Group etiquette...

... I don't see how a libertarian society could work

Hope This Helps! Rich

The guy at

Rich doesn't actually understand the scientific method, and thinks that everything is a religion and all decisions are determined by revelation.

An angel has told me that Rich is a nitwit, but I wasn't able to replicate it.

Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a lot of that going around. I heard about this Age of Reason thing, but it's often hard to find evidence of it.

There you go again--trying to actually *test* a hypothesis.

I don't know how you got so sideways on this one. I was saying to enlarge the list of nations that went Imperialistic for a while (for financial / expansionist reasons), to include many other noted examples including the USA.

Anarchism is primarily about the means rather than the end.

Anarchism doesn't necessarily mean no government, or even smaller government. It's more a case of literal "government by the people", i.e. the general populace performing the functions of government directly, rather than delegating them to a pseudo-monarchy.

At least in theory, an anarchist system of governance could just as easily operate a free-market economy as command economy.

However:

1. The kind of perspective which predisposes someone towards anarchism is unlikely to also predispose them towards corporatism (outright abolition of corporate personhood tends to be quite common amongst anarchists).

1. If you consider it a function of government to protect the elite from the masses, that's somewhat harder if the government *is* the masses.

The US tends to perceive anything which is less than 100.0% to the benefit of the US as a "threat"; especially the idea of a government considering the welfare of its own population above that of US corporations.

In doing so, they end up creating real threats. Either their pet dictator eventually turns on them (Hussein, Noriega), or they radicalise the population to the point of revolution, resulting in a state which is fundamentally hostile to the US (Batista, Pahlawi, Somoza).

Gawd! You like living in the far past don't you?

I can't even remember who Pahlawi is ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Post and read as you please, this is usenet.

Can you cite any that have not subsequently adopted a charter? I mean they may exist, but i do not know of any. And many charters are trivial. Like the s.e.d charter seems to be.

Thanks for showing once again what a total fool you are.

Thanks, Rich

Hardly; 3 of the above 5 are still "ongoing". Iraq is still occupied, Iran and Cuba still have "revolutionary" governments and are still on the enemies list.

Or 3.5 out of 5 if you count the fact that Ortega is once again president of Nicaragua.

Iran.

Ought to fit right in to today's methodology, he's very big on "wealth redistribution", ala Obama-mama.

Ah! Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shah of Iran. Your spelling didn't, for some reason, register at all.

...Jim Thompson

Just more pseudo-intellectualism from the resident weenies.

Sno-o-o-o-ort!

...Jim Thompson

Rich seems to have - once again - picked up the wrong revelation.

Science is more likely to get you to the right answer, if you have the wit to master the technique.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Speaking of having wits, if you do intend to start some business, and ever find and keep customers, you might consider working on being cheerful and diplomatic and polite. You have a very, very lot of catching up to do.

John

who just got off the phone with a possibly new customer... looks good so far.

That assumes that there is a procedure that allows an existing newsgroup to adopt a charter. No such procedure exists. There may very well be documents (possibly multiple competing documents) that call themselves a "charter" but neither the older RFD/CFV process or the process that replaced it has any provision for an existing newsgroup to subsequently adopt a charter.

So i went off reading, while not directly supported it is not prohibited either to the RFD/CFV process. True, the process is focused on creation and deletion of news groups, with some other functions explicitly called out, no function is explicitly ruled out. Thanks for making me go find out.