena because of failure to make their citizenship oaths.
I see this as the main point and why I feel justified in making the 
comparison between the Romans and the Germans (not to mention the fact
that Hitler was a big Roman freak..ever look at standards for Rome and for
Nazi Germany?).

> I've looked.  I repeat, who are "they"?  You know, like some
> names.  They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal
> non-compliance is a growth industry.  God, what the hell are
> you so afraid of?
>
How about the folks  involved in Whitewater? About The Pentagon Papers,
Air America, etc. Afraid? I am not afraid.

> 
> But that's the point.  Economics *is* like building a bridge.
> You can't spend money you don't have.  You can't create wealth by
> printing money.  There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism
> or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them.
> But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states
> that have "created their own reality."  I bet you can't.
>
The US government does exactly that, they print money that has no backing
other than a few equations and then wonder why our economy cycles the way
it does. Economics is NOT like building a bridge. A bridge consists of aa 
few well known interactions and a basic understanding of the limits of the 
materials that you use. Economics is about trying to understand what happened
and why in a system revolving around the concepts of stock exchanges, banks
that are government backed, etc. 

In Oregon there is no longer any reference to 'pornography' in their laws.
In short their legal body has decided that such concepts are not applicable
to their society. The French have government enforced board which reviews
the language and decides on what is leglal or not; they also prohibit
the use of crypto by their citizens to a large extent. The Mormons build
a religion which strongly influences a government in Utah which effects 
all those peoples reality. In Shanghai, China it is against the law to own
a cat or dog without government permission. 

> 
> Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you
> could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the
> speed of light.
>
And in the process you become a control freak. You become what you most
hate (or want to avoid).