On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:


"Wm James" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel"
wrote:

And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then
your
"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions
versus the reality I speak of .


Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of
speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the
law and any argument is just stating opinions"?

Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and
presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever
the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all
the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two
branches. Sound good to you?

William R. James

Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the
had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did.

Perhaps if you read the constitution and understood the simple process
we use to elect presidents in the US, you wouldn't parrot that BS.

Unless you can figure out a way to
change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship".

1) Elect presidents who will appoint judges who respect the
constitution. (Don't count on either of the major parties ever
nominating such a candidate.)
2) Elect a congress that will do it's duty and impeach federal judges,
INCLUDING Supreme Court "Gods", when they violate their constitutional
boundries.

Where have
you been you idiot?

I have never been "you idiot", not anywhere... Oh wait. I was "you
idiot" in a church once... At a wedding.... mine. But that was a long
time ago.

As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or
"think ought to be" ... but what is reality.

The constitution isn't real?

You summed it up nicely with a
side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently.

Yes I do. What you don't seem to realise is that the thread is cross
posted to groups like "this" one (alt.activism) where what is right,
what is constitutional, and what is legal, aren't necessarily the same
thing, but are all propert topics of discussion. I assume you are
reading the thread from one of the groups involved in the union issue
strictly from the standpoint of the union and business interactions,
and no particularly interested in the constitutional issues. In other
words, the group you are participating in is asking what the union can
and cannot do while in some groups the relevant questions are
regarding what constitutional issues are the courts ignoring to allow
the unions activities.

Get it now?

William R. James

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand
wrote:

In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

"Grain of Sand" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

"Miguel O'Pastel" wrote in message
...

There is no future for capitalism.

Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
but
funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
lot
smarter than you are.

Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
capitalism.

Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
and it's clear there's no future for communism.

Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I
would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is
currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist
nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state
will evolve and will work?

Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded?

Why aren't they embargoing us?

William R. James

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand
wrote:

In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

"Grain of Sand" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Stan de SD" wrote:

"Miguel O'Pastel" wrote in message
...

There is no future for capitalism.

Yeah, yeah. The Russkies said that in 1917, and the Chinese in 1949 -
but
funny how both of them are reverting to more market-based economies. But
then again, for all their faults, Russians and Chinese are a hell of a
lot
smarter than you are.

Like most capitalists you think short term. There is no future for
capitalism.

Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
and it's clear there's no future for communism.

Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I
would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is
currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist
nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state
will evolve and will work?

Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded?

Why aren't they embargoing us?

William R. James

On 10 Jul 2004 08:57:28 -0700, (Darryl) wrote:

Wm James wrote in message . ..
The workers already know there's a strike.

I personally know a local example where a 2nd union did not know that
the 1st union at a certain place was striking. One day they chatted
with the strikers WHILE PASSING THROUGH THE PICKET LINE, and they
found out which union was striking, & why, & it was a union with which
they had an agreement to honor strikes. The next day, no one from
union #2 showed up. Management quickly caved.

It's simple.

No... it's not. But your strong belief that it SHOULD be is what
keeps you from reaching a defensible position regarding it. The pros
and cons of unions are a legitimate topic of debate, but far beyond
people who feel it's a "simple" issue. We'd regard as idiots anyone
who considered neurosurgeons fools for wasting their time in college
because, hey, brain surgery is a "simple" matter, easily mastered with
a home study DVD course. It's obviously, to the common man, not
simple. But any yahoo with a 300 baud modem seems to have an answer
to the most complex issues of the day, because of their clear &
piercing insight into the heart of the matter.

Respect of rights is not complicated. If the union members don't
ewant to trade anymore, that's their right. If they don't want their
former employer on their property after they cease trading, that's
their right. The business owner has the same rights.

William R. James

Wm James wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:36:52 GMT, Grain of Sand
wrote:

Look at the shining 2 examples of communism left - Cuba and North Korea -
and it's clear there's no future for communism.

Errr....first that's state communism, which under normal circumstance I
would agree with you that they would not last long. Second, there is
currently an embargo and sanctions on cuba and korea by a capitalist
nation. What is the US so afraid of, that maybe that the socialist state
will evolve and will work?

Can you show me one capitalist economy that has succeded?

Why aren't they embargoing us?

(Raises hand.)

"Because the workers' paradise, freed from the constricting
boa of the capitalist parasites, is overflowing with
bountiful products, rightfully belonging to ALL the
proletarians of the world, struggling as they are under
stifling weight of oppressive capitalist incubus, comrade!"

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608

In the referenced article, writes:

(Raises hand.)

"Because the workers' paradise, freed from the constricting boa of
the capitalist parasites, is overflowing with bountiful products,
rightfully belonging to ALL the proletarians of the world, struggling
as they are under stifling weight of oppressive capitalist incubus,
comrade!"

If you can find it, you need to hear Atilla the Stockbroker's `North
Korea mourns Comrade Mickey Finn of T. Rex'. I can't find an MP3
online, unfortunately but you might be able to dig it out somewhere.
--
E' la storia di un pasticciere, trotzkista, un pasticciere trotzkista
nell'Italia degli anni '50. E' un film musicale.

No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is
about real people in real courts fighting over real
interests.

This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours
or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I
find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the
rule of mob.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
You're welcome to point out any logical development which
leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently
self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] are evil by
virtue of the fact that they cannot function without infringing
on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in reality,
they can't." I don't see it.

bulba :
I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel
can't function without power of the state.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels.
For most companies, there are important money and nuisance
costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once.
If the employees organize, they can exploit the potential
of these costs as long as they don't try to exploit them
too much, that is, beyond the point where it becomes more
profitable to replace all the employees, or they put the
company out of business. Within that margin, it's just
too expensive and too difficult for a company to be moving
all those bodies in and out.

:
For unskilled labor, it's pretty irrelevant. If government respected
the rights of business owners a business with unskilled employees
could easily replace the droids for $3 an hour. It's a little more
expensive for skilled workers, but those with valuable skills need no
union unless they simply aren't willing to do much work for the pay.


That depends on conditions, obviously. I've seen labor markets
where you couldn't hire a sleepwalker, and others where highly
skilled people like machinists or computer programmers were
on the street in hordes and could be hired very cheaply. So
have most people who care to observe (not many, it appears).
It is obvious that, under conditions of a tight labor market,
employees acting together can squeeze more out of the employer
acting together than they can individually. And since the
relation between traditional capitalist employers and their
employees are rather adversarial, that's pretty much what it
comes down to: squeezing. By your own words, you're a pretty
good example of that, so you should understand it.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

(G*rd*n) wrote:
You're welcome to point out any logical development which
leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently
self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] are evil by
virtue of the fact that they cannot function without infringing
on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in reality,
they can't." I don't see it. He acknowledges that "theory",
that is, axioms, evidence and logic point the other way, so I
take it "reality" is an appeal to mystical knowledge, but it
might be connected to _something_ -- who knows? Do you?

:
What kind of BS is that? My point is simply that unions have no tools
other than extortion, vandalism, and otherwise infringing on the
rights of others to get their way. ...


And I have pointed out why you were wrong. However, you would
have to be capable of following a rational argument to see
how I did it.

I'm not interested in exchanging slogans -- but I'm sure you
can find somebody who is.


--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't

Joseph K. wrote

The idea defended here by conventional philosophers (believers of the
True Faith as you call them) that exchange value is completely
subjective stems from the same roots and is wrong for similar reasons.

Except that no economist claimed that exchange value is entirely
subjective. Exchange value is determined ultimately from two sources,
the subjective preferences of consumers and the scarcity of goods.

Cheers,
Alex

(G*rd*n) wrote

I don't the the pure subjectivity of value is an item of the
True Faith, inasmuch as the major prophet Adam Smith did not
profess it -- it is his labor theory of value which, supposedly,
underlies Marx's. I suspect it is something novel introduced
to exorcise any influence of the Devil (that is, the aforesaid
Marx).

Your suspicion is wrong and you seem ignorant of the relevant
economic history. As far as I know Galliani was the first to introduce
a theory of value based on utility and scarcity -- he did it in 1751,
before Adam Smith even published his work.

Condillac published his work in the 18th century (I don't know
whether with or without knowledge of Adam Smith), and he is worth
quoting on this:

"Value is not an attribute of matter, but represents our sense of
its usefulness and this utility is relative to our need. It grows or
diminishes according as our need expands or contracts. But since the
value of things is based upon need, it is natural that a more keenly
felt need should endow things with a greater value, while a less
urgent need endows them with less. Value increases with scarcity and
diminishes with plenty."

The main factor in the overthrow of the labor theory of value came
with the so called "marginalist revolution" usually dated in 1871-1874
and it is attributed to Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
But this "revolution" had precursors in von Thunen and Gossen, which
wrote in the 1850's.

This "revolution" is the result of faults and inconsistencies in the
classical labor theory of value -- not in any reaction to Marx. Marx
simply failed to keep up with economic theory, building castles of
cards on shaky foundations.

Cheers,
Alex

(G*rd*n) wrote

I don't the the pure subjectivity of value is an item of the
True Faith, inasmuch as the major prophet Adam Smith did not
profess it -- it is his labor theory of value which, supposedly,
underlies Marx's. I suspect it is something novel introduced
to exorcise any influence of the Devil (that is, the aforesaid
Marx).

Your suspicion is wrong and you seem ignorant of the relevant
economic history. As far as I know Galliani was the first to introduce
a theory of value based on utility and scarcity -- he did it in 1751,
before Adam Smith even published his work.

Condillac published his work in the 18th century (I don't know
whether with or without knowledge of Adam Smith), and he is worth
quoting on this:

"Value is not an attribute of matter, but represents our sense of
its usefulness and this utility is relative to our need. It grows or
diminishes according as our need expands or contracts. But since the
value of things is based upon need, it is natural that a more keenly
felt need should endow things with a greater value, while a less
urgent need endows them with less. Value increases with scarcity and
diminishes with plenty."

The main factor in the overthrow of the labor theory of value came
with the so called "marginalist revolution" usually dated in 1871-1874
and it is attributed to Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
But this "revolution" had precursors in von Thunen and Gossen, which
wrote in the 1850's.

This "revolution" is the result of faults and inconsistencies in the
classical labor theory of value -- not in any reaction to Marx. Marx
simply failed to keep up with economic theory, building castles of
cards on shaky foundations.

Cheers,
Alex

(G*rd*n) wrote
I don't the the pure subjectivity of value is an item of the
True Faith, inasmuch as the major prophet Adam Smith did not
profess it -- it is his labor theory of value which, supposedly,
underlies Marx's. I suspect it is something novel introduced
to exorcise any influence of the Devil (that is, the aforesaid
Marx).

:
Your suspicion is wrong and you seem ignorant of the relevant
economic history. As far as I know Galliani was the first to introduce
a theory of value based on utility and scarcity -- he did it in 1751,
before Adam Smith even published his work.

Condillac published his work in the 18th century (I don't know
whether with or without knowledge of Adam Smith), and he is worth
quoting on this:

"Value is not an attribute of matter, but represents our sense of
its usefulness and this utility is relative to our need. It grows or
diminishes according as our need expands or contracts. But since the
value of things is based upon need, it is natural that a more keenly
felt need should endow things with a greater value, while a less
urgent need endows them with less. Value increases with scarcity and
diminishes with plenty."

The main factor in the overthrow of the labor theory of value came
with the so called "marginalist revolution" usually dated in 1871-1874
and it is attributed to Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
But this "revolution" had precursors in von Thunen and Gossen, which
wrote in the 1850's.

This "revolution" is the result of faults and inconsistencies in the
classical labor theory of value -- not in any reaction to Marx. Marx
simply failed to keep up with economic theory, building castles of
cards on shaky foundations.


"Utility" is ambiguous, however. It is not necessarily
purely subjective. To claim that it is seems like some sort
of phobic reaction to me, as I say above.

--

() /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 -adv't