Last night I attended a rally of the Pacific-Green party in Portland, OR. Ralph Nader was the main draw. They packed a local arena (Memorial Colesium) with 10,000 people in the seats and more outside who couldn't get in. The attendees paid $7 a head.

As the Oregonian pointed out in this morning's paper, when that many people pay $7 to hear a political speech by a third party candidate, they are well and truly fed up with the two major parties.

I thought I'd take a moment to outline the real meaning of Nader's candidacy, in my view (and in his).

This is not about winning this election. That is just the battle of today. This is about building an alternative to the two major parties. One that can recapture the power that so many of us forumites believe we have lost to the big money/big power axis in the USA. In Nader's case, it is about building a populist-progressive alternative in the Green Party. But the same logic applies to a Libertarian alternative.

You will no doubt read that voting for Nader is going to hand the election to GW Bush. There may even be a particle of truth in that. But if the real point is having a say in how the nation is run, then building a third party is your only choice right now.

The big corporation have already taken the precaution of buying Congress. They wholly own GW Bush. Even if you somehow believe Al Gore when he says he will fight for you, the little guy, against the big bad corporations (while simultaneously taking millions of their money to run his campaign) then what can Al Gore do? Just what he has always done. He'll go along to get along.

The only long run solution is to outlaw the blatant buying of candidates by corporate cash. There may be several ways of doing this that would work, but you can be sure of one thing: neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really have the will to change the present system. Why change what put you in power?

Which leads me to the last corrolary of this thesis. You will never outspend the corporations. You can only out hustle them, out walk them, out grassroots them. And that means you will have to get out of your comfortable chair and do some political work, as I am.

This year I am donating around $250 and 3 hours a week from now to the election. After the election I will continue to donate time and money, building for the next opportunity to gain a real voice. Let's face it. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have abandoned working for ordinary people. The pay from the corporations is better. But, if you recognize they have walked away from you, then isn't it high time you walked away from them?

Sitting around whining doesn't work. Look where it has gotten us so far. Coming out of your corner and fighting is what works. You can't expect others fight your fights for you.

I challenge people like Ken and Flint to work for the Libertarians they seem to be in alignment with, to build them up as a real party, not just a pack of milling complainers. I will be doing the same on the Green Party side of the equation. By 2010, we can make the Democrats and Republicans either: 1) irrelevant, or 2) working for the people again. Either way, we win. Finally!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 26, 2000

Answers

Until this has one answer, it seems most people won't see it. So... to the top!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 26, 2000.

I will ask you the same question that I asked Unc about the Libertarians: OK, suppose the the Greens were to be voted in to federal power---what would this mean; what is their agenda; why would I, as one of the non-PowerElite, want to see this happen?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 26, 2000.

BTW, no one in Unc's thread took a crack at saying what a Libertarian goverment would really do. Would it dismantle the present Fed leviathon? How fast?

Likewise, what would a Green Party do if it really achieved power?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 26, 2000.

Right on Brian! It's not about "winning" this election. It's about getting the alternatives to the Dem-Reps noticeable and thereby respectable totals this fall. I'm going to vote for Nader,but look at all the other choices out there-Libertarian,Reform,Natural law etc. A vote for any of them helps us break the stranglehold. If these "splinter" parties pulled in 20 or 30% of the vote collectively,don't you think that would send a few shock waves up the Dem-Rep spines?

Lars,your question is academic at this point. The Greens are not going to take over the federal government. What it's about is making voting for the alternatives repectable and defusing the old " you're wasting your vote" arguments. h

-- h (dryfarmer@hotmail.com), August 26, 2000.

Lars,

For every, and any, thing you would ever want to know about Libertarians is here.

Brian,

I'm glad to see you involved, even if it means that you are supporting my philosophical sworn enemy. The Libertarians want government out of your life, the Greens want even more government intrusion into your life than what we have now.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.

>> Likewise, what would a Green Party do if it really achieved power? <<

The Green Party is still so small that what it is today has only a minor bearing on what it would become, once it grew up. By taking a lead and making a difference, you could help to shape exactly what the party stands for.

The basic philosophy of the Green Party that is not likely to change with growth is that justice demands that everyone must answer for their actions when those actions harm others. More so, when the actions were conceived on behalf of and to serve the interests of a corporation, because a corporation is an artificial entity that should not have all the rights of a human being.

>> ...the Greens want even more government intrusion into your life than what we have now. <<

This is because of a fundamentally different analysis of the problem. A Green sees that multi-national corporations have amassed concentrations of power that rival (or exceed) most national governments, while being answerable to only a limited group of shareholders. T

I happen to think that the reduction of government is an honorable goal and an attractive one, when viewed theoretically. However, in the practical world, the more that government vacates power, the more corporations will fill that power vaccuum. Given a choice between government power (which may be changed democratically, on the principle of one man, one vote) and corporate power (which is controlled solely on the principle of one dollar, one vote) I will choose government power over corporate power.

What I see today is that the big government so abhorred by Libertarians is little more than a front organization for the Fortune 100. It is the pernicious influence of corporate power in league with the pernicious influence of big taxation and big government that I find to be the worst aspect of the current situation. I view government as the last democratically controlled combination that can effectively throw its weight against the wishes of ADM, GE, GM, or Dow Chemical.

When both big money and big government are throwing their weight against the little guy, the little guy will always be crushed. That's where we are headed today. I'd rather get government back on my side and biting the bad guys than to pull all its teeth and lose the one powerful ally I can concievably enlist on my side. Without government, we'd pretty soon be devoured alive by corporate power.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 26, 2000.

sooner or later they all bow the knee! very few---understand=prophecy!! the foundation for 1 WO--is laid,if you want to know -what the future holds--GO TO THE 1 WHO HOLDS THE FUTURE! **********man=proposes----GOD--disposes********** --->money controls--the--world--system--satan is the god of greed----- satan offered JESUS the world-system--JESUS --declined the offer.

CLUE=this present world-order-is doomed for destruction!!!!!!!

yes=vote your conciense--but sooner or later=all get corrupted.. EVERY TIME A FOOL=MOCKS GOD==HE'S VOTING FOR SATAN$$$$$$$$$

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), August 26, 2000.

Uh, al-d, aren't you the guy who benefitted substantially from having the legal system on your side, and the ability to sue a large corporation for its bully-tactics?

I notice that you not only prayed for God's deliverance, but you also hired a lawyer. Wasn't God and prayer good enough for you?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 26, 2000.

Brian,

I'll repost some points that I made earlier about the Greens, perhaps you could enlighten my confusion as to where all of the greenbacks needed for these amazing givaways will come from.

The Greens want to :Build into the progressive income tax a Universal Social Security system to provide a guaranteed minimum income sufficient to maintain a modest standard of living. Everyone will receive a Basic Income Grant, paid in monthly installments like current Social Security.....In 2000, the Guaranteed Basic Income should be $26,000 a year for a family of four ($500 a week), with $3250 adjustments for more or fewer family members.

Where is 26,000 dollars for every single family in America going to come from? That is just a few thousand less than the median income for all families now.

The Greens call for jobs for all through public works and a shorter work week. Private jobs are good, but public jobs are necessary for full employment.

Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage-at least $12.50 an hour, indexed to the cost of living.

Cut the standard work week to 30 hours with no loss in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale. An immediate cut in the work week to 30 hours will increase full-time jobs by 33% and increase workers' free time by 25%.

Establish a Social Dividend system to pay workers a "second paycheck" to enable them to receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work....The labor productivity of American workers has doubled since World War II. Had we channeled these productivity gains into leisure instead of higher production and income (mostly for the upper reaches of the income spectrum), we would now have a 20-hour work week. Future productivity growth should be used to reduce working hours further rather than channeling productivity growth into higher production.

Enact a single-payer National Health Program to provide free medical and dental care for all, federally-financed and community-controlled by locally elected boards...

Establish a nationwide system of federally-financed, community-based child care as part of the public school system and modeled after Head Start, available voluntarily and free to all who need it....

Provide free, quality public education from preschool through graduate school at public institutions.....

Everyone household should have the right to decent housing that costs no more than 25% of their income. To achieve this goal, invest $25 billion annually over the next 10 years in state and local non-profit housing providers....

That is only a few of their all inclusive government control programs that cover all phases of a person's life, their Web site/manifesto covers much more. Anyway..

That is a lot of free stuff! Perhaps I am economically ignorant, but it occurs to me that SOMEBODY ends up paying for all of this "free" stuff, who are these people?

Also, for what it is worth, in a country that spends BILLIONS of dollars on pet food, I hardly think that a hundred or two million spent on a presidential election is out of line.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.

Unc, the Green shopping list you just quoted is just that - a list of wanna-haves.

As for where the bucks come from - the current fed budget spends about $70 billion a year maintaining bases overseas in places like Ramstein, Germany or Okinawa, Japan. We also buy weapons like the B2 bomber at $2 billion a pop. I believe our defense would not be overly compromised by getting Germany and japan to defend themselves, or by junking the B2 and the Strategic Missile defense.

Maybe you think these are good investments...but that kind of money could buy some really Cadillac social programs, if people wanted them. Believe me, if the American people become fully aware of the budget priorities of the current Congress (Dem and Rep) and still want that crap, then the Green Party will either adapt to the wants of the people, or stay obscure.

I happen to think that most Americans don't have much clue how their taxes are spent. Polls consistantly show folks think that AFDC gets 10%-20% of the budget, when it actually gets about 1%-2%. You might be surprised what we could buy if we got smarter about spending.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 26, 2000.

Ah, and that is the crux of the difference between us. Neither do we Libertarians think think that America should be the world's policeman, however, we intend to give that money back to it's rightful owner, the taxpayer.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 26, 2000.

The Green Party strongly endorses a National Fishing Holiday.

-- (Nader'sWaders@duPont.Circle), August 27, 2000.

Unc--

Neither do I think we should be the world's policeman but I do believe in a strong national defense and readiness. It's a dangerous world and half of it hates America's guts. Do Libertarians favor a strong national defense? Do they think this defense should be provided by the Federal gov (ie, socialized) or jobbed out to mercenaries?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 27, 2000.

Uh-oh, looks like Unk is going into the blowhard Creeper mode with bold text overkill.

-- (bolder.and.louder@but.no.better), August 27, 2000.

The Green Party seeks the Jewish vote.

-- (Nader'sSeders@Passover.eve), August 27, 2000.

The Green Party strongly supports motherhood.

-- (Nader'sParaders@MillionMom.march), August 27, 2000.

As a libertarian I believe a strong national defense is a must,including a strategic missle defense system,but at the same time not being the worlds pizza delivery boys, it is ludicrous as well as pissing off half the world by doing things where we are not wanted.

As a Liberatarian; I want the government to get the fuck out of my life and quit stealing my money and time,thus letting me spend it in my local/state domains and giving to charities that the gov presently feels obliged to help.

Why is it that the government feels that they are so much better at spending our money than we can?

Why is it that the government feels like they can raise and teach our children better than we can?

Why is it allright for them to be professional politicians but only if you have a legal degree? Are we too stupid?

Why do we continue to put up with this BULLSHIT?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 27, 2000.

Lars,

Capn said it well. The Libertarian view is that national defense is one of the legitimate roles of government as prescribed by the Constitution. We do not need to involve our military in every two-bit conflict around the world, it leads, as capn pointed out, to the US being despised by the side that we do not take. Fears of terrorism in the US would fade if we did not involve ourselves in everyone else's business, especially if it is a nasty deep seated hatred between people who have feuded for centuries.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 27, 2000.

Uncle D is probably closest to the solution on this. Only real correction can only take place if the constitution is adhered to. We're not to have a standing army, fiat money, or direct taxation on our property.

When The Supreme Law of the land is willfully ignored, expect more of the same.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), August 27, 2000.

>> Why do we continue to put up with this BULLSHIT? <<

Just for grins, cap'n, what are you doing this year to put an end to the bullshit? Are you running for local office? Are you volunteering for someone's capaign? Are you donating money (or in-kind) to your party or one of its candidates?

In that case, more power to you!

Or are you just following the course of 99% of Americans and just sitting on your duff, pissing and moaning about why nothing changes?

In that case, you'll get what your actions merit.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 27, 2000.

Like anyone else, I can carp about the fine details around the edges. But basically, my life has been pretty damn good for a long time now. I believe I'll happily vote the Bore/Gush ticket and hope for more of the same. And I'll *still* carp about the fine details around the edges.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 2000.

The green party has been very active where I live for years. I know a number of people active in the party. They have even have elected a few people to local office. I'm not at home so I don't have a copy of their agenda. The things that Unc listed sound familiar, including what amounts to a cap on personal income. In addition [for our local party], they want to 1. outlaw raising animals as a food source [I asked one person what we would do with the 2.2 million beef cattle in the state; he said set them free, whatever that means] and outlaw the eating of animal flesh; 2. outlaw keeping domestic animals as pets; 3. outlaw Zoo's and 4. declare what they have determined to be ecologically sensitive areas to be off limits to humans. One is heading this movement to remove all humans from the central plains from Mexico to Canada and return it to its wild state [whatever that means]. They also have some planks about outlawing the use of fossil fuels but those are too long to remember. There is more, but I don't remember it. There are some real fruit loops in the Green party and that is why I couldn't vote for them. I consider Nadar a busy body.

By the way, from my experience, when the Greens get into office, as they have here, they can't be distinguished from the D's and the R's.

Bes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 27, 2000.

>> I do believe in a strong national defense and readiness. It's a dangerous world and half of it hates America's guts. <<

Lars, I have a host of questions about these statements, but I will try to confine myself to a couple, along with some comments, so you will know my views on the subject.

First question: do you see any enemy out there with the motive and the ability to engage the USA in a war - you know, the kind of war that could conceivably lead to the USA losing any part of its sovereign territory to a conqueror?

My own view is that the USA is so strong after the demise of the USSR that we need have no viable enemies for (at least) the next decade.

We keep hearing about renegade states like Libya, North Korea and Iraq as the next threat to the USA. The possibility that North Korea could lob a couple of nuclear missiles in our direction (in about 5-6 years) has been proposed as a reason to spend about a trillion dollars on a missile defense system. But is this realistic?

I will gladly stipulate that N. Korea or even Iraq might gain the ability to launch several ICBMs in the next decade - even though this is far from assured. But what possible motive could convince them to do so? It would be guaranteed suicide.

I am sure that the Pentagon has war-gamed this scenario a few times and that in every case, if a third-world country launches on us, they are reduced to toast in about 10 hours and we haven't even begun to touch the depths of our war-making reserves.

So, what does our trillion dollars buy us that we actually need? If we are so eager to spend the money, let's spend it on a trillion dollars worth of solar/wind energy capacity and run it the way BPA and TVA are run? Then we won't have to constantly interfere in the Middle East in order to keep the oil taps flowing.

Second (and last) question: why is it so you suppose that half the world "hates America's guts"?

I find it unreasonable to think that people living half a world away from me would take the time or the effort to hate me, unless they had suffered an injury at my hands. In my view, the USA is constantly siding with injustice and corruption in other nations. We do so, mostly to protect the interests of huge corporations who are exploiting the natural resources of the country for their own profit.

President Clinton's current visit to Nigeria is a flagrant example of this. The media propaganda machine is telling us that he is there to give succor to a fledgling democracy. This is a hoot. That government is killing hundreds of their own citizens a year in order to maintain control over the country's oil wealth and rake off massive bribes and kickbacks from Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil). Clinton is there to tell them to pump more so the oil price drops.

There are no expansionist enemies out there with designs on us. There are only dictators whose greed may coincide with our commercial interests (Nigeria, China) or whose greed may conflict with our commercial interests (Iraq). If we let the world go its own way a bit more, they would not be chafing under us so badly, or hate us nearly so much.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 27, 2000.

>> ... basically, my life has been pretty damn good for a long time now. I believe I'll happily vote the Bore/Gush ticket and hope for more of the same. <<

Can't say as I blame you. I've never met you, Flint, so correct me if I am wrong, but it strikes me that you are a white, college-educated, upper middle class professional with good technical skills earning well above the median income and you derive your income from corporate sources, either as an employee or a consultant.

Of course you are as as snug as a bug in a rug in the new corporate global economy. Your produce is picked by stoop labor. Your clothes are made by third world young women earning 1/1000th what you earn. Asia makes most of your consumer goods and they are cheap, cheap, cheap!

Life is good. Vote your interests. Just don't think too hard on all the sweat labor at slave wages under dictatorships you are encouraging.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 27, 2000.

>> There are some real fruit loops in the Green party <<

Yup. Met some. Nice folks, but they ran off the rails somewhere. So, does this mean a party must be certified as "fruit-loop-free" before you 'll vote for any of their candidates? You must not vote, then.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 27, 2000.

Brian:

Are you suggesting that rather than take advantage of the opportunities I've had, I should have voted them away? You make it sound like my job is easy, the quality of my work irrelevant, what I earn just created by magic, and that my products need not be competitive on the global market.

Hey, if slave labor in Asia could design and build electronics of better quality and/or lower price, I'd be out of work tomorrow. I got where I am by hard work, not by cheating. And the same is required to keep what I have. Sorry, but I don't feel guilty.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 2000.

Brian:

You are getting glib. Some of the greens [not all but many that would be in power if the party won] are of the fruit loop variety. They [my guess] have been involved in or support [no guess] acts which have destroyed property [read Vail] or caused loss of life [you know that scene]. You didn't read the partial list that I gave you. Well maybe you are not only a tree hugger [not bad; have done my share] but a rat lover. The green party includes those people who have destroyed laboratory equipment [remember the group that destroyed GMO trees at the WSU research station; turned out to be non-GMO raspberry plants; how can you trust people who can't tell the difference between berry bushes and trees]. How about bomb threats. We've had to evacuate and we don't work with animals. These are all supporters of the green party. I don't choose a party by what the leader says, but by what the followers say; after all they would be appointed to the important positions if the party won. Here, I know the party leaders who would be appointed to decision-making positions.

Of course electing George wouldn't be so bad. He says he is going to open-up all sorts of protected areas to drilling and mining. You should go to Montana and see how responsible mining interest have been in the past. He, and his followers, even support mining in drainages that flow into Yellowstone. No, don't think so. Even though I support the idea of a third party and some of your environment goals, I don't see the green party as the solution. One of the local leaders supports the Makah whale hunts. Why? Because he considers the Makah as part of the natural environment [as apposed to the rest of us]. It didn't seem worthwhile to point out the meaning of his statement. It is a religion to him. He wouldn't have gotten it.

Got to go. It is late here and I have a flig

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 27, 2000.

Z [quothe he] howdy:

Exactly where are you now. If you see this, drop me an e-mail about your trip plans to Washington and Oregon. We can get together if you survive 520. I have some great photos from the Darby area.

I agree. I know a number of greens here. I can agree with some of their goals, but not their means. Discussing social or environmental policy with them is like discussing religion with al-d. Facts and reason are of little value. Brian doesnt seem to be one of that type, but many that I know are. The recent meeting in Portland seemed to me to be a lot like a tent revival meeting. The agrees with my impression of my many green friends.

Well have a good flight,

Grego

-- Gregor10001 (Gregor10001@yahoo.com), August 27, 2000.

First, to address the "issue" of whackos in the Green Party. This is a non-issue to me. To me the Green Party is an opportunity to break with a corrupt Democratic Party and build something viable. The moment that Green Party registrations topped 5% of the population, these sorts of irrational radicals would be relegated to a fringe position so small as to be insignifigant.

In our system, they simply will never amount to enough voters to influence power. Ever. End of story. To worry about them as being capable of capturing Congress, your state Legislature or even your local city council is ludicrous in my view. In real politics, they will never make a majority.

My idea is to mould the Green Party into something that grown-ups can embrace. I do this only because the Democrats have walked away from working for ordinary people in any meaningful way (in my opinion). Some counter-pressure must be brought to bear and inside the Dems is not the place to apply it, in my honest opinion. They have to be scared for their life before they will change.

As for Flint's answer. I knew you would bring up guilt. You are not guilty of any crime but, perhaps complacency and self-interest. I did not suggest that your work has no value or that you are not right to take advantage of your opportunities. But I at least expect you to understand and acknowledge that you are cooperating with and profiting from a system that denies 20-year old women who are trying to form unions the right to bargain with multi-national corporations for a wage where they can afford to buy the shoes they make.

The connection is indirect, but still powerful. We vote for the leaders, who support governments that kill, threaten and imprison people who are not committing any crime but to want change in thier countries. Our taxes pay for weapons that keep such regines in power, and the bargain they make with us is to keep their people enslaved for our benefit.

You do not do any of this personally, Flint, any more than you kill and pluck the chickens you eat. Instead, you hire (indorectly, of course) others to do this dirty work for you. You simply allow yourself to be a comfortable cog in the system that brings so much benefit to your doorstep with so little effort. That is no crime in law. It would be cruel and stupid to outlaw that kind of behavior, since it is the human norm. But, I am no more guilty of a crime than you are. Yet, I am not comfortable in this knowledge, and not willing to pretend ignorance or to settle for this way of doing business. I can't help it. I was raised that way.

You are free to do as you please in this regard. I would never dream of punishing you, imprisoning you or even rapping your knuckles over this. But I will say that, in your case, ignorance must indeed be bliss.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 27, 2000.

Brian:

"First, to address the "issue" of whackos in the Green Party. This is a non-issue to me. To me the Green Party is an opportunity to break with a corrupt Democratic Party and build something viable. The moment that Green Party registrations topped 5% of the population, these sorts of irrational radicals would be relegated to a fringe position so small as to be insignifigant.

In our system, they simply will never amount to enough voters to influence power. Ever. End of story. To worry about them as being capable of capturing Congress, your state Legislature or even your local city council is ludicrous in my view. In real politics, they will never make a majority."

End of story.

Therein, lies the weakness in your argument. An al-d like response. I remember 30 y ago when I got the same line about wacko religous conservatives in the Republican party. They took it over at the local level. It took two decades of hard work to get rid of them [fortunately none made it onto school boards]. They are all gone now; as are all of the Republicans. Their primary is now a non-event. We won't make that mistake again. Life favors those who are prepared and understand past mistakes.

I am sure that you and I would agree on many policy matters but, evidently, not on this one. I have been participating in the process for decades. I have never missed an election since Johnson ran against Goldwater [that includes every podunk election]. I have been harassed for my political beliefs [won't go into the Nixon era]. When I get home, I intend to work very hard to see that the green candidates in my area aren't elected. I will also work for the Democrats for the environmental reasons stated above [I am not a member of either party]. Otherwise I'm sure we agree on goals. But as Gregor stated; not on means.

It is very late and I must leave for the airport.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 27, 2000.

Brian--

Thanks for your response. I have nothing to add here except to say that I wish I agreed with you because I admire your verbal skills and your idealism. But we disagree on too much and I have no interest in getting into a sharpshooting contest (except for the fun of it and sometimes they are fun).

Instead I'll just ask another question about Greenism. Does the Green Party in USA have much in common with the Green Party in Germany?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 27, 2000.

Brian:

[You simply allow yourself to be a comfortable cog in the system that brings so much benefit to your doorstep with so little effort.]

Right. I spent 10 years in college to qualify myself for a very demanding job at which I work long hours, to produce a product which must compete successfully with the slave labor that breaks your heart. And I do so successfully. This is "so little effort"?

You are free to feel personally responsible for all the inequities you find in the world. I would prefer that the wealth I have earned, such as it is, NOT be redistributed to salve YOUR conscience. I certainly would never choose to vote for a politician to redistribute my wealth according to HIS preference, regardless of how sincerely his heart bleeds.

Maybe if I had chosen to spend my life doing unskilled labor, I'd resent what "society done to me" and feel more sympathetic toward a redistribution program. And maybe YOU could cure what ails you by going off to start a labor union at a Nike plant in the third world. Now that would be a noble effort indeed, far moreso than bitching about their wages on the internet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 2000.

Capn Fun for President and Uncle Dee for Vice, now, THAT IS A WINNING TICKET...

Capn, I really DID like what you said I do believe Many Americans desire the same. I want the tax man out of 'our' pockets, as it is right now, when bonus time for my hubby comes, 40+% goes to the leeches in washington.

I am tired of being told what is 'best' for me and mine by the government and slowly but surely I do see our rights being taken away.

I dont like Bush and cant stand Al.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 27, 2000.

Brian:

The previous discussion has dealt with the problems related to the Green party. I would like to deal with Nadar.

In my opinion, his early work is responsible for the litigious society that we experience. The attitude was that the end justifies the means. Start out with an end in mind, and do whatever is necessary to achieve that end. I consider him to be responsible for general disrespect for the legal system.

Just my opinion.

Fa

-- Falcon (Falcon@dezzs.net), August 27, 2000.

In case you didn't know that should be Nader or not.

Falcon

-- Falcon (Falcon (Falcon@dezzs.net)), August 27, 2000.

The Green Party strongly endorses closing the Blue Ridge Parkway, digging it up and returning the land to our Mother. If only the wealthy and healthy can access the nation's most popular park, so be it.

-- (Nader'sGraders@Blue.Ridge), August 27, 2000.

Yes, I have had some experience with the Green Party. I am interested in environmental issues. My land drains into the Skagit river. Nothing that you would call streams or creeks; more like places where water runs when it rains. I went to a meeting and talked to some of the speakers. I am interested in protecting salmon. They came out to my place, looked around, and said that I wasn't managing my property to help salmon. Probably true, because I don't manage it at all. It does what it wants to. I drive more than an hour to work each day, south into eviltown, and then north at night.

I ask them how I should manage it. They said they would get back to me. This was Sep 99. Must have been a Y2K problem because I haven't heard from them. Better guess, I wasn't a good PR opportunity. Don't have a lot of respect for these pe

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), August 27, 2000.

Sumer,

I think that most of America is sick and tired of being ran over by some Washington DC stuffed shirt that thinks/knows whats best for the rest of us,who the hell do they think they are?,some type of demi-god I suspect.

Same thing goes for the huge corporations that feed the political elite,I guess all of Washington is for sale though and has been for a long time,enough of this shit.I love capitalism and believe it to be the best system to keep America and the world free,as it can be.The monolithic gov's and Corp's can strangle the rest of the world into submission if we allow it,I personally vow to fight it with all my heart and soul.

I think Unk should head this ticket though,as he has the wisdom and knowledge that I am yet accruing,I would be happy and priveledged to be Unk's VP,what say you Unk,should we go out and whip their ass? God knows America needs us!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 27, 2000.

Flint,

>> I spent 10 years in college to qualify myself for a very demanding job at which I work long hours, to produce a product which must compete successfully with the slave labor that breaks your heart. And I do so successfully. This is "so little effort"? <<

Flint, spare me your crocodile tears about how hard you work. Do you honestly believe you work any harder than a Vietnamese or Guatemalan woman who not only works 12 hours a day at a sewing machine, but also raises her children on a wage you would find inadequate to pay your utility bills?

Now tell me, how hard do you work to fill the shelves of the local Wal-Mart, or to mine the ore that made your car, or drill the oil that runs your electrical generation plant? This is the system that brings such benefit at such little effort I was referring to.

Flint, we all work hard. Live with it.

>> You are free to feel personally responsible for all the inequities you find in the world. I would prefer that the wealth I have earned, such as it is, NOT be redistributed to salve YOUR conscience. I certainly would never choose to vote for a politician to redistribute my wealth according to HIS preference, regardless of how sincerely his heart bleeds. <<

Flint, you really stepped off the pavement and into the mud with this. For the record, I said not one word about using one red cent you earned or one red cent of the tax dollars you pay to redistribute your wealth (such as it is) overseas. You are fabricating a straw man.

I only spoke in favor of ending this: "We vote for the leaders, who support governments that kill, threaten and imprison people who are not committing any crime but to want change in their countries. Our taxes pay for weapons that keep such regines in power, and the bargain they make with us is to keep their people enslaved for our benefit."

How does REMOVING our support for such regimes, and NOT spending the money we now TAX AND SPEND for their support, in order to REMOVE the obstacles WE have placed in the way of LEGITIMATE efforts of these people to IMPROVE their lives through THEIR OWN EFFORTS constitute "redistributing" your GODDAMNED WEALTH for crying out loud?????

If this is your idea of a joke, it is in very bad taste. If this is your idea of cogent thought on this issue, go back and start again from scratch. Your premises are unable to hit the braod side of a barn.

>> Maybe if I had chosen to spend my life doing unskilled labor, I'd resent what "society done to me" and feel more sympathetic toward a redistribution program. <<

Give me a break, Flint. So, you honestly believe that an unskilled worker in Indonesia who may not have finished the equivalent of the 6th grade has improvidently CHOSEN not to go to college to learn the skills you have slaved to learn, in spite of the generous college loans available from the Indonesian government at a reduced interest rate? For christsake, buy a clue. These people did not get in this position through a series of their own bad choices.

>> And maybe YOU could cure what ails you by going off to start a labor union at a Nike plant in the third world. Now that would be a noble effort indeed, far moreso than bitching about their wages on the internet. <<

What ails me is not an ailment. It is knowledge and understanding. Get some. You may learn to appreciate it after a period of familiarization. As for "noble effort", give me a curriculum vitae of your own noble efforts and maybe we'll talk.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 28, 2000.

>> ...wacko religous conservatives in the Republican party. They took it over at the local level. It took two decades of hard work to get rid of them <<

My sympathy. But I feel I must point out that Christian conservatives, for good or ill, are a very numerous group of Americans. They make up something like 10% of the populace.

Whereas, environmentalists who are willing to sabotage, monkey-wrench and commit arson in the name of animal rights or some other fringe nonsense make up fewer than 10,000 out of 275,000,000 Americans. Probably fewer than 1000, if you weed out the ones whose bark is worse than their bite.

There is no comparison, in my mind, in terms of numbers. And numbers are where it is at when you hold elections.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian:

[how hard do you work to fill the shelves of the local Wal-Mart]

Exactly as hard as they work to design and build the electronics they put ON those shelves. If you are saying that only menial labor constitutes real work, permit me to disagree.

[we all work hard. Live with it.]

First you say we live a life of indolent ease. Now we all work hard instead. I guess it's whichever one suits your whimsy of the moment?

[I said not one word about using one red cent you earned or one red cent of the tax dollars you pay to redistribute your wealth]

Do you sincerely believe this? While I readily agree that economics is not a zero-sum game, resources remain finite. Massive material improvements in the lifestyles of billions of people necessarily means redistribution. Vastly higher wages for unskilled labor necessarily means higher prices I must pay for their output. This essentially means my costs subsidize their wages. This is redistribution. Hey, idealism is fine, but *dishonest* idealism bothers me.

If you are arguing for more economic transparency, better free markets, eliminating the stifling of competition, then I'm on your side. I'm all in favor of doing whatever is possible to increase peoples' productivity everywhere. I agree that keeping people ignorant is short sighted, and education will lead to less costly and more efficient means of producing more products of higher quality at reduced prices. This doesn't happen overnight, but I'd like to see more movement in that direction. I simply don't believe your candidates either can or will accomplish much of this.

[give me a curriculum vitae of your own noble efforts and maybe we'll talk.]

No, I'll do so and you will mock me and scream at me. Apparently what I've learned to do doesn't count with you, because you don't think I'm *suffering* enough in the process. I can't work hard enough to suit you because my labor isn't menial. I can't work long enough hours to suit you because I'm well paid for them. I'm producing products of double the capability at half the price of even 5 years ago, which you can now easily afford partly through my efforts, and you use them to insult me with!

Well, so sorry. I'm proud of what I can do, I appreciate the opportunity I was able to take advantage of so I can do it. I appreciate those who made this possible for me, and who keep it possible for all of us within their jurisdiction.

Yes, we support some damn evil governments. NOW, why don't you toddle off and examine the track records of the governments we opposed or do NOT support? See how our noninterference is enabling them to lift themselves from poverty and ignorance? Call me if you ever find one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 2000.

Flint,

Thank you so much for your time and attention. I think you have made your position fairly clear: you knowingly prefer to materially support (read: pay) corrupt and (to use your own word) evil regimes to use naked force to prevent workers from forming unions, for the good and sufficient reason that, if such workers are allowed to form unions they would undoubtedly negotiate better wages and working conditions, in which case you would have to pay more to buy the items their work produces.

OK. From your point of view, it is better that you should have an extra $5 in your pocket after you buy a coat or a sleeping bag, than that some family in Indonesia (that you've never met and who obviously aren't as valuable as you are to the world's economy) can afford to sleep two to a mattress instead of six.

Or if push comes to shove, and the wage earner in the family forgets her rightful place in the global economy, gets too uppity and tries to unionize, then she should be sacked. If she complains too loudly about this treatment, she should be beaten. (Not by you, of course. By whatever convenient thug who happens along, paid by - well, let's not inquire too closely into that... musn't, you know. Not healthy to know.)

This is a small price to pay for cheap consumer goods. A much smaller price than anything that smacks of redistribution of wealth, by raising consumer prices to pay someone a decent wage for their work. Anything but that! That takes money out of your pocket - the ultimate horror!

Is "Flint" a nickname? You're sure hard enough.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 28, 2000.

POW, WHAM, KERPOW! Great entertainment you guys.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 28, 2000.

looks around sheepishly and says to lars "um I 2nd that"

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian:

[you knowingly prefer to materially support (read: pay) corrupt and (to use your own word) evil regimes to use naked force...]

Please. Your position is equally clear: You somehow "know" that benevolent, democratic regimes are waiting patiently in the wings in all these countries for your candidates to enable them to permit their people to lead fulfilling lives.

And your examples of such regimes? Well, uh, how about your proposed method by which your candidate will somehow create and empower and support these regimes (but no imperialism, that's a BAD thing)? Well, uh, maybe there's no such thing, but unless we vote for some wholesale changes, ANY wholesale changes, there never will be. And if we GET these wholesale changes, will such regimes take root and flower? Well, uh, let's ignore this, and instead attack those who "support corruption", right? Such a platform!

[they would undoubtedly negotiate better wages and working conditions, in which case you would have to pay more to buy the items their work produces.]

And suddenly, it turns out you really ARE talking about redistribution. Imagine that! Now you argue that redistribution is a Good Thing, because it takes from those according to their abilities and gives to those according to their needs. Where have we heard this before? Somehow I don't deserve what I earn, because someone somewhere deserves what they don't earn. Uh huh.

And I notice not one word from you about education, productivity, or efficiency. Your program is a naked money grab founded on tear jerking, and any suggestion of a more useful or stable method is immediately attacked as hard-hearted, corrupt, ignorant and complacent. If you can present a sensible, workable plan to improve everyones' life, I'll vote for it. You'll win few votes calling your opponents greedy bastards for not voting to FORCE themselves to give to the charities of YOUR choice.

Hey, if it makes you happy to send all you earn to Banglonesia, so as to reduce (or at least balance out) the suffering a bit, go for it! If you can't be happy until you elect those who promise to force ME to do the same thing, then I will oppose you. By and large, I have found American administrations support the lesser of available evils, although our choices are usually all lousy, or that once we prop them into place and hand them money, they turn out to be just as corrupt as those they replaced. Why, the *nerve* of these people!

Finally, I suggest you do just a tiny bit of quantitative analysis. You are NOT talking about An "extra $5", you are talking about an order of magnitude increase in the price of nearly everything (*except* what I produce, of course). This is what labor unions accomplish. Instead, how about a program to educate people to design and build automated equipment to do the menial work for them? The road out of poverty isn't paved by higher wages for the same work. That's just redistribution from the haves to the have-nots, and few of the haves will go along with this, no matter how many awful names you can think up to call them. And it's not easy for anyone to talk most regimes out of fearing an educated population. But I believe our recent administrations HAVE been making that effort.

I'm gratified you eliminated the dishonest part of your idealism. Now eliminate the stupid part, and we'll be able to communicate. Up to it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 2000.

Wow, this is gettin pretty good, um, Brian, I believe its your 'turn' and BTW FWIW I think you both present great debate keep up the good work guys, this truly IS entertainment at its finest.

Sigh, just wish I could see you both do so face to face.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian:

Your opinions are unclear, IMO. It appears that you're supporting unions in foreign countries. I don't even support unions in THIS country, and I'll tell ya why. The AFL/CIO tried to kill my dad to get him to join. He DID join. What did the AFL/CIO do for him? They struck EVERY two years for at least 6 months based on demands of higher wages. My dad was a steel worker. He saved as much as he could to buy a house someday. Those savings went to support us every two years and he was, perhaps, in his 50's before we ever saw a house, and not long afterwards, the steel mills shut down, because it was cheaper to mill steel in foreign countries.

Not all of us support foreign slave labor, Brian. My preference would be for folks to support their own country's commerce and keep out of foreign affairs. If Americans wouldn't buy foreign goods, the slave- trades there would die out of its own accord. I'm sure your next question would be, "What would those folks do THEN?" I don't know, but I'd feel happier putting an American worker back to work than supporting a slave-trade in a foreign country.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 28, 2000.

>> Your position is equally clear: You somehow "know" that benevolent, democratic regimes are waiting patiently in the wings in all these countries for your candidates to enable them to permit their people to lead fulfilling lives. <<

Nope. I don't "know" any such thing. Democracy isn't all that simple or easy, or common for that matter.

But I do know that people will from time to time act to overthrow oppressive regimes and establish regimes that better serve their needs and interests. It has happened in many former colonies, including Delaware, Massachusetts and Virginia. It was attempted in Cuba, though with less happy results.

My position is that our government should not be actively strengthening vicious and (to quote you) "evil" governments, and arming them against their own people. We should stand back and let them go to hell in their own chosen way, not the way we impose on them. Let them work out their own destinies.

>> And your examples of such regimes? <<

Since I did not ever claim that such regimes "wait in the wings" I see no reason to provide examples.

You also asked me (in an earlier reply) to:

"examine the track records of the governments we opposed or do NOT support? See how our noninterference is enabling them to lift themselves from poverty and ignorance? Call me if you ever find one."

First, it is damned hard to find a single country with significant natural resources that our government hasn't interfered with in the past 50 years. Next, even if there were a pool of candidate countries we have not interfered with, it would be a fool's errand to show how our non-interference led to anything. As the Fool in King Lear points out, rather sensibly, "Nothing comes from nothing, nuncle."

All that would be possible would be to take two similar countries, one of which we did interfere with and another we didn't - and compare the outcomes. How about Guatemala and Costa Rica, for example? Or Nicaragua and Costa Rica? Or El Salvador and Costa Rica? Or Pananma and Costa Rica? Take your pick.

I don't have an Almanac in front of me and I don't care to cull a bunch of stats anyway. But I think it can be quickly established that Costa Rica has a higher median income than any of its neighboring countries, has a far better educational system and suffers from less political violence than the others.

>> Well, uh, how about your proposed method by which your candidate will somehow create and empower and support these regimes (but no imperialism, that's a BAD thing)? <<

Damn straight imperialism is a bad thing. And hell if I expect my candidate to "create" any regimes outside the USA. That's the duty of the people who live in those countries. Let them do it.

In fact, that's the whole plan that you can't seem to grasp. Letting them do it also means, quit stopping them from doing it - JUST GET OUT OF THEIR WAY! They will do the rest, if they can. Get it?

>> Well, uh, maybe there's no such thing, but unless we vote for some wholesale changes, ANY wholesale changes, there never will be. And if we GET these wholesale changes, will such regimes take root and flower? Well, uh, let's ignore this, and instead attack those who "support corruption", right? Such a platform! <<

This is a pretty sad attempt to distill my position.

[they would undoubtedly negotiate better wages and working conditions, in which case you would have to pay more to buy the items their work produces.]

>> And suddenly, it turns out you really ARE talking about redistribution. Imagine that! <<

Shit, Flint. When you go to a store and buy a lollipop, you pull some money out of your pocket and pay for it. This, too, is a "redistribution of wealth", and not a damn bit different from the one I am talking about.

May I also point out that when your employer pays you your paycheck, there is another "redistribution of wealth", one that you find eminently satisfactory, I suspect.

If a factory owner signs a contract with a union to pay his workers a particular wage and benefits, this is a perfectly legitimate transaction. If he ships his goods to a store near you and you purchase them at the price asked, this is also legitimate. And, yes, it is a "redistribution of wealth". Big honking deal. Capitalism is rife with these redistributions. They are sometimes called contracts. You against that?

>> Now you argue that redistribution is a Good Thing, because it takes from those according to their abilities and gives to those according to their needs. <<

Uh. No. Where did you get that from?

When workers earn a wage (which you still don't get is all I am talking about here - the freedom to collectively bargain that wage) then the redistribution is given according to abilities. Just the opposite of what you said.

>> Where have we heard this before? <<

Class? Anyone? That's right, Johnny. The answer is Karl Marx. Now, since I am not touting this and you are not touting this and Marx died a while back, let's get on with our discussion and leave the old bastard out of this.

>> Somehow I don't deserve what I earn, because someone somewhere deserves what they don't earn. Uh huh. <<

No. You deserve what you earn. I presume. But what in the name of Billy Hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Because, if the tea-pickers in China asks for and receive a better wage and the price of tea goes up, that has bugger-all to do with whether you "deserve" your paycheck or not. It only bears on what you pay for tea at the store.

Based on the rhetoric you are serving up hot here, you seem to think that if anyone else gets a raise, it amounts to Communism. Flint, I don't think you're going to be able to obfuscate this simple fact enough to fool people.

>> And I notice not one word from you about education, productivity, or efficiency. <<

OK. They are good things. That's several words.

>> Your program is a naked money grab founded on tear jerking, and any suggestion of a more useful or stable method is immediately attacked as hard-hearted, corrupt, ignorant and complacent. <<

Rather than answer this one, I'll just let what Flint and I have said to date stand. Anyone interested can compare his position here to ouor actual words and decide if it is accurate.

>> If you can present a sensible, workable plan to improve everyones' life, I'll vote for it. <<

Stop sending arms to (to quote you again)"evil" countries. I don't pretend this plan improve's "everyone's life", I only contend that it is right, just and gives the inhabitants of those countries a better chance to improve their own lives, according to their own desires.

>> You'll win few votes calling your opponents greedy bastards for not voting to FORCE themselves to give to the charities of YOUR choice. <<

No. Try to think.

Ceasing arms shipments to evil countries stops spending money. It is, again, the opposite of what you suggest I am proposing. If you still want to give money to those evil regimes, no one will stop you from giving it directly out of your own pocket. But, I am warning you, don't expect a charitable write-off on your taxes if you send Guatemala a shipment of M-16s.

>> By and large, I have found American administrations support the lesser of available evils, although our choices are usually all lousy, or that once we prop them into place and hand them money, they turn out to be just as corrupt as those they replaced. <<

Why not let the locals decide what constitutes the lesser of available evils?

>> Finally, I suggest you do just a tiny bit of quantitative analysis. <<

I'll do as much as you did.

>> You are NOT talking about An "extra $5", you are talking about an order of magnitude increase in the price of nearly everything (*except* what I produce, of course). This is what labor unions accomplish. <<

Still waiting for that "quantitative analysis"...

>> Instead, how about a program to educate people to design and build automated equipment to do the menial work for them? <<

In the meantime, how about withdrawing support for regimes that kill, torture and intimidate people for opposing the government? Just as an interim measure?

>> The road out of poverty isn't paved by higher wages for the same work. <<

You say this, because you haven't ever received a raise? I am totally amazed at the arrogance of this statement. Since when did your company enter a negotiation for a contract to supply goods or services to someone else, and not try to get a better price than the last contract they signed? Or, if dealing with a supplier, when did they not try to get a lower cost?

If your company can negotiate a higher price for the same widget, why can't workers negotiate a better price for the work they do?

>> I'm gratified you eliminated the dishonest part of your idealism. Now eliminate the stupid part, and we'll be able to communicate. Up to it? <<

Ha. Ha.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 28, 2000.

Anita:

Home again. Ahhhh.

"My dad was a steel worker. " Hey, so was mine. He was in electronic controls but he belong to the union. He was never a big supporter but he remembered what it was like in the 30's and considered the union to be a necessary evil.

Brian:

I have to go to Washington and Oregon but will be back soon. I will work hard on a door to door campaign against the greens. It is really easy.

Gather the family around {picture it; mother, father and little girl with the family cat on her lap}. Then read the plank in the local green platform which calls for outlawing the possession of domestic animals as pets. What will happen to the cat, they ask? Well it will be liberated; failing that it will be "put to sleep". You just won't be able to keep it. I've found that it works every time. You keep avoiding discussion of the planks that I gave you. What about Zoo's, raising domestic animals for food; etc. You keep avoiding the things that are written in the platform.Why? The other stuff is irrelevent. Of course, you can say that the platform has no meaning. If that is so, I don't know what the party stands for. If you believe in what the party stand for, you should be able to defend its own statements.

Bes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 28, 2000.

By-the-by:

I haven't been here for the discussion but I agree with Flint's analysis of the wealth re-distribution scheme in the platform.

Flint:

You only went to school for 10 years. You are doing well with such a sparse background. For me, I have never left school. :^).

Oh well, that is why I still have problems with the environment policies of Bush.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 28, 2000.

>> You keep avoiding discussion of the planks that I gave you. What about Zoo's, raising domestic animals for food; etc. You keep avoiding the things that are written in the platform. Why? <<

Positions like the one about outlawing pets are a sign of the immaturity of the Green Party. It is my position that the party needs to drop the chihuahua and step away. If I can't put that across to people, then I'm outa there. And if I am outa there, the Greens will not go anywhere... not because of me, but who I represent - grown ups who can tell the difference between what is buckskin and what is fringe.

[Rolls eyes.] Yup. The anti-puppydog party! Just what we need!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian:

I can agree with your statement. Maturity is a ways off. Then there is Nader. I remember him from Unsafe at Any Speed [or some such thing]. I have actually talked to him. In real life [my impression] he is an example of what is wrong with our culture. Work, work, work. 100 h weeks. Family and children aren't important. Only the cause. I wouldn't want him as president. He might be useful in debates in the house and senate. Make things more interesting. But not in a position responsible for policy decisions. Just my opinion. I could be wrong and often am.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian:

[My position is that our government should not be actively strengthening vicious and (to quote you) "evil" governments, and arming them against their own people. We should stand back and let them go to hell in their own chosen way, not the way we impose on them. Let them work out their own destinies.]

Sounds great on paper, and on paper I agree. It starts to delve into the question of just who is aided by foreign aid. To listen to the State Department, we are aiding the peoples of foreign nations to achieve freedom. To listen to you, we are only aiding repressive governments bent on preventing their own countries from ever accomplishing anything. I suspect both of these descriptions of being far more self-serving than accurate. I agree power is sometimes used to repress. I don't agree that power is ONLY used to repress.

[First, it is damned hard to find a single country with significant natural resources that our government hasn't interfered with in the past 50 years.]

You seem to be implying that our government has had an official (if unstated) policy of detrimental interference with everyone. Yet many who oppose foreign aid complain that we don't attach *enough* strings to the funds.

[it would be a fool's errand to show how our non-interference led to anything. As the Fool in King Lear points out, rather sensibly, "Nothing comes from nothing, nuncle."]

Wait a minute. First, you propose doing nothing. Then you claim nothing comes of this. I'm not following your argument. Are you saying that EVERY government we support is vicious, but left to themselves (as with Cuba) they are STILL vicious? Kind of a jaded perspective...

[I don't have an Almanac in front of me]

Nor do I. Does the US provide Costa Rica with foreign aid? Probably. Do we support the government of Costa Rica? Definitely! Would you surmise that our activities there are somehow less "interfering"? Why? Somehow I suspect you are blaming Washington for all you dislike, while giving the locals credit for all you admire. I think it would be more accurate to recognize that the locals have much more control of what they do than we do.

[They will do the rest, if they can. Get it?]

Yes, I think so. You propose an essentially isolationist policy, discontinue all foreign aid and adventures, don't even maintain a foreign scholarship program, since such things are of course cardboard fronts for underhanded funding of vicious governments. Well, at least you don't have us bankrolling foreign labor unions.

[Shit, Flint. When you go to a store and buy a lollipop, you pull some money out of your pocket and pay for it. This, too, is a "redistribution of wealth", and not a damn bit different from the one I am talking about.]

Are you serious? If I think that lollipop costs too much, I'll spend my money elsewhere. This is what competition is all about. What YOU are proposing is that unskilled laborers be paid vastly more than their efforts are worth on the market. Several times I've mentioned that my products MUST compete on the open market, and you've ignored this. Now I understand why. If your enslaved shoe makers were paid what you think they deserve, that particular brand of shoe wouldn't sell another pair. So you must subsidize the makers of EVERY brand of shoe, unilaterally, and I must pay for it. And you have the gall to insist that subsidies and competition are "not a damn bit different."

[Uh. No. Where did you get that from?]

From you. Or were you somehow NOT saying that I live a life of ease off the backs of slave labor, who live such wretched lives that I should pay noncompetitive prices to help them live a better life? They are needy while I am productive and well paid for it, so I should subsidize them because I can afford it (because of my ability) since they are so desperate (so they need it). I guess like Anita, I don't share your faith in the positive power of labor unions.

[I don't think you're going to be able to obfuscate this simple fact enough to fool people.]

On the contrary, I'm clarifying. What you need to do is make the case that our standard political parties support worldwide vicious repression, which would evaporate like the dew in the morn without their nefarious efforts. Or failing that, at least you could no longer make this righteous claim, since they'd then be doing it to themselves without us underwriting it. You won't get very far with this case by claiming that I "support corruption", you know.

[Why not let the locals decide what constitutes the lesser of available evils?]

Yes, I agree with this. Times have changed, and we're no longer engaged in arming one side while the Soviet block arms the other, and the winner gets the resources while the locals who aren't shot by one another still starve. But you and I aren't the only ones who have figured this out, and to the best of my knowledge these arms shipments are a dying policy. At least I hope so.

[Just as an interim measure?]

I'm not sure if we're discussing economics here (which you don't seem to grasp at all), or foreign policy (which for you seems to consist mainly of arming repressive governments against their own people).

[I am totally amazed at the arrogance of this statement.]

I guess you still suffer the stupids then. We've been through this, haven't we? Where does the money come from, to pay higher prices for the same output? Typically, it comes from inflation. But inflation helps your target population not at all. To make more in real buying power, they must produce more of real value. This is a productivity increase, not a wage increase. Even if all the repression ended, they STILL need a productivity increase. You were cheerfully willing to boost MY price for shoes and shirts, but didn't seen to understand that this also boosts the price for those who MAKE those shoes and shirts. They'd be chasing the horizon -- much harder on them than on me. Yes, temporarily the shoe makers would be able to buy more shirts, unless the shirt makers unionized first. Ultimately, though, we'd see what's so common in so many "developing" countries, inflation rates of 15% a month and higher.

Brian, the money doesn't grow on tries or appear by magic. The community can't get rich taking in one another's laundry. And no, I don't favor a policy of controlling inflation by starving the workers rather than training them. Nor do I believe this is or has been standard Washington policy.

[If your company can negotiate a higher price for the same widget, why can't workers negotiate a better price for the work they do?]

The point is, they cannot. Indeed, if there were any longer a market for the same widget, they'd get only a small fraction of what they got six months back. Probably the main reason I'm paid what I am, is that our development cycles are so short. The rule of thumb in my industry is, "If it's for sale, it's obsolete." I MUST continue to invent better products at lower prices and get them to market sooner and sooner all the time. Deadlines are inescapable. If I miss them, we can't just put out the product next month -- nobody would buy it.

Now, maybe in your line of work you expect to get steady raises for the same work, at which you never improve. Maybe competition doesn't exert any influence on your business (do you perhaps work for the government?)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 2000.

Z:

No, that was 10 years of college, not 10 years of school. But of course in my field nothing I studied in college even existed 5 years after I graduated the last time. As it is, anything not stamped "tentative and preliminary" is archaic. This is why I love my job, it's new every day. Education never ends, does it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 2000.

Brian--

Face the facts. To most folks, the Greens appear as kooks. Ralph Nader will never capture the comman man's imagination. He is not a dynamic leader; he comes off as a pedantic nitpicker. The Greens are more and more a refuge for the far-Left of the Democrat Party. They will schism themselves to oblivion.

Isn't it better to rejoin the Democrat Party and strive to influence their policies than to hand the victory to Bush because of ideolocical quibbles? I would say the same to Libertarians----you belong in the party of Goldwater and Reagan. Not perfect, but better than marginalized martyrdom.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 29, 2000.

>> [it would be a fool's errand to show how our non-interference led to anything. As the Fool in King Lear points out, rather sensibly, "Nothing comes from nothing, nuncle."]

Wait a minute. First, you propose doing nothing. Then you claim nothing comes of this. I'm not following your argument. <<

Actually, I mangled my point, which is that you can't prove a negative. For example, to prove that not interfering with a government caused a nation to do something positive is tatamount to proving that God does not exist. Any positive effects from our not doing anything can't be causally linked to our not doing anything. It can only be correlated. That is not a very positive prrof.

>> Does the US provide Costa Rica with foreign aid? Probably. Do we support the government of Costa Rica? Definitely! Would you surmise that our activities there are somehow less "interfering"? <<

Well, I know that US troops have been sent to Nicaragua, to Panama, to El Salvador and to Guatemala, but not to Costa Rica. Is that enough evidence of, well - if NON-interference, then diminished interference?

>> Are you serious? If I think that lollipop costs too much, I'll spend my money elsewhere. <<

Thus, completely undermining your argument that allowing a foreign factory to unionize is somehow a Bad Thing, because it "forces" you to redistribute that precious wealth you earned. It doesn't "force" anything, as you have now admitted. Thanks.

>> Times have changed, and we're no longer engaged in arming one side while the Soviet block arms the other, and the winner gets the resources while the locals who aren't shot by one another still starve. <<

Hmmmm. This doesn't make sense to me. If we are still arming the one side and the Soviet Union is no longer arming the other side, how does this make the side that is no longer armed in a better position to achieve its aims? Sounds to me like our assistance to the oppressive and (to quote you yet again) "evil" regime has become, if anything, more decisive than ever before.

Comprende?

>> Where does the money come from, to pay higher prices for the same output? Typically, it comes from inflation. But inflation helps your target population not at all. <<

Oops! You aren't an economist, are you.

If we are paid in dollars and the cost for goods in dollars rises, that does "hurt" us, in that our dollars have lost some purchasing power. You could call that "inflation", if you like.

But the "target population" we are both talking about aren't paid in dollars, are they? They are receiving rupees or rupiahs or pesos or some other purely local currency. And if they are producing goods for export, then they are not suffering from the inflation that affects us dollar-earners, and their own purchaising power is increased, provided they are buying domestic goods, like the food they eat.

It is only we dollar-earners whose purchasing power is diminished. Get it?

>> The community can't get rich taking in one another's laundry. And no, I don't favor a policy of controlling inflation by starving the workers rather than training them. <<

Er. More stupidity. I don't like the word, but it is apt here.

An export-based economy that is not denominated in dollars doesn't suffer from exported inflation. The model only breaks down if there is another country that produces the same quality goods for less (when the consumer cost is converted to dollars) and captures the US market.

I am perfectly willing to let each individual country find its own answer to this balancing act, without our interference and obstruction from our government.

>> [If your company can negotiate a higher price for the same widget, why can't workers negotiate a better price for the work they do?]

The point is, they cannot. <<

Then, it makes me wonder why you object so vehemently to attempting something that is, by your own admission, impossible to achieve. You have complained vociferously that you will be forced to redistribute some of the wealth in your pocket to some foreign worker, and yet now you reveal that you believe that this event is actually an impossibility!

You are now officially contradicting yourself, Flint. Either there is no way to make you part with one red cent more than you are perfectly willing to part with, or I anm advocating some horrendous Communistic scheme to make you poorer against your will.

You can't have it both ways. ...Your ball.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 29, 2000.

And then again we can get over the mental pissing and vote Libertarian : )

BTW Brian,I am quite the little campaigner.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), August 29, 2000.

The Democrats have decided that "class warfare" is the winning strategy for this election. The have-nots against the evil rich. They have even convinced some of the people who have a family income over 75 thousand a year that they are working in their interest when that income level is mentioned many times as the elite and wealthy.

They have declared me the enemy. So be it. They will use my money to buy the votes of the less fortunate. They will probably win and Gore will be President.

The pathways to financial success have never been a secret. If you choose to take another path that is your right. I do resent however that success is punished and I am taxed even after death to buy the votes to elect a government that promises to care for you from cradle to grave and absolves you of any responsibilty to care for yourself.

Flint, I agree with you.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), August 29, 2000.

Brian,

Hypothetical:

Defense spending (and all other spending) is right where you want it. However, none of the items on the Greens' list (as posted on this thread) has yet been enacted. In that scenario, do you still advocate the enactment of all the items on that list? If not, which ones? In any case, how would you like to see these things financed?

One more question: Why not $100 an hour for minimum wage? Btw, I'm really not being sarcastic here; just trying to make a point.

I haven't yet read this whole thread, so my apologies if you've clarified your position on this.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), August 29, 2000.

Yep, it is Still going strong. I am reading, learning and being imho open minded to both sides, but i do appreciate Flints stand moreso than Brian's because to me, Flint makes sense. Not that Brian doesnt present great debate, it just appears Flint is much more knowledgeable.

BTW, consider starting another to be continued thread? This one takes forever to load.

You go guys.

Anita: Your imput is wonderful. My hubby is alum. worker millwright and is union member. Many of my family work in the 'mills' here at LTV.

again, thanks for the great debate, this is a learning experience.

Eve: 100.00 per hour? *smile* now THAT just may make me resign from my part-time day job...LOL.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 29, 2000.

Brian:

[Your ball.]

Not much left of it. You have carefully dodged most of the points I made, taken a few sentences out of context and mangled them.

[Any positive effects from our not doing anything can't be causally linked to our not doing anything. It can only be correlated. That is not a very positive proof.]

I agree. Your position (as well as I can understand it) is that our major parties have been engaged in a near-global, long term, systematic effort to support vicious repression. When I point out that there doesn't seem to be much correlation between this repression and our specific foreign policies, you reply that correlation doesn't mean much. Am I safe in concluding that your position is then a priori? You have defined whatever we've been doing as bad, so actual evidence becomes irrelevant, and lack of that evidence (being inconclusive) doesn't matter.

[Well, I know that US troops have been sent to Nicaragua, to Panama, to El Salvador and to Guatemala, but not to Costa Rica. Is that enough evidence of, well - if NON-interference, then diminished interference?]

Not at all. You carefully avoid any mention of what we sent troops to *do*, and why. Presumably we had some purpose in mind, and those whom we were fighting also had some purpose in mind. Absent any discussion of the goals of either side, what can we conclude? Your implication that we were fighting to create or support vicious supression while they were fighting for legitimate self-realization doesn't stand up to examination. So I suggest that your principles should be based on the actual fact situation, rather than vice versa.

[Thus, completely undermining your argument]

My argument was that free market competition and subsidization are different. This was part of a larger argument that you mangled later, so we'll get to it.

[Sounds to me like our assistance to the oppressive and (to quote you yet again) "evil" regime has become, if anything, more decisive than ever before.]

But you START by defining anyone we assist as oppressive, and anyone we oppose as nonopressive. I admitted that sometimes we have chosen to support the lesser of two evils, the side that looked to be LESS repressive. Our choices are limited -- we can do nothing, we can support the side that appears to have at least somewhat more democratic leanings, or we can support the side that looks more repressive. You seem to be arguing that we should do nothing. And if the MORE repressive side wins, and we could have prevented this, we can self-righteously claim we followed our hallowed principle of non- interference, and therefore it's not OUR fault those people are worse off than ever. And if you consider this superior foreign policy, then we have a legitimate disagreement.

I personally believe that intelligent foreign policy can be to everyones' benefit. To be intelligent, that policy (both public and private) must be based on a solid understanding of the situation to which it's being applied. The "Marshall Plan" approach to third-world countries has been unsuccessful, largely (IMO) because of cultural differences. Recovering a formerly healthy economy is NOT the same as creating one where nobody has any such experience. Unsophisticated people with backgrounds shaped by undeveloped economies tend to have an extremely short-term view of foreign aid -- they use it to create and above all *protect* great personal privilege and opulence.

It takes some vision to realize that 10% of a billion dollars, in a healthy economy, is better than 100% of a million dollars in a backward country. It's hard to see that paying for someone else's education might be better than paying to preserve your own power. But it's EASY to see that those who covet your power place no higher value on education than you do. So a disproportionate amount of foreign aid gets redirected to military capability to preserve that power. I'm just not convinced that our optimal strategy is to withdraw any and all attempt to improve lives, and let them use rocks and clubs in their coups (grin). Nor am I convinced that this redirection happens at Washington's behest.

While I agree that efforts we don't make can't be directly misapplied, I can't help but wonder if withdrawing those efforts might make lives even MORE miserable once our somewhat stabilizing influence isn't there. I don't know. I just don't consider our interests to be inimical to everyone else's, nor that our administration believes the way to maintain or improve our lifestyle is to reduce that of others. What I see is much more of a "rising tide" philosophy, poorly administered.

[Oops! You aren't an economist, are you.]

Well, let's see what you have to say first...

[If we are paid in dollars and the cost for goods in dollars rises, that does "hurt" us, in that our dollars have lost some purchasing power. You could call that "inflation", if you like.]

Why not, since that's what it is?

[But the "target population" we are both talking about aren't paid in dollars, are they? They are receiving rupees or rupiahs or pesos or some other purely local currency. And if they are producing goods for export, then they are not suffering from the inflation that affects us dollar-earners, and their own purchaising power is increased]

Huh? That 15% a month inflation I mentioned isn't happening HERE, it's happening where these goods are produced. This is an increase in THEIR purchasing power? That rampant inflation has basically two sources -- an attempt to pay the locals more for the same work, and an attempt to rapidly depreciate their foreign debt. Our inflation is only a mild side-effect of their local policies. It's mild for several reasons -- because there are often alternative competing suppliers, and because most products have elastic demand. I agree that significant price increases here will only happen if you can successfully unionize ALL (say) shoe makers, and simultaneously prevent new ones from starting up elsewhere. The inflationary effects of trying to pay people more than the market value of their output warrents are almost entirely local. There's no magic, and there's a LOT of unskilled labor in the world.

Yes, I spoke theoretically of redistribution, of my prices subsidizing their wages. But I was being generous, since the real world doesn't operate that way. The market puts a price on unskilled labor. Paying unskilled labor in excess of market value causes inflation where that practice is followed. Redistributing my wealth is *your* goal. It's not reachable except by governmental fiat. Economically, you MUST increase productivity to increase wealth.

Now, if you want to improve productivity (more skill, more education), I agree. If you claim that some short-sighted people prefer slave wages to higher skill levels among their employees, this is probably true in some cases. If you claim it's Washington's policy to selectively enforce this short-sightedness, this strikes me as fanaticism above and beyond the call of data.

[It is only we dollar-earners whose purchasing power is diminished. Get it?]

Uh, except for the actual facts. Check inflation rates around the world. Ours is among the lowest. Attempts to boost wages for the same output has a terrible LOCAL track record. Check it out. When your reasoning leads you to a conclusion that's the opposite of observation, you should check your reasoning.

[>> The community can't get rich taking in one another's laundry. And no, I don't favor a policy of controlling inflation by starving the workers rather than training them. <<

Er. More stupidity. I don't like the word, but it is apt here.]

More likely a failure to communicate. OK, let's say you're the King of Banglonesia. You are upset because your unskilled population lives in squalid poverty. They just aren't making enough bangles/hour to escape this condition. What do you do? Let's say you encourage labor unions, which successfully negotiate living wages. Now, where do the bangles come from to pay these wages? You can raise the price of your products, but you won't sell any so long as your competitors in North Squeam and Hispanario keep theirs low. You can print more bangles, but without any backing with more goods and services to spend them on, you'll have inflation and nobody will be better off. What do you do?

I should think your options depend on a lot of factors. Can you get money from someone to help develop your educational system? Are you exhausting your treasury fending off threats from neighboring countries? Can you import trained foreign teachers and managers? Is there any Washington policy that could make your task easier? Would ANY assistance from the US automatically be "interference and obstruction", or could it be positive somehow? Would you be better off *claiming* the money was for education, but then instead arming your goons? Better off how?

[You have complained vociferously that you will be forced to redistribute some of the wealth in your pocket to some foreign worker, and yet now you reveal that you believe that this event is actually an impossibility! You are now officially contradicting yourself, Flint.]

OK, I also mangled my point. I was originally complaining that YOUR ideal was to redistribute my wealth, *rather than* generate inflation at the products' source. Now I'm saying that a free market will not accomplish this goal, it requires specific government policy instead. Therefore, I'd assumed you were pushing such a policy.

Now I understand that you're saying (1) US foreign aid consists largely of providing military support to repressive regimes who use it to *preserve* market inefficiencies; and so (2) If we discontinue all aid, the true market value of unskilled labor will magically increase and people everywhere will become better off. I just don't believe the first is true or the second is sensible.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 2000.

>> BTW Brian,I am quite the little campaigner. <<

Cap'n:

Excellent! The more people who are in there swinging, then the less influence PR types have over the process. Politics needs a lot more bottom-up and a lot less top-down.

Eve:

I'm afraid I've read your hypothetical several times and it isn't at all clear to me what you are asking.

As for "why not $100"? I believe the philosophical justification for the Green proposal is that it would be a sufficient wage to allow a full-time worker to raise two kids at the official "poverty level". Today's minimum wage lets you work 40 hours a week and if you have two kids, they and you are deep under that poverty line.

Your $100/hr. proposal is clearly excessive by any reasonable standard. The Green proposal at least is based on a social standard many would find reasonable: if you work full time hours you should be able to keep your nostrils above the water. Not much above, but above.

Anita:

If it is your contention that all unions, by their very nature, invariably recruit members by threatening to kill them if they don't join, then I'd like to see more than anectdotal justification for this belief before I am convinced it is correct.

If not, then wouldn't a more rational position be that you are against the United Steelworkers, rather than against all unions everywhere?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 29, 2000.

>> The pathways to financial success have never been a secret. <<

Same goes for the recipe for Hummingbird Tongue Pie. First you parboil 3,000 hummingbird tongues...

I perfectly well understand, Chief, that you were thinking of such mundane things as education and hard work, saving money and investing wisely.

But, let's presume that, starting tomorrow, every last high school student in the USA decided that the golden pathway to financial success was the same one you followed, and they all began to mimic your actions in the exactest, minutest possible way.

They all learn the same skills you learned (the most up-to-the-minute version of these skills), study equally hard as you did, scrimp their way through college and emerge ready to fight their way ahead in your chosen field of endeavor. All 20 million of them (give or take) start sending their resumes around as diligently as you sent yours. All on the same day.

What do you suppose are the chances that all 20 million will succeed, just as you did? What would happen to your wages, with 20 million newly-minted competitors?

The reason I produced this impossible scenario is simple. Your implication that choice is the only significant factor in preventing everyone from following the pathway to financial success to an equally golden conclusion is erroneous.

If hard work were enough, then coal miners would be tycoons. If education were enough, then grad students would drive Ferarris. If thrift were enough, then peasants in all ages should have been wearing silk underwear on their death bed. If investment were enough, then fortunes would never be lost on Wall Street.

I do endorse hard work, education, thrift and investment as the best pathway to financial success.

What I challenge is your assumption that poverty is always a result of imprudence, bad choices or some moral defect. The 1920s were full of the same kind of arrogance that is abroad in the land today. The 1930s came as a profound disillusionment. Successful, educated, talented, prudent, hard-working, thrifty men like you were financially ruined and hit the pavement by the millions. It broke a lot of them, spiritually, emotionally and mentally.

Learn humility now and it may come in handy sometime. Just in case.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 29, 2000.

What fun! The old comunists versus capitalist plan!

Brian, you haven't read your Ayn Rand assignment.

-- Doesn't Matter (whatahooey@goofy.com), August 29, 2000.

Flint:

"No, that was 10 years of college, not 10 years of school. " I read it again. Sorry, but when you fly across that many time zones, your reading ability goes.

As to unions, I would go with Brian on this one. The system has been abused and and perverted, but it is still better than before unions. I am not old enough to remember, but I have the stories from my father and grandfather. Of course they weren't members of the groups that were given the bad jobs. Newcomers from Poland were assigned to the pickling pits in the steel mills. Imagine standing in a hole containing hot HCl and dipping sheet steel for 12 h/day. LIfespan wasn't that great. Then there was the job given to the least desirable [sort of like a punt returner in the CFL]. Blowing the plug in the blast furnace. Oh the stories I know.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 29, 2000.

There is a often a fine irony in the way that unions interact with a market economy. In an early phase, the market economy creates "jobs" like you describe above Z. Then the unions organize and bargain the capitalists into paying higher wages to do these manually difficult and dangerous jobs. Then the capitalists develope new technologies to do these difficult/dangerous jobs more efficiently. Then the original workers lose their jobs because their skills are obsolete. And on and on.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

Brian, I said pathways not pathway. Your scenario of everyone taking the same road to success is not valid. Choice is not the only significant factor but it is a very important one.

You said that if hard work were enough then coal miners would be tycoons, grad students would drive Ferarris. That is the class warfare card again.

You endorse thrift, education hard work and investment then want to demonize the people who who achieve that success. My Granfather lost every dime he had saved in the bank collapses during the depression. Thank God he had common stock in AT&T, GM, and SanteFe. It only was about 10 percent of what he had lost but got the family thru the worst of times.

It may surprise you to learn that to a certain extent I believe the rich should pay more in taxes. Unfortunately, the Liberals in Gov't realized that there is not enough rich to fund the progarms. They have turned the middle class into the "rich".

30 years ago very few except the truly wealthy fell victim to the estate tax. Simply by not changing the amount exempt the gov't thru the years confiscated more and more as inflation brought hundreds of thousands of families into that realm. Middle class families Brian. Not rich. The Gov't imposed a tax on telephones to fund the Spanish- American war when there were only 1500 telephones in the country. That tax never was recinded. It brought billions of dollars into the Gov't treasuries since then. It too started as a tax on the rich.

You challenge my assumption that povery is always the result of imprudence, bad choices or some moral defect. How can affluence be the result? Those things do lead to poverty. Many people make bad choices and have times of imprudence. Most learn from them and recover. They don't blame anyone but themselves. There are of course people who thru no fault of theirs are impoverished. They must be cared for and should be helped.

Look at how Al Gore responds to the idea of letting you choose a savings vehicle for a measly 2% of your Social Security. He says that if people lost money they would demand the Gov't make them whole. Bravo Sierra. They do not want you to have a choice. They want total control.

I've had good times and very bad times Brian, I don't understand why you think I am lacking in humility. I live in the real world with real problems. Not in a theoretical world. Having a great deal of self confidence does not rule out having humility. I just don't get paralyzed by it.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), August 30, 2000.

Brian,

Ok, I'll try to clarify my hypothetical.

If I recall correctly, you had said in a prior post that paying for the Green Party's proposals could be accomplished by reducing defense spending and using that "excess" money. So my hypothetical assumes that defense spending had already been reduced for other reasons to the level at which YOU would like it. The same with all other current government spending -- it's all already at the level at which YOU would like it. In other words, there would be no direct government resource left to pay for the Green Party's proposals. Given this, I'm just asking you where the money would come from. And I'd also like to ask you how far you'd go.

For example, would they (and you) tax the rich so that they were brought down to the level of the poor IF it was necessary to pay for the programs? If you're uncomfortable with the rich being "cut down to size" this drastically, WHY would you be?

An answer along the lines of "the rich wouldn't have to give up that much, because..." would be good for starters, but inadequate. I'm asking you philosophically how far you (and they) would be willing to take this to get what y'all want.

On the mimimum wage: Let's say the demand for the employer's product is up. Further, assume the employer has $12 an hour to spend and he/she wants to hire two people at $6 an hour apiece. The $12 an hour law is enacted. The employer hires one worker at $12. The other cannot be hired. Results: Less product is made, tending to raise prices, and one more person is unable to obtain work; at least with this employer, and work will be more difficult to find elsewhere for the same reason.

If you're happy with this result, then it seems as if you're happy with the likelihood of higher prices and more unemployed people. In other words: more impoverished people. If you disagree with this conclusion, please explain why.

Again, none of the above is sarcasm, Brian; I'm just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), August 30, 2000.

Z:

I'm sure that unions once played a very important role regarding safety, etc. Unfortunately, IMO, their strength has increased to the point where they're in a position of defining an entity's direction. There was a cycle, obvious to the families. Every two years the contract expired and the union would demand higher wages. Does a dollar or two more an hour make up for 6 months of lost wages every two years? In addition, these wage increases were set for particular worker groups, meaning that the person who looked out the window all day made as much as the person who worked hard all day.

Brian:

When I first took a teaching position in Illinois, I was approached by the Union Representative. He asked me to join. He said that the contract was ending soon and they planned to strike for higher wages. I said, "I was just hired. I wouldn't have accepted the position had I not thought the wage a fair one." He didn't pressure me to join, and I didn't. I learned throughout the next three years that this guy used the same curriculum he'd always used, and the same scantron tests he'd always used. In the same vein, teacher's unions in many states are fighting testing of current teachers. Why?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

OK, I'll go with Lars on this one. There's no incentive to make people more productive until its more cost effective to do so. To the extent that unions win more pay for the same work, they cause the work itself to change in nature. This kind of progress is always helped by a balance of power.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 30, 2000.

Eve:

>> ...there would be no direct government resource left to pay for the Green Party's proposals. <<

Pretty much your whole hypothetical seems to boil down to this: if there were no conceivable way to pay for these programs other than to raise taxes from their present levels, what would I do?

Personally, I am a pragmatist. I think politics has to be based on the possible. At the moment, raising taxes is not something the public is prepared to accept. You can't just force people to take what they don't want. You try that and you get kicked out and replaced by someone who knows what the public does want.

However, your hypothetical rather waved a magic wand over the whole issue of what the budget looks like, once spending is rearranged to suit me. That would represent a very noticeable change from today's budget and (in my opinion) a very welcome change that most ordinary people would appreciate. In the real world, making such a change would reflect credit on whoever made it happen. It would generate trust and goodwill among a majority of the electorate.

In the real world, a political party that demonstrates ability and earns trust also acquires political capital. If the public gets to watch the process of rearranging the budget, and see the results, then the political atmosphere would be changed, too. What is not possible or acceptable today in the present climate of mistrust might become possible then. In your hypothetical, all this just happens by magic and no one gets the credit.

Don't you think that any political party that succeeded in cleaning the Augean stables in DC would be hailed as miracle workers? Maybe folks might even consider new taxes at that point, if they believed it would lead to a better society to live in.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), August 30, 2000.

I think the name of the Green Party requires clarification. I mean what kind of green are we talking here? Emerald green? Not good, too rich and lush. Emerald green conjures images of pool tables, crap tables and Esmerelda Marcos. What about chartreuese, avocado or pea-green? Barf, barf and double barf!

I see only two possibilities. "Evergreen" has a poetic dimensions and is consistent with the green idea of robust Nature. Hunter Green is dignified and manly (thus offering the Greens an escape from their wimp image) and conjures rich Corinthian leather.

My vote is for Hunter Green. Ralph?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

A couple of points, Brian.

You said: Shit, Flint. When you go to a store and buy a lollipop, you pull some money out of your pocket and pay for it. This, too, is a "redistribution of wealth", and not a damn bit different from the one I am talking about.

May I also point out that when your employer pays you your paycheck, there is another "redistribution of wealth", one that you find eminently satisfactory, I suspect.

Both of your examples "redistribution of wealth" are of the free will variety. Using the government bludgeon to suck money out of my wallet so that Sahibe Banglodeeshimo the "slave-wage worker" can buy another mattress for his family is the theft variety of wealth redistribution.

Also, you exhibit the same short memory span that most people with the "Down with Yankee imperialism" mentality exhibit, namely, that Sahibe Banglodishimo's family was sleeping in the frickin dirt before he got his "slave labor" job and bought a mattress.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.

Sahib Banglodishimo. LOL.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), September 01, 2000.

>> Using the government bludgeon to suck money out of my wallet so that Sahibe Banglodeeshimo the "slave-wage worker" can buy another mattress for his family is the theft variety of wealth redistribution. <<

Unc, you and several other people just can't seem to get it through your heads that I am not proposing that we tax Americans and ship the money to poor countries where we give it away to poor people on the street, in a doomed effort to raise their standard of living.

I am proposing that we decrease foreign aid, by decreasing the amount of military aid we ship to corrupt, dictatorial regimes that use the weapons to threaten (or shoot) their own citizens. The majority of the aid we give to foreign nations is military aid.

As a good Libertarian, you should agree with this. Instead, you can't even comprehend what I am saying. If I had to guess why, I'd guess it has to do with having a model of reality in your head that is sufficiently strong as to override reality when reality conflicts with it.

This is common to all of us. It is the same reason why an author can't catch his own typos sometimes - he just sees the "correct" version while staring right at the typo. In this case, the model in your head tells you that I am a liberal, liberals always want to tax and spend, therefore I must have proposed to ship more taxes to Banglonesia, not less.

Go back and read what I wrote. You'll see I was not saying this.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 01, 2000.

Brian, I think you know that I am against giving tax money to foreign countries, as is the Libertarian Party.

Forgive me if I skimmed the debate between you and Flint, I am still trying to return to reality from cruising mode. Perhaps three full meals and several buffets a day have dulled me somewhat. You should, however, be pleased that I redistributed some of my wealth to the Sovereign of the Seas (a vessel registered in Norway, a foreign country), and the Bahamas (a foreign country full of poor foreign workers).

Earlier you said to Flint: A much smaller price than anything that smacks of redistribution of wealth, by raising consumer prices to pay someone a decent wage for their work. Anything but that! That takes money out of your pocket - the ultimate horror!

So artificially raising prices to send more of my money to overseas workers is not a form of stealing from the rich to give to the poor?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.

>> So artificially raising prices to send more of my money to overseas workers is not a form of stealing from the rich to give to the poor? <<

The key word there is "artificially".

I would contend that what is artificial in this situation is that the USA is propping up regimes in many places that might fall without our military aid. In many cases, these clients of ours are placing restraints on the ability of labor to bargain freely for higher wages. These restraints are artificial, since these anti-labor policies are often enforced through threats and police violence. Without rubber bullets (or real ones in many places) wages could rise in accordance with market forces.

I keep finding that conservatives are glad to believe that giving a corporation the freedom to set prices is a natural function of markets. They assume that market discipline will keep the corporation from setting prices too high.

But they have a much harder time believing that labor should avail itself of the freedom to bargain for higher wages. In these cases, they are happy to accept the "discipline" of riot police and bullets, not market forces.

Let me tell you, bullets and torture are a different level of discipline than seeing your market share drop. Those are the artificial restraints on the market I would like to see removed.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 01, 2000.

Resdistributon of wealth. Soak the rich. What old chestnuts. A certain level of redistribution of wealth is valuable. When the income levels become too polarized, social instability results. Ask the Romanov's. Oop's, can't do that. We could be approaching that kind of division now.

Anita, union protection of worker safety is still very important. Whatever else they do, it remains. I doubt that this is a very important issue with teachers, but it is in heavy industry.

Now I have to go see Brian in a hospital gown [his statement]. I hope the weather is good in the Cascades.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 01, 2000.

Z--

I think you are right. "worker safety" is not a big issue with the NEA. (They seem to be most interested in maintaining their monopoly control of the Education industry). But safety should be a priority. My ex-wife was a HS math teacher and she had to deal with gangstah "students" who would tell her to "suck my dick". To Jan's credit, her response was "in your dreams".

But Jan was very strong for the union. She worked very hard at teaching but she did have job security and a good salary and benefits thanks to union contracts. She is an ardent Dem. What did Tip O'Neill say? "All politics is local".

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 01, 2000.

Lars:

What you say sounds correct to me. But we [as yet] don't have those problems here. We live in "leave it to beaver country".

I would like to point out that my disagreement with Brian deals with my local green party versus his efforts. [I am going to Oregon tomorrow and I don't want to be attacked by rabid Greens :^)]

More seriously, the Green party is a long ways from offering a reasonable, unified platform which can give a viable candidate a chance.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 01, 2000.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....

I keep finding that conservatives are glad to believe that giving a corporation the freedom to set prices is a natural function of markets. They assume that market discipline will keep the corporation from setting prices too high.

But they have a much harder time believing that labor should avail itself of the freedom to bargain for higher wages.

I'm glad that you are not speaking to me, since Libertarians have ZERO problems with people of like minds joining forces to solve common problems. Libertarians support labor movements, Libertarians support all free associations among people with a common goal. What we do not support is government edict that constrains people against their will to join, or support, such organizations.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.