Communist Manifesto tops list of "Harmful Books"

[Matthew The Great]

This page (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591) contains a list of "harmful" books as decided by 15 profs at various universities. One female was on the list. I wonder how many were white?

I don't know whether to be angry or amused....

[redstar2000]

Be amused! :lol:

It is a perfect illustration of the sheer mindlessness of neo-con "scholarship".

It's funny...the same people who complain bitterly of a "pro-left" bias in academia turn right around and demonstrate the paleolithic character of their own paradigm.

I'm surprised that Mein Kampf made the list...and Copernicus didn't. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

The list was compiled by Conservative American scholars and "public policy leaders"

It is not a compiliation from academia.

It was made by conservatives for a conservative magazine. It shond t suprise anyone that Leftist literature tops the list. (with the exception of Mein Kampf).

I know one document that should be on the list; The Constitution of the United States of America.

[Matthew The Great]

It's silly to call a book "harmful", anyway. It's not the book itself. It's the person who reads the text within the covers and how they interpret the words.

A few notable books left off: The Bible, The Koran, Any book by L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

[bed_of_nails]

That was a horribly sexist, Christian list.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm gonna go out tomorow and try to find all of those books, with the exception of Hitler's. They look great.

These guys are total ass-holes.
Blantantly negelecting the importance of the feminist movement and working class struggle. Either they don't realize that in 1848 millions of people were working in absolutely dreadful and dangerous enviroments for incredibly long hours a day and something needed to have been done, whether or not you believe in class struggle, or they're just total fucking sadistic fascists.

[encephalon]

Blantantly negelecting the impotance of the feminist movement and working class struggle.

err.. I hope you meant importance :unsure:

[bed_of_nails]

Blantantly negelecting the impotance of the feminist movement and working class struggle.---Bold mine


:lol: There are few mispellings that change the entire context of the sentence, but that is one of them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

:lol:
shut up
it's 1:30 in the morning here

[Severian]

It's like a virtual book-burning.

Assumes that bad books, that is bad ideas, are the cause of bad actions.

[Che1990]

I want to know how the communist manifesto is more harmful than mein kampf? What???

[encephalon]

well obviously because it scares them more! :P

[Severian]

It's a lot more harmful to them.

Some of these books, I gotta wonder how anyone could think they've had any effect at all on the world. Like Adorno or Foucault.

[YKTMX]

:lol: This list is great.

I mean, I can see why Charlie and Chairman Meow are on there, but they even put KEYNES as a 'harmful' author which shows that they are on the lunatic fringe of the loony right.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:59 PM
but they even put KEYNES as a 'harmful' author which shows that they are on the lunatic fringe of the loony right.
His economic theories were a disaster. He's harmful.

[YKTMX]

His economic theories were a disaster.

Oh, rubbish. Keynes' theories were a crucial part of the Marshall Plan and the post-war stability is mainly down to his theories, as well as the permanent arms economy.

[Andy Bowden]

Keynesianism was basically an attempt to try and reform Capitalism. It was a response to the growth of both the Soviet Union and Communist parties in Europe. It was Keynes theories that lead to cuts in Social Services and increased unemployment - these lead to Thatchers victory in '79 who threw out Keynesianism in favour of free market capitalism.

Keynesiasm is often displayed as being "socialist" by Thathcherites. It is nothing of the sort, and Britain has never been a Socialist country, not even under '70s Labour govt's.

[codyvo]

Well now that Fahrenheit 451 has come true you guys can refer to me as One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish, yeah I know its not the most intellectual but hey, easy to remember.

Seriously though, I don't think any of them are harmful, even Hitler's! These are just a bunch of whiteys trying to get together and censor what we can read and tell us how to live our life and what god to believe in.

[Publius]

Hilarious list. How can a book be harmful? Are it's pages espescially sharp? It's font uninviting? Is it written on low quality paper?



And what the fuck was:

On Liberty
by John Stuart Mill

doing on there?


They really do hate liberty, the fuckers.

[Publius]

And Keynesianism is worthless.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:06 PM
Oh, rubbish. Keynes' theories were a crucial part of the Marshall Plan and the post-war stability is mainly down to his theories, as well as the permanent arms economy.
They give stability for about ten minutes, then inflation started to rise. Astronomically. Someone once said that Keynesian economics were the economic equivalent of putting a penny in your fuse box.


Keynesiasm is often displayed as being "socialist" by Thathcherites.

It puts unlimited spending power in the hands of the government. In other words, a defacto nationalization of the economy.


It is nothing of the sort, and Britain has never been a Socialist country,

Except that the unions controlled everything and they used to go on strike for ridiculous reasons.


not even under '70s Labour govt's.

I'm sure Red Robbo, Arthur Scargill and George Galloway will tell you a very different story.

[Jersey Devil]

"Human Events" is a conservative publication. Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter have regularly written articles for that publication.


They give stability for about ten minutes, then inflation started to rise. Astronomically. Someone once said that Keynesian economics were the economic equivalent of putting a penny in your fuse box.

Are you referring to the hyperinflation that occured in Weimar Germany? If so then it is grossly oversimplistic to attribute the hyperinflation to Keynesian economics. If anything Keynes argued against the Treaty of Versailles in his publication of The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Futhermore, in another publication entitled How to pay for the war Keynes went on to argue in favor of financing the Second World War via taxation instead of deficit spending precisely to stop high inflation rates. As a matter of fact Germany's funding of the First World War via deficit spending and refusal to raise taxes played a large role in why hyperinflation occurred during the Weimar years in the first place.

[Deepest Red]

Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

Guess he couldn't..
:lol:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

All I got's to say is: the "scholars" who made that list were morons.

I need to read all the books that are on that list that I haven't read yet. :cool:

[Andy Bowden]

Professor, a "Nationalised economy" does not equal Socialism. State control of the means of production is not the ultimate objective of genuine Socialism - rather worker ownership of these industries.

The 1984 - 1985 miners strike was a dispute between a publicly owned coal company and the miners, so state-owned companies can treat their workers just as badly as those in private ownership.


Also, Arthur Scargill has set up his own party the Socialist Labour Party which claims that Britain has never been Socialist.

[YKTMX]

Interesting example. I think you'll find the SLP only calls for "public ownership" and "proper management" of the industries. Does that mean Scargill's not a socialist?

[Andy Bowden]

Well Scargill's a Stalinist so that revokes his Socialist status automatically :lol:

He's also a sectarian bastard, standing SLP candidates against the SSP :angry:

[YKTMX]

Exactly. It was funny seeing them get 4,000 votes in my constituency because Michael Martin was standing as "speaker", so loads of voters went for the only "labour" party on the list.

[Holocaustpulp]

Just goes to show conservatives hate thought and - above all - liberty.

- HP

[FatFreeMilk]

Thank goodness these guys don't actually have any real influence in anything important. If only they had it their way. Like burger king.

Them having silent spring on that list shows how badly they really want to fuck things over. Not only do they not care about people but they don't give a shit about the enviroment either.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:14 AM
I'm surprised that Mein Kampf made the list...and Copernicus didn't. :lol:
haha :lol: good one.

Yea, be amused.

The fact that conservatives voted a manifesto for the most dangerous book says something good about the real world.
When they see the manifesto they see the world, and when they see Nietzche they see themselves: and it scares the hell out of them!

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:56 PM
.

Thank goodness these guys don't actually have any real influence in anything important. If only they had it their way. Like burger king.

Them having silent spring on that list shows how badly they really want to fuck things over. Not only do they not care about people but they don't give a shit about the enviroment either

Thank you Rachel Carson, thank you for saving the Eagles, I mean, fuck all those people saved from malaria by DDT!


Walter E. Williams (back to story)

October 9, 2002

Killing people

Activists in the environmentalist movement have a callous disregard for people. You say: "What do you mean, Williams? We can't think of a more caring people." First, I'm not talking about sensible people who're concerned about clean air and water. I'm talking about the movement leaders and the politicians they have under their thumbs. Let's look at it. The New York Green Party said in its opposition to pesticide spraying to halt the spread of West Nile disease, "These diseases only kill the old and people whose health is already poor." In East Meadow and Hempstead, N.Y., local officials, following the advice of environmental activists, decided not to spray. Nassau County's Health Commissioner said, "We believe the risk of infection for residents remains quite low." Two county residents became infected with West Nile disease and died. Environment activist Lynn Landes says, "West Nile may be a nasty experience for a very few, fatal for an exceedingly rare number, but as diseases go it's no big deal." According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control statistics, 2,530 Americans have been infected with West Nile disease and 125 died, but to environmentalists that's "no big deal."

American deaths due to environmental activist callousness pale in comparison to other countries. How about a few statistics? In 1972, the activist-controlled Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT, a pesticide once considered a "miracle" for all of the lives it saved by killing the mosquitoes that carried malaria. The ban went into effect despite the evidence that with proper use it posed no health hazard to humans and only little substantial harm to animals. The EPA ban led to diminished DDT production, making the pesticide less available to the world.

What were the effects? In what is now Sri Lanka, there were 2,800,000 malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths in 1948; with the use of DDT there were only 17 cases and no deaths in 1964. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 500,000 in 1969.

Worldwide, malaria's devastating effects all but ended during the time that DDT use was widespread, roughly from 1950 to 1970. DDT was seen as such a miracle that it earned Dr. Paul Muller the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1948. In 1970, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote: "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable."

According to the World Health Organization, now about 2.5 million people die of malaria each year. Most of the victims are in Africa and are children. According to the American Council on Science and Health's president, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, some 60 million or more lives have been needlessly lost since the ban on DDT took effect. Whelan says, "It's a real tragedy that DDT has been so demonized over the years by activist organizations such as Environmental Defense and the regulatory bodies that they have duped."

C.S. Lewis made an observation applicable to do-gooders everywhere: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Publius]

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.318/news_detail.asp

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=89

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Link...micals/ddt.html (http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html)

[bed_of_nails]

If my memory suits me correctly, DDT goes on to later get into the water and food of people and begin causing birth defects.

[Publius]

If my memory suits me correctly, DDT goes on to later get into the water and food of people and begin causing birth defects.

How much does it take?

Is this worth banning it for?

[Cobra]

I’m glad those fuckworms made that list because now I know what books I need to read.

As for DDT, I haven’t tried it myself but I don’t think it’s good for you. I wouldn’t advise drinking it.


god money's not looking for the cure.
god money's not concerned with the sick amongst the pure.
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised.
god money's not one to choose-Trent Reznor
Awesome quote Bed of Nails. Trent Reznor is the shiznik. Pretty Hate Machine is my favorite album.

[codyvo]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it would be neat to read Hitler's book, simply to see what the hell went through his head. Wait I just remembered, the History Channel has a one hour special on each thought he had. :lol:
Seriously though, I would like to read Hitler's book, anybody else thing that would be neat?

[Red Robe Majere]

there was this nazi book it was a fiction and in this book the did this bombing i forgor where but i dont think it was listed and the oklahoma bombing happen because of that book he even did near the same time as in the book

[FatFreeMilk]

Publius highlight the part that mentions Rachel Carlson. I never read her book or nothing but that book did inspire people to take interest in the enviroment back in the day. What's wrong with that?

[Cobra]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it would be neat to read Hitler's book, simply to see what the hell went through his head.
Mein Kampf can be downloaded from fascist websites, though I can’t remember which ones.

Reading writings by fascists is somewhat amusing if your bored. And if you get really bored, you could probably amuse yourself by joining their forums and becoming a “caged commie”. :ph34r:

Whatever floats your boat...

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Red Robe [email protected] 2 2005, 12:48 AM
there was this nazi book it was a fiction and in this book the did this bombing i forgor where but i dont think it was listed and the oklahoma bombing happen because of that book he even did near the same time as in the book
Are you thinking of the Turner Diaries?

FFM,

It seems to me that Publius is trying to say environmentalism just gets people killed. He not-so-indirectly blames Carson for 500 million people killed by malaria (his statistic--may or may not be true... not important right now) since the banning of DDT.

Publius's solution is badly short-sighted. As noted previously, DDT is a toxin not just for birds. Before long, people will start suffering and dying from having DDT in our environment.

And, of course, there is more than one way to fight malaria. Hell, the disease has been eradicated in the First World (which has been DDT-free for decades). But a greedy capitalist will not subsidize cheap, generic medications to fight preventable diseases. That might hurt their opulence just a bit, so that is unacceptable. No, we can only offer the unwashed masses of the Third World cheap poisons they will kill them a bit slower than the malaria. And yet Publius tries to pass this callous attitude off as human compassion.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:37 PM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it would be neat to read Hitler's book, simply to see what the hell went through his head. Wait I just remembered, the History Channel has a one hour special on each thought he had. :lol:
Seriously though, I would like to read Hitler's book, anybody else thing that would be neat?
I've read it. Got it out of the library.

I think it can be educational - as far as understanding what fascism is all about. And recognize what is and isn't a fascist group today, since the larger ones don't openly label themselves fascist.

This is really a pretty decent reading list. There's only one book on their top 10, which I've read and felt like I wasted my time. That's Mao's Little Red Book. But I kinda had to read it to make sure it was a waste of time, if you see what I mean, to see for myself if there was anything there.

(I've read six of their top 10, including all of their top 4. Amazing I'm still alive, having swallowed so much "harmful" literature, huh?)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Red Robe [email protected] 2 2005, 05:48 AM
there was this nazi book it was a fiction and in this book the did this bombing i forgor where but i dont think it was listed and the oklahoma bombing happen because of that book he even did near the same time as in the book
You're talking about McVeigh and the book was the Turner Diaries. I've read it, but it's not that good. Too much racism flowing from it.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Matthew The [email protected] 1 2005, 05:57 AM
It's silly to call a book "harmful", anyway. It's not the book itself. It's the person who reads the text within the covers and how they interpret the words.

A few notable books left off: The Bible, The Koran, Any book by L. Ron Hubbard, etc.
Your argument can be thus said about the Koran, Bible, etc.

[YKTMX]

Not really. Any book which (like the bible) advocates mass murder, slavery, homphobia and racism, not to mention superstition and messianic egoism is pretty dangerous in of itself.

[Matthew The Great]

I think people underestimate the power of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He started a freaking cult and has been quoted as saying all he wants is the money.

[ZeroPain]

I know one document that should be on the list; The Constitution of the United States of America.

Its a highly flawed document not really dangerous.

[OleMarxco]

....And sometimes the most flawed documents make most dangers, ESPECIALLY if it is the constitution of a country! Misunderstandings happen...and cause mishappenings! Flaws and flawed documents, "on purpose" (i.e. faulty by subjective means) and/or "by accident" can cause alot of death... just IMAGINE all the fault of miswriting "All men are equally born............" and writing "All men (See? It's all about men!) are equally torn....(Apart?)........."

[Publius]

Publius highlight the part that mentions Rachel Carlson. I never read her book or nothing but that book did inspire people to take interest in the enviroment back in the day. What's wrong with that?

Oh, only the millions who have died because of her (And others) reckless 'interest in the environment'.

Nothing much.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 2 2005, 06:30 AM



It seems to me that Publius is trying to say environmentalism just gets people killed. He not-so-indirectly blames Carson for 500 million people killed by malaria (his statistic--may or may not be true... not important right now) since the banning of DDT.

Yeah, I blame her.

And do you feel like refuting the number?

And how is it not important?



Publius's solution is badly short-sighted. As noted previously, DDT is a toxin not just for birds. Before long, people will start suffering and dying from having DDT in our environment.

I never gave a solution, I merely posted information.

And give me some facts on the toxicity and lethality of DDT.



And, of course, there is more than one way to fight malaria. Hell, the disease has been eradicated in the First World (which has been DDT-free for decades). But a greedy capitalist will not subsidize cheap, generic medications to fight preventable diseases. That might hurt their opulence just a bit, so that is unacceptable. No, we can only offer the unwashed masses of the Third World cheap poisons they will kill them a bit slower than the malaria. And yet Publius tries to pass this callous attitude off as human compassion.

DDT is a very effective pesticide.

The diesease wasn't 'eradicated' in the First World, it just simply doesn't exist (Is very rare) there.

It's only common in tropical climates, and there are not tropical countries in the first world. And tell me, how could we have eradicated it if we banned DDT? What did we use?

You still have no facts on how 'toxic' DDT is. We use lots of toxic things that are very safe in normal use. Have you drank bleach lately? Why then, would someone ingest DDT?

Can you provide any evidence that Malarial medication would be more effective than DDT use?

Stop with the proselytizing banter. You have zero facts supporting you and you know nothing about DDT.

Give me some answers and statistics, not "Well, if people did this" or "If people did that".

If everyone had sickle cell anemia malaria wouldn't be a problem either, but I don't like that solution very much.

[Andy Bowden]

The problem with pesticides is that eventually mosquitoes and other animals develop a resistance to it, and it becomes useless - insects resistant to DDT appeared one year after it's introduction. Advanced Higher Biology - I knew you'd come in useful one day :D




http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm





I'm not a "green" by the way - I could be in favour of things like Nuclear power if there was a safe way to store the waste, I just think that there should be two opposing scientific opinions in this debate.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:52 PM
And Keynesianism is worthless.
Coming from a libertarian.. you gotta laugh.

If there ever were a failed economic ideology which is mutually exclusive with reality then it is libertarianism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:28 PM



Coming from a libertarian.. you gotta laugh.

If there ever were a failed economic ideology which is mutually exclusive with reality then it is libertarianism.

Yeah, freedom is such a failure..

[Maynard]

Is it really that much of a surprise that conservative scholars would come to such a conclusion.


He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

Its somewhat strange, the way, in which many commentators from the United States like to make themselves believe that everyone wants to be just like them, when, really the American model of Capitalism has no widespread support outside of the United States itself but Marx did in fact predict the rise of Capitalism, Globalization and Bourgeois Democracy "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind only sets itself such tasks as it can solve" and the Communist Manifesto itself, describes the inevitability of globalisation under Capitalism. But then again I find it hard to believe that they have read much of Marx's, let alone Das Kapital.


I would also like to know why these conservatives object to On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, as opposed to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which I believe to have been much more harmful than Mein Kampf.


That was a horribly sexist, Christian list
I don't understand, how can you tell its "Christian" just by the books in the list? And how is it sexist? I also don't see how the list also makes them "neo conservatives" or "fascists" as well or how anyone can tell they are white or their position on the environment


It was Keynes theories that lead to cuts in Social Services and increased unemployment - these lead to Thatchers victory in '79 who threw out Keynesianism in favour of free market capitalism
Keynes theories didn't lead to cuts in Social Services and increased unemployment, they were the theory behind many of the social services being created in the first place and helped to reduce unemployment levels, stemming from the Depression. It's not socialism, true, it is reformist Capitalism but it was instrumental in the creation of welfare states, which barely existed before the 1930's, not its destroyer


They give stability for about ten minutes, then inflation started to rise
The World economy was probably at its most stable from 1948 to 1973, when most of the western nations had Keynesian policies, inflation at that time was not high at all. It was hardly "ten minutes" and when the stability did cease in 1973, inflation was high but not astronomically high.


George Galloway will tell you a very different story.

Arthur Scargill would tell him exactly the same story, as would George Galloway who claimed that Respect party which claims to be socialist is the "the ghost of what [old Labour's] supporters wanted it to be"

I think its important to read fascist literature, not just Mein Kampf but also people like David Irving as well, so that their ideas can be combatted intellecually, to ensure that its completely and utterly discredited.

[LSD]

I donn't understand, how can you tell its "Christian" just by the books in the list?

You can tell by the commentary under each entry.

"The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy."

"His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation."

"He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be."

Plus, yes, you can gather something from the fact that they critisize, mainly, authors who rejected Christian teachings and often critisize them for doing exactly that!


And how is it sexist?

"7. The Feminine Mystique"


Is it really that much of a surprise that conservative scholars would come to such a conclusion.

No.

But doesn't that answer your own questions?

Isn't, in the American context at least, "conservative" pretty much interchangeable with Christian and sexist?

[Maynard]

The quotes you mention could have as easily come from a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu but it is more likely, due to the source that the majority were Christians, I'll concede that and most likely have a primitive view of gender relations but I'm still not convinced that the list shows anything about them being fascists or neo conservatives who don't care about the environment, which incidentally has become a cause of many evangelical Christians lately.

[LSD]

but I'm still not convinced that the list shows anything about them being fascists

Well, they are almost certainly not fascists. That word is definitely overused in the left.


or neo conservatives

They describe themselves as "conservative" and in the context of modern America, it is virtually certain that this means neo-conservative.

It probably doesn't mean classical conservative! :D


who don't care about the environment

Many of the books on their list of "most harmful" would indicate that they don't support environmentalism.

[Maynard]

They describe themselves as "conservative" and in the context of modern America, it is virtually certain that this means neo-conservative.

I don't know, there seems to be a split in modern day conservatism in the United States. Most "conservatives" probably supported the War In Iraq, not because they are Neo Conservatives but because it was a "republican" war, while these same conservatives were much more hesitant in supporting the war in Kosovo, which the Neo Conservatives supported fully, as a whole. While you then have the Pat Buchanan, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft type conservatives who opposed the war against Iraq but are still very much conservatives. It is probably fair to assume that most of them supported the Bush administration and its wars but that alone doesn't make them neo conservatives.


Many of the books on their list of "most harmful" would indicate that they don't support environmentalism
Okay, I didn't see that "The greening of America" was on the list, which could show their contempt for enviromentalism. I should have spotted that

I personally would agree with them on B.F Skinner but I would include books such as "The Bell Curve" "From Time Immemorial" and "Free To Choose"

[Severian]

Probably not neoconservatives. Neoconservatives are not so big on all this "social conservative", "culture war", "religious right" stuff as these folks - notice this list puts Kinsey (sexual revolution), Friedan (feminism), and Comte (atheism) in the top 10 evils.

Neoconservatism is all about foreign policy, that is warmongering....at one time that was their only point of agreement with other Republicans, and the reason they switched parties. Now they tend to agree with other Republicans on economic issues, but they're not part of its right wing on culture-war stuff.

[red_orchestra]

To a fucking Conservative any book is dangerous if it does not explictly promote Capitalism. At least in most book stores in Canada I can buy the Communist Manifesto from any book store. Not once has anyone ever raised an issue about its content. Its a good read!
Chapters sells it...and its a hot seller.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 1 2005, 01:25 PM
All I got's to say is: the "scholars" who made that list were morons.

I need to read all the books that are on that list that I haven't read yet. :cool:
Be careful. :P

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Publius+Jun 3 2005, 12:52 AM--> (Publius @ Jun 3 2005, 12:52 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 11:28 PM



Coming from a libertarian.. you gotta laugh.

If there ever were a failed economic ideology which is mutually exclusive with reality then it is libertarianism.

Yeah, freedom is such a failure.. [/b]
Don't play those silly games with me.

Libertarianism doesn't work because it advocates complete decentralisation and stripping of market regulation within the current system. Any fool can see that is doomed to failure, they place restrictions and saftely measures for a reason.

[4514]

dunno (http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/tyranny_index.htm)
for any one who wants to read- mao's/ little red book, marx engels/ communist manifesto and adolf hitlers/ my struggle.
4514
rank and file

[Professor Moneybags]

Libertarianism doesn't work because it advocates complete decentralisation and stripping of market regulation within the current system.

Unregulated free trade works fine. I do it several times a say.


they place restrictions and saftely measures for a reason.

Because restrictions implies restrictors and the power to restrict = political pull.

[Publius]

Don't play those silly games with me.

Libertarianism doesn't work because it advocates complete decentralisation and stripping of market regulation within the current system. Any fool can see that is doomed to failure, they place restrictions and saftely measures for a reason.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate that.

Do you value workplace safety and regulation? So do many other people.

A free market provides things people want (Like automobiles), so it's only logical to assume they would provide product and workplace safety guidelines, data and reccomendations.

Your assertions stem from a basic misunderstanding of capitalism and government, namely, that government is good and markets are bad.

It is really the other way around.

And as for product saftey, would you buy an unsafe product? Would anyone? Why would a capitalist sell a faulty product when he knows that he will be found out, that regulatory organizations will label this product as unsafe, and he will go out of business?

What person in his right mind would buy and use a deadly product? What person in his right mind would buy a product that might be dangerous or deadly?

Have you ever heard of the Underwriters Labratory?

[Publius]

Taken from: http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorp...apitalism.shtml (http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/ethics/capitalism.shtml)

"Thus was born Underwriters Laboratories Inc., an independent, not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that now conducts over 77,000 product investigations each year. Manufacturers voluntarily submit products to UL for testing and safety verification, and use of UL is not required by law. But few electrical manufacturers would even consider marketing an electrical product without the UL's coveted seal of approval, which is placed on more than nine billion products annually, and is known and trusted the world over.3 Here is an organization that fulfills the function of a government bureau, helping make sure that products comply with rigid safety standards - all without costing the taxpayers a cent - and accomplishes all this because capitalists want to cooperate with it! As this example illustrates, self--interest does not necessarily lead to competition at the expense of cooperation."

Go look on the bottom of say, your toaster. Guranteed, you'll find the UL logo.

Let's just say, don't buy a toaster without that seal.

Another example of the free market at work is the BBB, or Better Business Bureau. You know what they do, right?

[Jersey Devil]

C-Span's Washington Journal is going to talk about this list with a Human Events editor on Saturday morning. Should be interesting.

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Ser...ArchiveDays=30# (http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30#)

ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL
Saturday, June 4th
7:45am - Steve Cobble, AfterDowningStreet.org, Co-Founder & Kevin Aylward, Wizbangblog.com, Editor
8:30am - John Gizzi, Human Events, Political Editor
9:15am - Melissa Pardue, Heritage Foundation, Policy Analyst & Bill Smith, Sexuality Information & Ed. Council, Public Policy V.P.

[guerillablack]

Communist Manifesto is highly dangerous.

[redstar2000]

Questions about Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

1. Who owns it? Since it is incorporated, who holds the majority of its shares?

2. Who pays for its services? Presumably it has engineers on its payroll, has to have laboratories, testing equipment, etc. Who pays for all that stuff?

Note that if UL charges the manufacturer, then the manufacturer simply bundles the cost of certification into its wholesale (and ultimately retail) price.

It may be "free" to the "taxpayer"...but it ain't "free" to the purchaser.

3. What stops the manufacturer from submitting a "cleaned up" sample of its product for certification? (Consumer Research actually goes out and buys a product "off the shelf" for testing.)

4. Once UL certification is obtained, what guarantees that the certified product will continue to be manufactured to the same standards as those that were originally approved?

---------------

The general question -- why would a corporation knowingly manufacture and distribute a hazardous product and risk its very existence? -- has a number of different answers.

Most of those answers revolve about "risk/benefit cost analysis".

The equation is a complicated one. How much does it cost to reduce the failure rate; what are the financial consequences of failure; how much does insurance against failure cost; what is the relationship between a given failure rate, the cost of reducing it, and customer acceptance of the eventual retail price?

As consumers, our options are limited: "I won't buy it because it costs too much" and "I won't buy it because everybody knows it's crap".

So the capitalist must make a careful and even delicate decision: what failure rate will the market "tolerate" compared to what price the market will "tolerate"?

And the answer is different from one industry to another, of course. Any product that fails and, as a consequence, causes immediate injury or death to humans...better be pretty damn good. On the other hand, product failure that causes simple annoyance or inconvenience can be accepted...up to a point.

If Boeing loses an airplane every few years...well, they can afford it. But if planes started crashing every couple of months, there'd be hell to pay!

There are probably UL certified products that fail and cause electrical fires every week...but unless it's the same product that is failing, chances are that no one notices. It's just "bad luck".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:40 AM




1. Who owns it? Since it is incorporated, who holds the majority of its shares?

Don't know.



2. Who pays for its services? Presumably it has engineers on its payroll, has to have laboratories, testing equipment, etc. Who pays for all that stuff?

Reading their About, it appears they are really more of a collection of labs than a single entity.

They apparently make their money by charging for product inspection. I would also assume the individual labs recieve some charity or grants.


Note that if UL charges the manufacturer, then the manufacturer simply bundles the cost of certification into its wholesale (and ultimately retail) price.

Fractions of pennies.



It may be "free" to the "taxpayer"...but it ain't "free" to the purchaser.

Then buy products that aren't UL approved. They exist.



3. What stops the manufacturer from submitting a "cleaned up" sample of its product for certification? (Consumer Research actually goes out and buys a product "off the shelf" for testing.)

I'm certain they make sure the product they're testing is the same as the product being sold. If it wasn't the same product, they wouldn't put their seal of approval on it.



4. Once UL certification is obtained, what guarantees that the certified product will continue to be manufactured to the same standards as those that were originally approved?

Again, I would say it's a stipulation of the UL logo. You have to maintain a certain standard.



So the capitalist must make a careful and even delicate decision: what failure rate will the market "tolerate" compared to what price the market will "tolerate"?

This assumes that making products safer makes them inherently more expensive. In many cases it does, but in many cases it doesn't.

And bad publicity is enormously expensive. Ask Firestone tires how they were doing after the story about their tires broke.

I personally would still not buy Firestone tires after that debacle.


There are probably UL certified products that fail and cause electrical fires every week...but unless it's the same product that is failing, chances are that no one notices. It's just "bad luck".

No electrical product can be perfectly safe. When dealing with electricity, flamable materials, and often, stupid people, you're going to get a decent amount of fires.