Letters to the Editor
-
GC
LWM says: "I'm L.W.M., and want to Bask in the sun with bucky-one?" LWM luvs bucky1!
I admit I don't mind having him around. As I said on another thread, he's like the kid Tom Sawyer cons into whitewashing Aunt Becky's fence. He comes when I summon him and opens his mouth. That's usually enough to strip the whitewash of that fence. He does my chores for me.
Here you go, GC
Georges Palante, 1909, on the differences between anarchism and individualism.
...Anarchism is an exaggerated and mad idealism. Individualism is summed up in a trait common to Schopenhauer and Stirner: a pitiless realism. It arrives at what a German writer calls a complete “dis-idealization” (Entidealisierung) of life and society...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/palante/1909/individualism.htm
It isn't very long but it's not poetry, either.
Which one are you?
-
Re Free Rider Problem
The Free Rider Problem is infinitely more complex outside the limited domain of economics. The wikipedia article sticks to economics, perhaps because it is written by economists, perhaps because it is written by someone who wanted to finish it in a reasonable time. A taste of how difficult and complicated it is can be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/
But be warned: there are social scientists and philosophers who spend their whole lives working on this problem or aspects of it. Even in limited domains, like affirmative action or prison sentencing, it gets extremely complex extremely quickly.
Just thought you might like to know (know two people who've spent their lives on it).
-
It isn't complicated --
Jay C. asks --
"What does a citizen (or, by extension, corporate "citizens") do when asked to cooperate in a legitimate investigation by a law-enforcement or governmental agency? I realize that the definition of "legitimate" is the crux of the matter, but if, say, a telecommunications company receives a request from the government to cooperate in an investigation (of any sort) - what kind of assurances do you think they should have to demand before acquiescing?"
It isn't complicated. The gov't adheres to the law, thus gets a warrant "compelling" the citizen to cooperate. That is usually sufficient to "indemnify" the citizen.
What Bushit did, by contrast, was manipulate multi-million dollar gov't contracts in order to "make an offer" to the telecoms they couldn't refuse. Of interesting note: the CEO of the one telecom. company that refused to cooperate with Bushit's subversion of Constitution and law was prosecuted for "insider trading" or some such. Sound familiar? Can you say Siegelman?
-
lwm still a dirty slime ball ...
Rothbard, Rockwell, et. al. adopted a Leninist strategy in the 60s. They pandered to any political sector they could if it would advance their own agenda, from the Panthers to the Paleopukes. Those are some principles for you. Rockwell still does it, which is why any knowledgeable person holds them in contempt. I think LaRouche learned it from Rothbard. I have principles. I don't care how much you hate Bush. That's between you and him. I'm more interested in your principles, or if you even have any.
-- L.W.M.
Still no data, no proof, no positions, no words of his own other than smear and slime. Does this represent what Glenn's blog is all about? Is lwm trying to be the "anti-Glenn"? If so, he is spot on.
-
Jay C.
I don't have much time to write something more extensive, but this will do for now.
What does a citizen (or, by extension, corporate "citizens") do when asked to cooperate in a legitimate investigation by a law-enforcement or governmental agency? I realize that the definition of "legitimate" is the crux of the matter, but if, say, a telecommunications company receives a request from the government to cooperate in an investigation (of any sort) - what kind of assurances do you think they should have to demand before acquiescing?
These telecoms are not your typical "citizens." They have well-paid, full-time legal staff who are trained precisely in such matters, and who routinely review requests such as these. They understand the legal standards, and the legal standards are actually quite clear, despite the Administration's very novel interpretations of statutory and constitutional law.
Trust me on this, these companies almost certainly knew better. They know what the government has to show them to get access to their networks, because they receive these requests routinely. The warrantless wiretaps and other activities were markedly different, and any competent telecom lawyer (or even a manager) would have recognized this.
-
lwm, still a liar (or stupid?)
little wanker: "... I admit I don't mind having him around. As I said on another thread, he's like the kid Tom Sawyer cons into whitewashing Aunt Becky's fence. ..."
You need to read that again if you can read. I am just telling you that you never, ever, never back up your slime and smear. That makes you a neo-con like Limbaugh.
Say, could he be Limbaugh? We know they are both insane.
Timberman is so proud. He says so every once in a while.
-
L.W.M. This is not a Saturday love letter... Respectfully.
"Which one are you?" I'm getting confused.
Wang Chang said, "Is this the case that Yao gave under heaven to shun?"
I do heave up sometimes.
Menicius did shun some.
My home does need to get tidied-up some. I'm way behind. Goofing.
Maybe the loud noise in the bathroom was a childbirth of someone?
okay. O so-stooped again.
-
JNgarya
Here's tthe case you mention http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/20070809_inside_the_data_mine/
The thing I wonder about is, was Nacchio really dirty, or after he sold some stock, but before Qwest was notified of the nixed contract, did somebody from the WH or DoJ leak the info about the lost contract to those with stock, or brokers of same? I.e. , did somebody in the executive branch manipulate the price so they could play "gotcha" (and possibly help contacts make out better financially)? Sounds like a tinfoil hat scenario, but with this bunch nothing can be ruled out.
-
GC
Ran across your ~ gooperish doppleganger . Good that you didn't go down that road and are the Good Celery . Here's the bad celery , (com)posting in the U.P. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dahlgren
(In his defense, UP winters could drive anybody batwingnutshit crazy :)