X-Message-Number: 23042
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:14:12 -0600
Subject: j.t.
From: Brian A Stewart <>

j.t.:  As I see James has already pointed out, your arguments seem to
lack coherence.  In fact, they seem to largely consist of catch phrases
and sound bites.  As such, I am not certain it is worth discussing these
topics with you, especially if you do plan on voting Libertarian, rather
than Republican.  (It actually is not clear who you are planing on voting
for, by the way.)

For the record, the Republicans have used the Libertarians in the past as
a way to push their non-libertarian agendas.  Ronald Reagan, when he was
first elected President, claimed to be supporting Libertarian issues.  In
the end he really was only interested in those issues as far as they
benefited his supporters.  George W. Bush is even more blatant about only
being interested in what helps the people who financially support his
candidacy.  (At least Reagan had some sense of style!)

The United States has been very successful largely due to its system of
checks and balances.  The Administrative Branch is balanced by the
Executive and Judicial Branches, the Executive by the Administrative and
Judicial, and Judicial by the Executive and Administrative.  In addition,
the Federal government is balanced by the State governments.  I believe
that the system of checks and balances can be further generalized into
having the private sector balanced by the public sector.  This is not
that much different than having the Church and State balancing each
other, as has been historically the case.  In more modern times, it
should be possible to have private industry added into the equation, in
an attempt to insure that no one force comes to dominate the nation. 
Each force acts as a safety system to act in case one of the others
fails.  That is the framework from which I am working.  What is the
essential framework from which you are working?

>23011: Mike, if individuals, business and corporations were free of all
the taxes, meddling >regulations, and mandates, etc. 
>there were be at least many billions and possibly trillions of extra
dollars free for those >entities to spend as they wish. This is 
>only my opinion but I believe there would be at least as much money
directed to scientific >research as is now done by the 
>government and maybe more. The idea that the lack of a profit motif is
better than a profit 

The issue here is, I believe, WHICH research the monies will be spent on,
not whether or not the AMOUNT of research will change.  This is the same
issue which was brought up before Congress on the proposed changes in the
radio ownership laws:  there may be the same or more cans of vegetables
in the cupboard, but the problem is that they are all baked beans.

>motif is given by everyone I 
>know who strongly supports government intervention. All government
largesse comes with >strings attached and research is no 
>exception. When was the last time you heard of a government grantee
being told "spend this >money as you see fit...and no 
>need to contact us."? I have learned from talking with local (Las Vegas)
friends, Alcor 

The profit motive is only an issue because the heads of corporations are
under pressure to post increased profits in the next few business
quarters.  In the case of research done by the government, profits are
not how progress is measured.  The progress is instead measured by what
has been discovered, even if it is only that the detection of a planet
around a given star was due to an error in the measurement system of how
light distortion due to the gravity fields.  (What use would a business
have for THAT in the next few quarters?!  Still, the knowledge of which
stars have planets might be useful in the future, plus how to use light
distortion to measure gravity fields could prove useful in the more
immediate future.  Having the basic research already done saves money for
businesses in the long run.)

>personnel and cryonet posters that a 
>large percent of people care nothing about the U.S. Constitution.
Nevertheless, where in that 

Actually, the U.S. Constitution is, to a large degree, why cryonics is
allowed in the U.S.A.  The separation of church and state helps, plus the
guarantees of freedom for the individual.

>document is the federal 
>government authorized to fund any kind of research? If we are going to
ignore that document >we do so at great risk! The 
>likes of Bush, Kennedy, people like the Clintons, etal, would like
nothing better than to >repeal the whole thing and make 
>them masters of the U.S.

Well, the repealing of freedoms is exactly WHY people have been telling
you they are NOT planing on voting for Bush!  (To be honest, I don't
think Clinton was particularly interested in repealing the Constitution,
and I feel that the Kennedy Clan are largely irrelevant these days.)

> 23020: Brian, "all Democrats better than Bush". Just an opinion and I
respectfully disagree. 

Then that means that you concede my point that your opinion that Bush is
better than all of the Democrats is just an opinion?

>statement (and yours) is subjective. "Bankrupt the nation"...so will the

Historically, the Democrats have done a better job of getting the U.S.'s
budget deficit under control and managing the nation's money than the
Republicans-- at least as far back as the 1980s.  I think that the
Democrats are less likely to bankrupt the nation than the Bush regime.

>"Regulations not crushing the private 
>sector". I didn't mean to give the opinion that the private sector is in
danger of collapsing...it >is so adaptive I believe it can 

Well, that is the impression you gave.  I think that it can survive
taxation, which was my point.

>survive anything except the U.S. adopting full fledged socialism.
Nevertheless, it pains me to 

I don't think we are in any danger of adopting full fledged socialism,
for whatever that is worth.

>think of the prosperity that 
>could be generated with at least 99 percent (a subjective figure) of
them abolished. "Third 

We already are one of the least taxed First World nations, from what I
have heard.  The people and companies I would like to see more highly
taxed are only about the upper 1% of the wealthiest, which is a very
small number of people.  I highly doubt either you or I are in any danger
of joining that 1%!  8-)

>party better than Bush". I can 
>think of one whose rhetoric, if applied to the oval office, would
certainly be better: The >Libertarian! There might even be 

For better or worse, I don't think that the Libertarians are likely to
have a national impact any time soon.  The reasons why are a separate
issue, and one I am not particularly interested in addressing at this
time (and would only be my own opinions, in any event).

We do need some new parties, in my opinion, but there do not seem to be
any on the horizon capable of creating change in the near future.  I
honestly believe that 4 more years of George W. Bush's people will be

>other 3rd party candidates who would be better. In my opinion...no
Democrat would be even >as good. Government prints 
>money but without the private sector (business) it would be only pretty
metal and paper. The >private sector (and nothing 

I don't recall anyone suggesting eliminating the private sector.  I
believe in regulating it, not eliminating it.  The regulations are to
insure against monopolies, and to insure that the businesses take
responsibility for the results of their actions.  A government is
certainly not a perfect instrument for this, true, but the tendency of an
unregulated private sector does seem to be towards monopolies which are
unaccountable to private citizens.

>else) turns that paper and metal into prosperity. The government takes
(steals) money from >the private sector and sends 
>checks to entities like Clark County Public Works (Las Vegas) and the
county builds roads. I >demonstrated in a previous 
>posting that the private sector pays for, designs and builds roads. All
that is left is operating >them. It can do that too. 

I missed that posting.  I am aware that the government subcontracts to
private companies, however, and do not see anything wrong with that.  I
am also aware that companies do build roads for their own uses, and,
within reason, see nothing wrong with that, either.

>Government was not present in my model because I don't believe it can
save or invest money. >Building roads, scientific 
>research, etc. might look to some as "investing" but the same things can
be done by the >private sector more efficiently. The 

From what I gather, you are saying it is simply a matter of belief...? 
Governments are a waste of money because governments are a waste of
money...?  A circular definition?

The investing is in items which can be used by anyone by a centralized
agency, which, at least in theory, takes bids from a variety of companies
and selects the best.  (There is, of course, corruption, but that would
still be present if the roads were all built by the private sector.)

The research I have largely addressed above.  I will admit that I may be
oversimplifying things, but I do not want this post to become novel
length, especially since I am not being paid to write it.

>F.D.A. most certainly should NOT be fixed. It is an unnecessary,
meddling and >unconstitutional gang of government 
>bureaucrats with no purpose othar than to make producing a new drug a 20
year process and >to kill people who can't get 
>drugs that are available in other countries but not here because of the
F.D.A. O.K. Brian, go 

Again, you seem to be arguing from the position of belief:  The F.D.A.
should be eliminated because the F.D.A. should be eliminated.  I did
admit that it has serious problems, but I don't see why you do not
believe that they can be fixed.

The nations in which the drugs are already available-- which I would note
are by and large more socialist than the U.S.A.-- do, in fact, have their
own regulatory agencies.  What I was proposing was to modify the F.D.A.
into an agency similar to theirs.  

>ahead and vote Democrat. You 
>have lots of company. Keep in mind that all the problems that exist in
the U.S. were created >by Republicans and 
>Democrats...not Libertarians.

I am very firmly of the opinion that the nation does need changes, and
that we do need more choices.  Unfortunately, that would seem to be
possible only in the long term.  The topic here, as near as I can tell,
was and is the 2004 Presidential election.  (On a more local, State level
I have voted for Democrat, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and others,
all depending upon whom I thought was the best candidate.)


BTW, I am still unclear on how you would fight a war in the Middle East
without taxes funding the military.  Are you conceding that taxes are
necessary for a national military?


Brian A. Stewart-- Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but morally treasonable to the American public."
                            - Theodore Roosevelt

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23042