On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful
phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal
whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own, but do
not
control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the

If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.

So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?

How
convenient
for you that leftism hasn't been tried and therefore cannot have
failed.

Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.

Plenty of governments
you would consider "right wing" were doing what "the people" wanted.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:04 -0300,  <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
James A.  Donald wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:20 -0300, Fred Williams
The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if
they collectively control things.
Collective control does not work, has never worked, can never work.
The only way people can have freedom is as individuals, which means
individual rights, in particular the right to create wealth, own that
wealth, which each may use as he pleases..

Fred Williams

   There is no such right as the right to create wealth.

pursuit of happiness.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:20 -0300, Fred Williams
The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if
they collectively control things.

Collective control does not work, has never worked, can never work.
The only way people can have freedom is as individuals, which means
individual rights, in particular the right to create wealth, own that
wealth, which each may use as he pleases..

James A. Donald wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:20 -0300, Fred Williams
The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if
they collectively control things.

Collective control does not work, has never worked, can never work.
The only way people can have freedom is as individuals, which means
individual rights, in particular the right to create wealth, own that
wealth, which each may use as he pleases..

There is no such right as the right to create wealth.

Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
production by the workers, or by the people generally.

But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
people generally"

Only particular people can control particular things.

Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
of everything by the government, a group of people small
enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
which predictably leads to the all too well known
consequences.

The corporation?

If people had a right to create wealth, they'd have a
right to capital, real estate, and / or raw materials.

Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the
control of everything by the government, a group
of people small enough to meet around a table,
led by a single man, which predictably leads to
the all too well known consequences.

The corporation?

If one corporation owned everything, and had the
power to shoot its employees rather than fire them.

There is no requirement for a monolithic state.

However, that was not what I was talking about. I
wanted to remind you of corporations, partnerships,
cooperatives and so forth -- examples of production
under collective rather than individual control.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:53:29 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"

If people had a right to create wealth, they'd have a
right to capital, real estate, and / or raw materials.

Capital, real estate, and raw materials, is, as I am
sure you know, the product of labor, so people do have a
right to those things, since they have a right to own or
sell the products of their own labor.  What they do not
have a right to is the product of someone else's labor.

*Anarcissie*"
Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
production by the workers, or by the people generally.

James A. Donald:
But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
people generally"

Only particular people can control particular things.

Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
of everything by the government, a group of people small
enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
which predictably leads to the all too well known
consequences.

*Anarcissie*"
The corporation?

If one corporation owned everything, and had the power to shoot its
employees rather than fire them.

James A. Donald:
Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the
control of everything by the government, a group
of people small enough to meet around a table,
led by a single man, which predictably leads to
the all too well known consequences.

*Anarcissie*
The corporation?

James A. Donald:
If one corporation owned everything, and had the
power to shoot its employees rather than fire them.

*Anarcissie*
There is no requirement for a monolithic state.

Without property rights to separate one man's plan from
another man's plan, only one plan can be permitted, and
any pursuit of alternate goals, or pursuit of the same
goals through alternate methods is "wrecking", and must
be crushed.

However, that was not what I was talking about. I
wanted to remind you of corporations, partnerships,
cooperatives and so forth -- examples of production
under collective rather than individual control.

It is not all that collective. The shareholders elect
the board, the board appoints the CEO, and the CEO, a
single man, decides, subject to the possibility that if
his decisions turn out bad the board may fire him.

If you had the same system with one CEO controlling the
entire economy, one big firm owning everything, instead
of many competing firms, then that would be tyrannical.

I wanted to remind you of corporations,
partnerships, cooperatives and so forth --
examples of production under collective rather
than individual control.

The shareholders elect the board, the board appoints
the CEO, and the CEO, a single man, decides, subject
to the possibility that if his decisions turn out
bad the board may fire him.

If you had the same system with one CEO controlling
the entire economy, one big firm owning everything,
instead of many competing firms, then that would be
tyrannical.

As the rich get richer and more powerful it will come
to that.

Capital, real estate, and raw materials, is, as I am
sure you know, the product of labor, so people do have a
right to those things, since they have a right to own or
sell the products of their own labor.  What they do not
have a right to is the product of someone else's labor.

So they don't have a right to create wealth.
That's what you appear to be saying.

Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own, but do
not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

        He should know.  (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy upper classes
who own the corporations).

If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.

  So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?

        Well, there's Cuba,

and now Venezuela,

*possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty since I
haven't heard a lot about it recently.

Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of

  How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and therefore cannot have
failed.

        Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a panic in the right
wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the left.  

Destroying is always easier than building, unfortunately.

  Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.

        It's absolutely true, unless you insist that the right define straw men and
then proceed to criticize.  Of course there's a lot of that going on.

You claimed that Cuba was left wing, which means that what the

Plenty of governments you would consider "right wing" were doing what "the people" wanted.

        Not if the people were educated and free.

 That is certainly not happening in the U.S., nor in Canada today.

But it's happening in Cuba?

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

James A.  Donald wrote:



*Anarcissie*"
Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
production by the workers, or by the people generally.

James A. Donald:
But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
people generally"

Only particular people can control particular things.

Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
of everything by the government, a group of people small
enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
which predictably leads to the all too well known
consequences.

*Anarcissie*"
The corporation?

If one corporation owned everything, and had the power to shoot its
employees rather than fire them.

        If allowed to go to the final conclusion, it would come to that.

Well that's what your arguing for isn't it?

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f... at (no spam) frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Michael Price wrote:

The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of.  If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding
end and the
actual doing what they want to do start?

The people do not control the government.

  No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful phrase but even so...

The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.

  No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own,
but do not control, productive assets.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...

  By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.  The former
"wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything they had.

Now, he meant government rule by corporations.

 That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country.  But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.

Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class. The

But they underestimated his lust for power...

        He should know.  (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy
        upper classes
who own the corporations).

If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.

  So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?

        Well, there's Cuba,

  Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
vote for him.

and now Venezuela,

  A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
Yeah, real "people
power" there.

*possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty
since I haven't heard a lot about it recently.

  Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of
violence from leftist thugs.
It's less "left wing" than it was when the Sandinista murderers ran the
economy into the ground
and so more genuinely controlled by "the people".

Actually, the thugs were the ones Reagan compared to the founding
fathers, and who were rightists.

 Daniel Ortega is back in power there, and the country is at peace.

 No Republican administration to underwrite
the thugs any more.

  How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and
  therefore cannot have
failed.

        Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a
        panic in the right
wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the
left.

  Wow, that's such a moronic answer.  By definition under a State
whoever has the political power controls those with the economic power so whether
the "right wing power centres" wants to destroy "the left" is irrevelant.

You're in AMERICA, and you think government controls the financial
centers?

I'm not in America and yes I think that the institution that