We have so much in common, bill, isn't it time we started working together???


I too am against the big corporations. I believe in exposing their misdeeds. I believe in the power of the people, big and small, to force them into better ways of operating.

I big government would be good if we could garuntee that the government would not be corrupted, but it always is.

Isn't it really you and I who are destroying the world by having to have the private car. In Tokyo we have fantastic pubic transport systems. We have a FREE bus which is driven by a low pollution engine. Kids are taking up the modern form of manpowered taxis. Taxi drivers are buying hybrid cars and charging less. If a country with no proper religion (they mix the two or three religions or more) can do this, with a capitalist system, then a religious country can do it.

I will explain why I was put off socialism.

In Britain they made the transport system government owned. The drivers and staff were paid fair salaries, and they decided that they had jobs for life, were virtually unsackable. Maybe they were under paid...but they were not starving because many immigrants now do those jobs very happily. Anyway, about 17 years ago I recall asking one of the staff at a station something, and he was curt and rude. This also happened in my town, but I did not want to make myself a name as a problem-maker there. I told this man that I really really looked forward to the privatization of British Rail, because then they would all care about the customers.

Trains are late, and there are no apologies. Not good enough excuses, if any. One guy would not show a ticket because the train was about one half hour late without reason. They called the police (three cars) and the whole train full of home-going workers was kept a further three quarters of an hour while this problem was dealt with.

In Tokyo, the trains are always on time. The customer is always right. If you lost a ticket they would forgive you because they do not want you using another line. We do not have total choice. Some lines are only run by the state. But they are all excellent. Maybe the state can afford to give them a good salary that they do not want to lose.

This is a Capitalist Society, and it is far from perfect. But it is the best I can think of, off the top of my head. When companies persist in abusing their employees, the employee may have a stroke and then the company will have to pay for that person's lifetime in a home for wheelchair bound people. And it will be a very very nice home.

What I am against is the combination of old world England companies, where the owner just went riding, or playing golf while the business was run by hirelings and thus we had that bank going under in Syngapore. (Bearings, I believe)

And I am against the American system which is not working in the UK and is threatening the whole culture of Japan. This system I cannot right now recall, what my students said it had done to the Oil Industry here. And I cannot recall the experiences I had in England of it a couple of summers ago. And I lost an article about why it was failing in England. It is something to do with managers being highly paid and not there, and cutting back on staff until the service is abismal (in the UK managers and workers are in it together to keep the owners from ever knowing what problems are happening at the bottom levels - something like that.)

In Japan an owner of a large company goes in at 6 am and puts on a workman's overall and sweeps the floor. I have heard such stories many times. They work as hard as they work their employees. If a job is made unnecessary they look at that employees record of loyalty and give them a window job, one which is just looking out of the window all day. If they get old the same thing.

Before taxi driving and truck driving was done by a system in which only a few people could take part in it. Then they opened it up to everyone. Suddenly the market was flooded with unnecessary drivers, and idling truck drivers with no education. The result was many taxi drivers jobs were put on the line. From then on they had to work ceaselessly in order to make ends meet. ALl these taxi drivers idling engines waiting for one customer. Great lines of taxis. I disagree with this opening up to all. I liked the Japan of before where professionals were protected and could make a good living for doing their jobs well.

Before gas stations could employ people. There would be a filler-up of gas, a man or woman to wipe the windows, a man or woman to empty the ash tray, a man or woman to collect the money. Then America brought its system....and suddenly self service stations opened up and those people lost their jobs. The government had to pay people to stay at home. That is wrong.

The biggest threat to Engish Schools, of which there were thousands and thousands in Tokyo alone, has been a conveyer belt system in which teachers are told exactly what to brainwash the students with, in small toilet sized rooms. Windows so that they can be checked up on. This system is called NOVA. It is a Western run English school which has tried to grab a monopoly. But the teachers all end up with problems. No wonder. I could never work there. Anyway I failed the interview. He he he. The best thing that ever happened in my life. They had a problem with teachers going on drugs, and no wonder.

In the UK my sister's house needed rewiring. They had been cheated by either the previous owner, or the previous owner's electricians. It was in a dangerous state of repair. They did not have much money for the job, but somehow they got enough together. Then they started searching for someone or company to do it. There was not one company in thecountry that would agree to the job. However many intelligent and fit men are paid by the Labour government to remain out of work completely. You cannot get a plumber easily. Then they charge phenomenal fees for doing a job. The work is there. A nanny state is preventing the men from working. I don't know about economics, but something is wrong there.

They are bringing in the nanny state to Japan right now. Paying people not to work. The workers are starving and forced into the towns. This is socialism I think. Bring all the people under the government's care. Anyone who insists on working freelance can live on the streets because they certainly won't be able to get a home, or pay any rents, and the other fees for renting a house. This is making the gap between the rich (on benefits) and poor (skilled workers, farmers etc) enormous. Everyone is forced to go on welfare, even those who wanted to work.

I just went out and on my way back saw TWO men on bikes with ENORMOUS bags of recyclable cans that they have gone round to collect independently, from the rubbish areas today, on the day the recyclables are put out around here.

The working poor.

In the uk the SOCIALIST/LABOUR government saves money.

It makes sure that the cheapest (newest) teachers get jobs. This means that those living in a neighbourhood grow too old, so they are got rid of. Where do these experienced teachers go while the pupils have to endure changes of staff the whole time, and the staff is always young, and on edge wondering when they will be got rid of. At promotion time, the cheapest is promoted.

The children are dumbed down and unruly. This suits the government very well because they are going to have to do the government's bidding come WW111. No point in wasting education on them.

The Socialist/Labour government of the UK, took up arms with the fascist militarism of the USA. They did what the Conservatives would have done only better. So British people had no proper Labour party, just another Conservative wing.

The Socialist/Labour party allowed all the brains to leave the country for jobs in America and Australia, and to make sure we had the medical services barely covered, they imported brains and skills from Malawi and places, leaving the poor with NOBODY at all.

To say that I have turned Conservative would be a lie. But I have certainly felt betrayed by the socialists. They are hand in hand with the ILLUMINATI. I hate to say this, being a life long Labour voter in the UK during the Thatcher years.

They have elected the best Conservative Leader in years, to the Labour Leadership. Read the Manchurian Candidate. Not about the brainwashing so much, as about how politics is at the very top. It is a CON.

We are working together. CGCS participation is work. They should be paying us.

The mafia says, there is no guarantees in life but death and taxes.

Yes government has it's problems. But those problems are better fixed than ignored or given over to profiteering. Profiteering only makes cosmetics trump quality. Giving-in to privatization instead of fixing the government is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Government has more potential to fix the problems with business than business has to fix the problems with government.

Japan strives for efficiency more than America. This is because America would rather have profiteering than efficiency. Japan is efficient despite capitalism more than its efficient "because" of capitalism.

America and Japan would be even more efficient if there was more telecommuting. But capitalists want to drain as much money as they can from low-tech inefficient consumption before they introduce high-tech innovative efficient conservation.

This is a case of who's the boss. In both cases there is a common boss, "the customer" and an uncommon boss. The uncommon boss for government employees is the government. The uncommon boss for for-profit business is money.

Ideally in a democracy, the government and the customers are the same. The unhappy customer would have equal say (no matter how rich or poor) in the form of votes. Those votes would effect the government employee's job security. But if the governmental participation problem were fixed, the government employee would have just as much concern with customer satisfaction as any private company.

In contrast, even in the ideal capitalist system, money is more important to the business than the customer. It's not one-person-one-vote, but one-dollar-one-vote. That means private employees are more concerned with the richer customer's satisfaction than the poor citizens. If you can't afford the service, than you have no say at all. The end result is that fewer people have a say in customer satisfaction in an ideal capitalist system than would have a say in the ideal government system.

Okay, I am listening, bill. I have to go and pray now. But I will be back.

How do you feel about gun-ownership, and also, what about the dumbing down through economics which I described done by both Labour and Conservative governments, not sure who did the most there?

Pray where?

I just google my favourite two psalms at this time - 130 and 51. Go nowhere.

Please read the edit on my last but one post.

Lazyboy, you're Catholic, right? How come you have such a beef with the Jesuits? I thought they were pretty enlightened. They're definitely scholars.

Just because they have been infiltrated by Satanists does not mean I do not respect them, fear them, and even love them. You could not read their history without having a love-hate relationship with them. Whereas the Franciscans I love. But the Franciscans may have been infiltrated too. In fact I think they have.

Thank you for the excellent question. It puzzles me too sometimes. Francis Xavier and Ignatius also give me some concern. They were noblemen and both military boys. They were in the first case, suddenly converted when his parents died, and he had no ties, and in the second case, got wounded and lost all hopes of a good marriage.

Beamer, I am having somewhat of a religious crisis, again. I will always be a Catholic, but in my heart I fear the Protestants are more correct.

I doubt the difference means that much to God.

That's because they wanted cheaper labor. Profiteers eventually trade professionalism for profits.

Automation is inevitable.

It's better to pay displaced workers to stay home than to put them on the streets when there's no jobs for them to fill or pay for their jailing after they commit crimes.

This is where I differ. The Amish people have a nice life without automation. I believe it is healthier. Maybe life is harder but does that mean it is worse. Read the famous poem Horses. I believe after the bomb horses will come back into their own.

Paying people to stay at home does not work. The young see that dad's do not work, what kind of example is that? What motivation for them to work at school?

I know personally through my friend, Misaki's mother, that it destroyed their marriage. The dad hardly ever works, and has girlfriends. It is a nice life for him....

Thanks, PP. I needed that.

It is a man's right and duty to work and to love his wife.

This sounds more like communism than socialism.

Communism is often mistaken for socialism because communism was viewed as the way to socialism. Many people start with communism for the sake of socialism, but never reach socialism.

The ideal socialist system is half capitalism and half welfare. Welfare provides everyones basic needs. What's left over can be competed for with capitalism. This is in contrast to fascism or unregulated capitalism, which forces everyone to compete for everything, losers be damned.

I think that communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin.

Blair proved that he was in league with Conservatives, when it came to the Iraqi War Vote (okay I know about the blackmail version of the conspiracy...Dunblane....FBI lists of pedophiles) he gave the voters NO CHOICE. It was a disgrace. It was the blackest day in Britain's history in my opinion. Suddenly all those who put Labour in power were just not listened to. And the wimps on the other side, instead of giving up their ideology of fascism for just a second to provide what they are paid for, an OPPOSITION party to the one in power, they just succumbed to expedience. Why should they give up dearly loved Capitalism along the lines of BUSHCO just to oppose Labour who was now going along with militaristic fascism? If Labour was not doing it's job, then Conservatives were not going to support the country's wish and oppose what Labour was doing. It showed the DESPARATE NEED for a third party. The same thing went for the last two elections in the USA. Everyone wanted to throw a brick at whathisname, the one who split the vote, but in reality he was doing what nobody else had the guts to do, and that was to provide a real choice. Unfortunately he got blamed for Bush winning, when we all know it was so fixed, there was no way of stopping the Repubs, they even had Clinton working FOR them, both Clintons.

Profiteering does this too.

This is a problem with the global economy more than the individual economies. When there is an aggressive consumer in the mix, peaceful conservation is not an option. The USSR was defeated trying to keep up with American aggression.

The solution is not to be equally aggressive, because it just destroys the planet. Aggressors need to be tamed by the system. What confuses most isolationists today is that the system is global. The global system needs to be fixed before many individual systems can be fixed.

From what I have seen and heard of China, their Capitalism is far worse than COmmunism. The poor were given no choice, their land was siezed for high-rise offices for the rich. Now factory workers are slaves to Capitalism. Pollution abounds everywhere, whole rivers are destroyed. If anything, Capitalism may be worse than Communism, for the environment.

If you look at how things are organized globally, there are institutions that connect all the rich peoples, and people. Whatever happens down below the rich will take care of their own no matter what party is in power. Thus Vietnam welcomes Cliinton, and gives him expensive security, months before he comes, the Vietnamese are spying on each other in black vans covered in antennae. At the top all the people are taking care of the rich. No matter what party. Thus whenever a Prime Minister retires he is always honored by the next PM no matter what party they are from. They do this to ensure they will all be protected from the wrath of the public, or the hand of the law. Give out Knighthoods galore etc. etc. Raise the salaries of all politicians. The two parties are working in tandem.(sp?)

It is to do with,....shhh....the conspiracy. Once you can really get into that you can predict future elections with remarkable accuracy.

For gun ownership, I feel that it should be every individual's right to refuse gun ownership. Voluntary arms reduction.

You need to change the way you view smart and dumb. Intelligence is a scalable concept. Ants are individually dumb, but ant colonies are smarter than any other colonies on the planet. Capitalists are individually smart, but dumb down the entire system to believe that government is dumber.

Capitalism has one advantage. It provides people with choices. If the state is not doing a proper job of educating the young, then you can pay to go private. The same goes for medical care. But socialism would have everyone part of the System, and if there is a conspiracy, and I believe that there certainly is, then I would rather be able to pay to go private. It is not foolproof, but it means that any 'mistakes' that are fatal, will cost them a lot of bad publicity.

Now my mind tells me that the Capitalism of no welfare at all for emergencies, is all wrong. But, at the same time, thinking in terms of the medical profession are the only ones who can help you, is also wrong-thinking. There are many ways of preventing illness, which we do not even think about because we have been dumbed down, and traditional practitioners have been given a terrible press in favour of the big pharmaceuticals, who may be damaging us, and charging us at the same time.

I don't mean to be a bitch but the ants reminds me of the chaingangs or slave labour, or the Jesuits oath of blind obedience. An ant is programmed and not able to think creatively.

'Voluntary' arms reduction sounds like one of those things on 'Dad's army'. The boss says 'I need three volunteers. Smith, Jones, and Thompson, okay?'

Voluntary is not really voluntary when conditions are suspect. I believe in voluntary stashing of arms in the back room. Just in case they come for me and mine.

Bill, you may be right. The dumbing down really worries me. Manuel Valenzuela writes about this topic. I think of him as a socialist. What do you think?

When deciding where to have our child, where to have him delivered. . we went to a large hospital. There were about forty staff in the reception room. The person at the reception desk was brusque. They did not, apparently, want any foreigners. We stayed about two minutes and then left.

We went to a little clinic run by ONE doctor, who sometimes takes on an extra doctor when things are particularly hectic, or if he has a rare holiday. He has nurses working for him of course. I am not going to give them ten out of ten, but I was treated well enough. I certainly had individual attention, though sometimes one nurse ignored my calls, or told me I had to put up with the problem I had, via the intercom.

But these clinics are all closing. I do not know why but I suspect that they are scared by propaganda of lawsuits when things go wrong. What about big hospitals, if we have no choice we will be treated like unwelcome problems instead of precious patients' with lives to protect for the sake of 'our' reputation, and any possible lawsuits. In this system, patients come first.

I was given a form to fill in to write down any complaints. I gave it back unfilled in.

Britain lost its little 'Baby hospitals' a few decades ago. In Japan 40 years ago the most popular way to give birth was to go and stay with a female who was an unqualified midwife, but known for her ability to look after mother and child for the week or so, and would keep them in her house.

Will we be safer when we are forced into large cities, where the government is so rich from slave labour of subjects, that it will be able to easily afford the bills of 'compensation' when a child is lost, or a wife dies in childbirth. Water off a duck's back. Nobody is sacked. The System takes care of its own. And God help those who were dissenters.

Meanwhile my brother-in-law is forced to rewire the house on his own, after work. At work they are threatening to reduce wages and he has a big family. That is Blair's Labour Party. It would be better for my sister to get a divorce and go on welfare, but they are too proud to do that.

I didn't say that automation was ideal. I said automation was inevitable.

The Amish are free to live without automation in an automated world because of the automation protecting their free country from other countries' automation.

Paying people to stay at home does work for those who don't want to work. Those who want to work are free to work.

Once you understand the A.I. of money, you don't need to know conspiracies, because they all serve the open agenda of money.

Again, you are confusing communism with socialism. Communism tries to subdue capitalism. Socialism only tries to tame capitalism. There is capitalism in socialism.

You have even more choice in socialists capitalism than you do with other forms of capitalism. Unregulated capitalism can monopolize, giving the consumer less choice. Socialist capitalism gives the consumer choice between government provisions or private competition. Capitalism gives the citizens no choice but to compete. Socialism gives the consumer a choice between competing for private capital or accepting government provisions.

I don't know much about him. I'm in to ideas more than the people who host them. Ideas live longer. Some ideas seem to be immortal.

Agreed about the money thing as well. We have a lot in common. I just think it goes beyond money to an inevitable end game. That is, that the population of the world is seen, by governments, to be a problem to them. This population needs to be dumbed down, or else they will be on to the scam of Capitalism and how, as you say, if left to itself, it will give people fewer choices. Monopolies, destruction of the environment. The people are beginning to see this, if a little too late. So the world is ripe for PLAN B which equals SOCIALISM.

What worries me is that the end game of socialism - and fascism - is to subdue the people. It doesn't matter how nicely or badly a present is wrapped, it is the contents I am more interested in. (Unlike Japanese people, who seem to put much more effort into packaging than the Brits do). In fascism it is a case of let the strongest survive, and so the weak go to the wall. In socialism it is a case of preventing people from making their own way to the top to compete with the people who have assumed all the power for their own elite families/clubs/organizations.

When the end game is the same it matters little to me who is stopping me from doing what I want to do, and becoming the person I want to be. Whichever side they are on, I am against them...to the extent that I will support and defend my enemies' rights, as long as that enemy is claiming legitimate rights and not immoral ones. (The latter being complete freedom to say what you like and ignoring the likely consequences of it on people who cannot defend themselves, and the freedom to kill your own (or anyone else's) child before or after birth.) There is no right to torture people...this is sheer lunacy, or devilry or both.

The NWO is against families, private ownership, and freedom to practice or not any religion you like. They are for populaton control, wars, revolutions, vaccinations, abortion, porn and any other thing that makes them money. I think they will stop alcohol again because it is a comfort to the poorest and most suffering of people. So I would stock up on it, together with the guns.

How do you feel about legalizing drugs??? I am for it.

I have to say that compared to socialism, Marxism seems more my scene. Although I do not know much about Marxism. They say ''To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.'' Socialism would seem to be ''To each according to his desires, from each according to their willingness.''

Socialism seems to say ''Get into line, do the job we give you, we will tax you to pay for those who do not want to work.'' That seems all wrong to me. It is the duty of the government, perhaps to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but it is their duty to provide work for those who can, and ensure that they do not sit back and sponge off the workers.

It also lacks incentive for harder workers, more creative people. It seems likely that people will live stuck in a rut, obstructed from promotion, unable to freely start businesses, because there will be rules that make sure it is too darned complicated (as in the UK). Even farmers having to grow tomatoes to within a few millimetres of standard sizes. This is all control. I am totally against it all.

I generally agree and I think we can get a lot more concrete and specific about fixing the problems of goverment by holding our own party leadership accountable
for fair and competent goverment. That is the least one should expect from the opposition party--to stay attentive enough and honest enough to keep the party in power honest. There are too many Democrats in bed with the military-industrial
complex and other multinational interest, or who have their fingers in other
sorted cookie jars, and don't want to rock the boat.

Big government equals big defense industry. This equals big wars. That is a way of getting rid of the upcoming leaders you do not like....the intelligent youth from poorer backgrounds coming home without legs etc. Just keep them coming home in boxes for as long as possible protecting 'freedoms' that they have taken away from you, splitting up both good and disfunctional families (due to rampant Capitalism, or Nanny State mindedness - such as the UK).

Then the Military are getting such large funds that they do not want them to stop at all costs, and keep wars going all around the world using corrupt CIA and secret services which are, in any case, in league and for a New World Order of either the Capitalist led type or the Communist led type.

And the Military becomes a monster that the huge Government even, cannot control.

We end up with a vicious circle of institutions who are in it for themselves, serve themselves, and do not even nod to the officially appointed authorities, but have them assassinated at the drop of a hat.

Keep government small. Let people defend themselves with guns, the old way. End the nuclear race. Nobody is scared of anyone except a. America and b. American sponsored governments of their own countries. c. Chinese sponsored governments...and China is a trade ally of American who the Americans will never be able to control due to economic reliance on them, due to America's vast spending.

Not necessarily. A big government could have smaller more-specialized forces serving the particular parts of government. How well this works depends not on the numbers and sizes, but on the technology and communication efficiency between the agencies and forces.

America has many intelligence agencies, federal law enforcement agencies , state law enforcement agencies, and national defense agencies. They all have specialized forces within the agencies. The inefficiencies between these agencies have more to do with structure than size. It just takes a little more innovation and problem-solving.

In most organizations, small doesn't equal efficient, large doesn't equal inefficient. It's all about the structure.

Bad structure can make a small house collapse under it's own weight. Whereas good structure can make a skyscraper stand strong even in a natural disaster.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - W. Churchill

Marxism is not a form of government, but a theory on the path reach a form of government called socialism.

That's your version of socialism. Sounds more like communism.

Socialism doesn't have to assign work or even boss citizens around individually. The differences between socialism and capitalism is in distribution of resources and laws governing capitalism.

Either you want a government with some authority over what citizens can and can't do, or you are an anarchist.

Every government has a degree of authority that denies certain freedoms. With out it, you have anarchy. The differences between the forms of government are related to priorities more than methods. The priority for communism is total state control of all resources. The priority for capitalism is total market control. However capitalism is not a form of government by itself, but instead a force of nature. Capitalism needs a governing body to shield it from anarchists and allow it to grow. But if that governing body is completely submissive to capitalism, that eventually leads to economic totalitarianism or fascism.

Socialism attempts to balance state control and capitalism by allowing capitalists to compete for resources not vital to the general public.

Are you against all forms of control or some forms of control? Again, if you are against all forms of control, then face it, you are an anarchist.

You are complaining about methods which have more to do with micro-managing than overall governing philosophy. No government intentionally makes things complicated unless it's completely corrupted by private interest in a shadow government. Just because things are complicated on the micro level, doesn't mean the government is at fault on the macro level. The healthiest human on the planet has a complex micro-organic governing system that causes cells to die by the thousands every day. And yet his/her body stays healthy and strong.

If you want to talk about shadow governments, the speculating is endless. I suggest you do it on a different thread.

I am for the control of thousands of years of farming....ie. stop interfering with nature and making stupid rules for farmers to have to live by. Stop the destruction of the environment with huge fields taking over hedgerows, and the GM crops that DESTROY other crops that have grown for millions of years. Do not tell me that they are more efficient. They are harmful to other crops and we have NO IDEA what the long term effects are. The short term effects are to make loads of money for the sellers, and sting the farmers who used to be able to get seed free from past crops.

I am against controlling people. Controlling their minds via television, controlling the job they do, via making their job so difficult that it no longer pays (farming for instance). Controlling whether they get promoted or sacked. It should be up to individuals to rise through the ranks if they are able to, not to do with bureaucrats who give out bad reports because (eg) someone is a Catholic, Jew, or Communist at home. Obviously we need people to check up on such things (unfair lack of promotion etc), but at least in Capitalism a person can work in a good fair company and the other companies will end up with a staff load of bigots and intelligent people will avoid going there.

I am for freedom but with morals, ethics and rules to guide people. Teaching moral education would be a starting point. Then ensure that their were fair punishments for people who did things that caused other people problems. EG Heavy fines for those publishing cartoons of Mohammed that led to death of people not connected to it, in Nigeria, but due directly to the cartoons.

I am for accountability. If you did something wrong and it had bad consequences for others, you should be punished. If it did not have any bad consequence, then you should not be punished.

Governments both Capitalist and Socialist want to be in control of family life. Capitalists try it with making people poor. Socialists try it with making them too cosetted.

At the moment, whether parents want it or not, their kids learn about sex at a young age, it is the law. Next thing is they are practising it on each other. Next thing is they are having abortions without the PARENTS knowing, although the GoVERNMENT does know. This is all against the family. So is letting men get money for doing nothing. This is governments acting in the place of parents. In my opinion it is wrong. Children should be children for as long as they want without having to deal with sex. At a certain age, with certain children, sex education is necessary. Inner city schools for instance. We know the signs when we see it, if we are good parents or guardians or teachers. Most children are taught about sex far too early and consequently want to grow up too early.


I am against political correctness whereby if you insult someone, you get sued. People do not deserve million dollar compensation for being called fat or lazy or Irish. (I like the Irish but some Irish people consider it an insult to be called Irish, at work, in a verbal fight.) There should be a thick skin law, whereby if you got insulted you have to deal with it in the old fashioned ways, of enduring it or else fighting in the appropriate place.

I repeat I am not an anarchist. I don't know where this idea came from. I am a peace-loving person. I like by-laws very much. I even enforce by-laws so I am one of the voluntary vigilantes of my area. I knock on doors of idling trucks till the driver switches off the engines. If people are destroying the environment and the police do not care, whereas they care very much if you are parked somewhere or other that suddenly they decide to be illegal at that time, if I am the one who cares, then I feel morally obliged to speak out and stop the destruction. That is not anarchy that is trying to stem the anarchy that is already all around, except for the billions of ridiculous laws like, okay, even some of the smoking laws. I am a non-smoker. But really this subject is nothing compared to the ozone depletion. When companies stop their truckers from idling engines, then have a go at the smokers who do (IMHO) little harm to the ozone layer.

It is PERSPECTIVE I am looking for in the law. And yes, I am AGAINST smoking in confined areas where non-smokers have to be, like planes, or restaurants. There is a thing called MANNERS. Even Japanese understand that English word, and use it daily.

BTW bill, I thought you of all people would want to DISCOURAGE lazy folks.

I do.

You don't have to be monetarily employed to be active. Likewise, you can be hired to do a job, but lazy or worthless on that job.

But paying people to be on the dole, due to over-automation or over-qualification, forces them to be 'lazy'. My friend's husband is lazy and his wife says so. He is a healthy man in the prime of his life and he has never worked in the 20 years of her marriage except for odd days. This is, if not a deliberate ploy to destroy marriage, it may as well be. No, I think the reason for it is to ensure re-election. The Daily Mail paper which I trash sometimes as a rubbishy paper, does have some salient truths in it every now and again. One of them is that Blair deliberately

a. Made massive numbers of bureaucrats to get their votes come election times.
b. Pays people to be at home, mothers who have loads of boyfriends and 15 children are regularly seen in the newspaper middle pages. They are paid to be baby machines they say. The mothers love it. The government loves it. They get three houses to live in with the boyfriend. The children cannot be getting the parental attention they should be getting. Not that I am against big families, but come on now. Something, again, is wrong. All those kids will grow up and be labour voters because they come from generations of labour voters. Single mothers tend to have children who do less well in the scheme of things.

c. Pays fathers to be at home. Like Japan, farmers and skilled jobs are too difficult for the lazy folks, so the government pays them not to do it. Immigrants are given jobs that the British refuse to do. Again, this is a betrayal by themselves, because of a system that wants to create Labour voters.

This is socialism, to me. And I have seen enough of it.

If the goverment just provides direct support programs to individuals and
familly, without an equally strong program of Community Building (affordable housing, medical care and wellness promotion, job development, etc.) it can
promote, "learned Helplessness." The focus of the Democratic Party should be on
improving competence of the goverment's operations.