Letter
to the Editor
Dear Sam -
Where
had all the money gone? I agree with your
evaluation. G. B. Shaw said in addition: Money is only
a medium of exchange, a symbol of value. It represents the value
of a certain amount of human labor, for example, a product produced by
work, such as a head of lettuce. Suppose everyone worked hard for
five years & saved all their money. Then everyone took a year
off without working. They would starve. This is because the
money gets stale, like the loaf of bread it represents, or rotten, like
a head of lettuce. In a capitalist society, the money must be invested
intelligently, in order to keep people working productively, to
keep goods & services being produced & bought & used.
When money is invested foolishly, it piles up unproductively, as in Microsoft
or Amazon or Russia, & its value melts away. That's what's happening
to all the money in the world right now. Because the current system
is rigged so that only incompetents have power, all the money in the world
is melting away. It's a Darwinian thing.
I
agree with your assessment of the Lewinsky
affair. Here your hatred of women has helped you see the truth.
You
miss some basic cliches of advertising in "Busted".
Most advertising is a lie to sell a product. It is often based upon
Freudian interpretations of reality, e.g. that most guys are only interested
in one thing. Whether most guys are indeed only interested in one
thing, which is questionable, does not effect women's rights. If
most people believed that man was an instinctual animal, who couldnot
control his physical drives, all laws, even all social mores, which you
advocate in place of laws, would be pointless & futile. They
are based upon the belief that man has the freedom of will to choose.
Even Freud believed that.
I
admit that dictionary definitions of "right" are unsatisfactory.
The Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary perpetuates the idea that rights
& privileges are synonymous. But here in the U.S., people assume
that everyone has rights, but only the rich have privileges. In reality,
no one has rights, not even the rich. They too must conform.
If they play the game, they can keep their privileges, until the game goes
bust, which is just around the corner. The problem with your definition
is, as Eric says, that the theory, not the practice, of democracy, is that
in a free society, the Supreme Court will uphold your rights, which are
rational, in spite of the mores of the majority, which are often irrational.
Today we see Jewish politicians & journalists trying to hold Clinton
& an unwilling Christian society to the merciless mores of Jewish Old
Testament tradition. Even if the majority Christian mores agreed,
& the polls say they don't, democratic theories of rights would still
defend Clinton. But contemporary democracy is so rotten that the
system does not uphold even the rights of the semi-wealthy president.
He hasn't played the game to the satisfaction of the ruling class.
"We
are only one of many members of the UN, & all of them (except England
& Israel) hate us". And yet 1) the US doesn't pay its dues,
& 2) the UN usually has to act or not act according to the will
of the US. That's my point, & guess what? That's why they
hate you.
Sincerely,
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
1. Money doesn't spoil. If it isn't durable then it
isn't money.
2. I don't hate women. I hate the repressive and authoritarian
agenda pursued by the feminists. I'm also not too crazy about the
hypocrisy of women who deny being feminists while taking every possible
advantage of the privileges provided to women by authoritarian feminist
policies.
3. Your theory of our sexual nature doesn't explain what's
happening in the country today. My theory does. For example,
if your theory was correct, then Clinton would have controlled his "physical
drives", to use your words. Surely the rational part of him knew
that the benefits of the affair didn't justify the risks. Whether
you like it or not, he didn't control his drives because he couldn't
control them. Where women are concerned, most men are largely (to
use your words again) "instinctual animals". A theory that doesn't
explain the observations is invalid, no matter how desirable or politically
correct it might be. A theory that does explain the observations
is valid, however much you might dislike it.
4. How can you talk about women's rights in one paragraph
and then claim, in the next paragraph, that nobody has any rights?
That's inconsistent. Also, if women have rights that are different
from men's rights, as you seem to believe, then women's rights are not
equal to men's rights. In that case, why do you keep talking about
equal rights? I think you're confused.
5. It is impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold my rights.
Only I can uphold them. If I rely on the Supreme Court to uphold
them, then they become privileges.
6. The U.S. will have no influence over the behavior of the
international criminal court.
— editor
Frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
November 1998
Page 3
|
|