Re: CONTROL FREAKS

[Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>]

> 
> Come on, Jim, you've been arguing that totalitarians can ignore
> economics.  Answer my questions.  How long did the "Thousand Year
> Reich" last?  What totalitarian states can you name that have had
> any legs at all?  There are none.
> 
You have obviously misinterpreted my statements intent. I do not hold that
any government can ignore economics. As a matter of fact, back there a ways
I alluded to the fall of most totalitarian regimes being linked to the
economics of open trade. As long as their is a market outside the totalitarian
keen there is a threat to its stability.

The Thousand Year Reich lasted less than a thousand years. I fail to see
how this is relevant to the discussion. I have not addressed in any manner
the concept that governments, totalitarian or otherwise, are guaranteed a 
endless bounty of curruption. All governments and structures fail.

As to legs, I assume you mean sufficient force to exist? The fist couple
that come to mind are China and Singapore. Neither are at this moment in 
any kind of collapse that is apparent. As to their being good examples from
your point of view, they have only existed since the end of WWII so they may
be too  young...

> 
> No, of course not.  The Roman circuses were public spectacles.
> They were a form of entertainment (like professional sports
> today).  Their propose was to distract the populace, not to
> eliminate enemies of the state.  That's what Crucifixion and
> other types of execution were for.  Often, the participants were
> pros, free men who did it for gold and glory.  Hell, Rome wasn't
> even a totalitarian state.  Where do you get these ideas?  The
> Nazis were another matter, but they still didn't make the cut.
> Show me your successful totalitarian states.
>
I fail to understand how 'public' the spectacle needs to be before it 
qualifies under your definition. Littery thousands of Christians were 
killed in the Arena because of failure to make their citizenship oaths.
I see this as the main point and why I feel justified in making the 
comparison between the Romans and the Germans (not to mention the fact
that Hitler was a big Roman freak..ever look at standards for Rome and for
Nazi Germany?).

> I've looked.  I repeat, who are "they"?  You know, like some
> names.  They can't be too powerful, since social/cultural/legal
> non-compliance is a growth industry.  God, what the hell are
> you so afraid of?
>
How about the folks  involved in Whitewater? About The Pentagon Papers,
Air America, etc. Afraid? I am not afraid.

> 
> But that's the point.  Economics *is* like building a bridge.
> You can't spend money you don't have.  You can't create wealth by
> printing money.  There are rules, and no amount of subjectivism
> or Roadrunner logic will exempt totalitarian states from them.
> But if you disagree, please prove me wrong by naming the states
> that have "created their own reality."  I bet you can't.
>
The US government does exactly that, they print money that has no backing
other than a few equations and then wonder why our economy cycles the way
it does. Economics is NOT like building a bridge. A bridge consists of aa 
few well known interactions and a basic understanding of the limits of the 
materials that you use. Economics is about trying to understand what happened
and why in a system revolving around the concepts of stock exchanges, banks
that are government backed, etc. 

In Oregon there is no longer any reference to 'pornography' in their laws.
In short their legal body has decided that such concepts are not applicable
to their society. The French have government enforced board which reviews
the language and decides on what is leglal or not; they also prohibit
the use of crypto by their citizens to a large extent. The Mormons build
a religion which strongly influences a government in Utah which effects 
all those peoples reality. In Shanghai, China it is against the law to own
a cat or dog without government permission. 

> 
> Apparently, my comment about *structuring your life* so that you
> could ignore the control freaks went right over your head at the
> speed of light.
>
And in the process you become a control freak. You become what you most
hate (or want to avoid).