Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> Digitaltronics Corporation V.P of Human Relations: "Joe, thanks for coming
> in this morning. I'm sure you're busy, so I'll make this as short as
> possible. OK with you?"
> 
> Joseph Shlubsky, Programmer: "Uh, sure." <nervously>

Yeah, thats why we Europeans have labour laws that prevent
Digitaltronics
from doing any such thing without getting sued from here to eternity.

Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that
employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your rights
the 
day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to the cooprorations
a while back you might have got out of the middle ages.

I suspect that even under the weak as dishwater employment laws that
you have in the US would provide ample opportunity to file a
countersuit.

When that type of thing happens, they don't give the reason, they do
it behind closed doors. How do you fight that?


		Phill

Hallam-Baker writes:
> Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that
> employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your
> rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to
> the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle
> ages.

Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European
countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go
in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh?

Perry

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Yes, we could be a workers paradise like one of those lovely European
> countries with double digit unemployment and all. Too bad we didn't go
> in for democratic socialism while we could have, eh?

If I were an unskilled person I would rather live in one of these
countries where I would be paid approximately the same for doing
nothing as for selling burgers at Mac Donalds. The low rate of
unemployment in the US is partly due to the creation of service
jobs with a salary that would be 'illegal' according to European
union agreements. Now, the situation is that I have some wanted
skills and pay a lot of taxes to support those who have none, and
who are not permitted to work for lower than minimum wages. From a
pure egotistical viewpoint I really should join the present calls
for, as the debate goes here in Sweden, transforming the enemployed
into 'maids and servants'. But I don't. I think it would backlash;
the 'lower classes' would come back at us and cut our throats
eventually (say, when 70% are serving the remaining 30%).

With the present rate of increase in world population the planet
will go to hell anyway. But suppose the population problem could
be fixed. Then, with technology escalating towards singularity,
machines doing almost all labor, there could certainly exist a
system where the 'dumb' and 'lazy' could be fed and housed properly
without anybody complaining. Those who want to become maids and
servants for some extra pocket money, well, good luck to them.
But to force people into menial service jobs just to literally
survive is not to my taste. No, give them minimal shelter for
nothing and from there on let the market anarcho-capitalistic
struggle begin, for obtaining a higher than minimum material
standard or reputational standing.

But I get as angry as any libertarian when my tax money goes
to subsidizing obsolete eduction, 'culture' and endless hordes
of bureaucrats, when all we need is some basic police, courts
and the Minimal Ministry for Collection of Taxes (probably
based on production of some physical goods rather than income)
for Redistribution to the Police, Courts and Everyone - yes,
of course everyone should receive the minimal support-without-
work and be able to rise from there.


Asgaard

P.S.  Mac Donalds could easily be replaced by a bot.

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Timothy C. May wrote:
> > Digitaltronics Corporation V.P of Human Relations: "Joe, thanks for coming
> > in this morning. I'm sure you're busy, so I'll make this as short as
> > possible. OK with you?"
> > Joseph Shlubsky, Programmer: "Uh, sure." <nervously>
> Yeah, thats why we Europeans have labour laws that prevent
> Digitaltronics
> from doing any such thing without getting sued from here to eternity.
> Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that
> employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your rights
> the 
> day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to the cooprorations
> a while back you might have got out of the middle ages.
> I suspect that even under the weak as dishwater employment laws that
> you have in the US would provide ample opportunity to file a
> countersuit.

     Right now. But consider: If Joe _worked_ for the federal government in 
*certain* areas, or a government contractor in *certain* areas, this could 
happen. 

> When that type of thing happens, they don't give the reason, they do
> it behind closed doors. How do you fight that?


     Work for the competition, or start your own company. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

>     Work for the competition, or start your own company. 

Easy enough for you or me who can charge the minimum wage rate
for an hour for a period more like a minute.

The point is that Perry was making an appeal to "fairness" in which
the cause of the unfairness is pretty much immaterial. If you believe
that Digitronics has the right to behave as described then why don't
they have the right to draw up lists of suspicious people. 

We've seen libertopia - its the world of Neuromancer or Bladerunner.
When I described it "Medieval" on a talk show recently, William Gibson 
responded with the term "Reaganite". 

Being opposed to government slavery isn't enough. Coorporate slavery
is just as bad. Unless people are enfranchised ecconmically as
well as politically the political liberties don't matter much. 

I'm quite happy to allow Bill G. the run of the Internet because if
he becomes too powerful and becomes a threat to society itself I 
don't mind the used of government power to break up a monopoly. On
the other hand various people on this list get tied up in knots
trying to have it both ways, to be pro-coorporatism in general
but anti the kind of coorporatism that they don't like. 

I am on an SPL that is run by an organisation called the "Ecconomic
League". It is an organisation run by the UK Conservative party 
which keeps lists of "unsafe" employees. Of course the list is 
available for government repression as well if they choose - except
that few would give it any credibility. 


In November 55 odd percent of the population will vote for 
Clinton who is not an opponent of government. About 35% will
vote for Dole who is even more pro-government having spent
his time in the Sentate getting favours for friends like
Archer-Daniels-Midland. Most of the remainder will vote for 
Dole appart from an insignificant number that will vote for 
the Libertarian and Green candidates. 

If you insist on such a selective interpretation of rights 
you will continue to be ineffective since the Libertarian party
cannot get anywhere under the US electoral system and the
Republican party is at present controlled by the control freaks
of the Christian Coalition.

If on the other hand you ditch the ecconomic rhetoric you can
be very influential on the left because they are looking for ways
to capture traditional republican positions. With the Republicans
proposing seven consitutional ammendments in their platform that
leaves open an opportunity for the Democrats to step in as the
protectors of the constitution. If someone can work out a way 
of squaring the Freeh situation you can basically write the 
platform for Gore's campaign in 2000.


		Phill