Re: the finger of blame

Michael Lorrey (
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:33:45 -0500

Anton Sherwood wrote:
> Erik Moeller writes
> : Who sells the weapons? The government? Who earns money when a war has
> : started? The government?
> Not money: power. The state always expands during wartime,
> and rarely if ever retreats afterward to its former size.
> ("War is the health of the state.")
> To blame "Businessmen" for wars, you must ignore the fact that MOST
> of them, on either side, LOSE money in wartime.

Thats right. Tell me, where is the net economic benefit to sinking
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of tons of perfectly good ships
to the bottom of the ocean, to expending 50% or more of a nation's GNP
with no capital gain, to destroying a large fraction, if not all of a
nations infrastructure, to killing the brightest and most productive
members of society???

You may claim that 'stockholders' are the ones that benefit, yet why is
it that 90% of weapons producers go bankrupt at the end of a major war,
or are bought up by other companies at a discount??? Why is it that they
take huge losses in the last year of any war, as governments fail to
make payments, or cancel orders in mid production, or see their plants
destroyed by enemy action?

> : Who profits from a tax policy which burdens the majority and favours
> : the minority? The minority, of course. Which is not the government.
> Hah! Government is the most favored minority of all!

Yes, government leaders get their names in the history books for the
wars they lead, not for the peaces they oversee. How many business
leaders are as famous for their wartime contributions as people like
Stalin, FDR, Churchill, Hitler, Mussolini, or even generals like
MacArthur, or Eisenhower, Patton, Rommel, Montgomery, Hap Arnold, or
even minor heroes like Sgt. York, The Red Baron, Lt. Jack Kennedy, Jimmy
Doolittle, etc.????

> : John Clark, one of the more intelligent free market advisors, would
> : answer: "If you remove governments, all this corruption will disappear
> : and the free market will bring up only efficient companies." The problem
> : is that by removing government, you only remove a cover under which the
> : true power elite hides. The power structures remain - and before you can
> : say "Jebediah", your country will be ruled directly by big enterprises.
> Evidence?

Power structures exist because of the favors of government officials.
The old Quid Pro Quo is a mercantilists biggest gun. If all business had
an equal footing, and if corporations were not legally considered
virtual citizens, the average person would not have as much trouble.
They'd have more responsibilities, for sure, but such is always the way
with greater freedom.

> If you're right, wouldn't it be better in some ways to have the beast
> made naked, so all can see its true nature?
> : Luddism is a perfectly understandable reaction in capitalism. Because in
> : a capitalist society, progress in production efficiency will often hurt
> : the population. The more efficient you are, the less workers you need.
> : More unemployment. 4,5 million registered in Germany today, and rising.
> So why did employment in the Nottingham textile industry (origin of the
> term "Luddite") increase with mechanization?
> Of course there are no state regulatory barriers to employment,
> only reactionary "libertarians" believe that, right?

Increases in productivity have ALWAYS led to greater employment at
higher wages. But they have ALWAYS required a greater level of
education/skill to acheive those positions. The idea of a high school
grad overseeing a hundred robots doing nothing but pushing buttons and
eating donuts is pure fiction. Because people are too lazy to think, and
resistant to learning new things, they resist productivity increases,
while claiming otherwise.

> : About military: Why do you think we have it? Because some bums in the
> : government think we need it to defend our country?
> Because military forces have been around longer than anyone can remember,
> and few dare question their necessity? I dunno, you tell us.

Becuase some countries still make it too easy, or even welcome, leaders
whos idea of leadership is to rape and pillage, make enemies, and
oppress the people. The only type of diplomacy such people understand is
force. An emminent example: Iraq.

> : Most extropians despise governments, but at the same time, they are the
> : perfect democrats. Because they really believe that democracy works the
> : way it is intended to work - they just think that this way is not right.
> Well, let's have a show of hands. How many here believe there's no fraud
> in democracy as it is, in your respective city or country?

People get the government they deserve. Also, egalatarians can live in
an aristocratic society just fine, thank you, so long as they get to be
the aristocrats.

> : Dana & Laurie Kissick wrote:
> : > It is kinda like computers; the more widespread and available they
> : > are, the less likely it is that they will be used to oppress us.
> :
> : Ever heard about the NSA? That's not a product of the free market,
> : but it's a structure needed in all governments (and the free market
> : is just a new form of dictatorship).
> Wow man, that's so cosmic, y'know? Have another toke.

THey're every where, man. Just look out the window, them spy satellites
are peekin' in on YOU! Pass the munchies.

> : > "It's a far easier thing to have a firm anchor in ignorance than out
> : > to set on the troubled seas of thought."
> :
> : And many extropians seem to prefer the easy way.

And anti-business, anti-free market, anti-technologists make ignorance
their bread and butter, and wouldn't have it any other way.