Interesting law

B_Thalhammer · October 20, 2005, 6:00pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.20.1300 CDT)]

Bill and Rick,

Once again you both have stated better than I could even with a bunch of time to dedicate to my note. The rest of what I will offer will pale by comparison. See, that "Reorganize" answer Dick Robertson received to his question was just what unfair people might say to us when we address the issue of fairness: "Get over it, have a plan B..." or that we should basically participate in such an obscene arms race. That is the slash and burn mentality that will reduce the planet to a cinder *way before* the sun does it in the solar system's ultimate Armageddon.

OK, from my perspective: For what it's worth, today we are experiencing some strife from an argument that a deity somehow sanctions capitalism, thus the more we offer it the fruits of capitalism, the more that is pleasing to the deity, and the sooner we get... Nah. There was a Galilean cynic guy who preached generosity, radical dissent, and community--not business practices, consumerism, caveat emptor, and plan B's. This other stuff we hear about today is just a manifestation of the argument for political-religious dependence that the Pharisees made before this guy named their frame. Back then, talking about dissent with authoritarians would get you killed. Again today, we fear that if we don't push back politically soon enough, we fear that we may again be marginalized or even killed. I would rather push back against religion- or state-supported greed than let the Ken Lays of this world gloat in getting away with it. The tide may be changing again.

My opinion.

--Bryan

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.20.1025)]

Bill Powers (2005.10.20.0911 MDT)

It's not life that is unfair, but unfair people, people who do not value the
rights or welfare of others, and simply try to grab as much for themselves as
they can...

I want them to see the desire for power over others as a danger,
as a disgusting disease, as a stupid misunderstanding of what people are and
how they work.

If we can get a lot of people to reorganize the way they think about richness
and power, there will be far fewer people who want them, because rich people
and powerful people want to be admired just as everyone else does -- they
think what they're doing is admirable and right. If they find that the general
reaction is one of disgust or pity instead of admiration, they might decide to
look for other things through which to gain social approval.

Very nice sentiments. I hope this goes a ways toward convincing people (who
think otherwise) that the PCT model of human nature does not inevitably lead
one to an anti-government, "free-market" (every man for himself) capitalist
stance. Linda and I have the joy of having raised two extraordinarily
generous children who know that the desire for power (which often shows up
as a demand for "respect") is a disease and who admire (and respect) people,
like themselves, who value the welfare of others.

Thanks for the post (and for PCT).

Best

Rick

Bozo_the_Clown · October 20, 2005, 10:44pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.20.1641)

I just couldn’t pass this one up. This post goes into my file for safekeeping, what an absolute gem

Thank you Rick again, for helping me learn.

BTw, the more I look into hypercomplex cells the more interesting it gets. Of course it causes a huge divergence from PCT in how you might want to think about control but why nit-pick about details at this point.

We are so far away from being able to understand how control really works that whether it is a PCT type structure or not becomes immaterial and irrelevant.

So much so, is why this post becomes a useful learning tool.

So those cynics out there who think I’m full of bull, good for you. Wallow in your hatred and self pity because you have a gift you are throwing away.

You might be thinking; how can you learn anything when people don’t respond to your posts?

And my answer is simple in two ways; First, by not responding that tells me no one has an answer. Second, it is also irrelevant. I ask questions in my bid to learn, not destroy. My quest is not to rip apart PCT but to try and get at the truth of what is going on.

Whether or not my questions are answered on CSGnet is immaterial to me. I’m not looking for a certified PCT answer. I’m looking for the best one I can come up with at the current time.

So in reading this post, and in asking these questions of Bill and Rick I am actually asking them to myself as well. I see what questions are not being answered to my satisfaction at least, and I do honestly ask seeing if there is a PCT perspective to them, and I attempt to answer them with my own research.

If Rick is nice enough to respond as he did with the hypercomplex cells, that provides me with an opportunity to investigate on my own, Rick’s claims and for me to come to some judgement for myself as to the validity of Rick’s claims. Rick’s claims have been a major source of motivation for me because in trying to qualify what he has said, I have often needed to do quite a bit of investigating and here is where a great deal of my learning has taken place.

No one responded to my request this morning as I predicted (to myself) and so by not responding I have also learned some valuable things

You all are fortunate enough to see and understand that we each are controllers. Yet you have no clue for what that means for each organism and the ‘interdependencies’ as Bryan likes to talk about.

Bill and Rick show why I say this

You think;

the world of control can be described and defined in terms of the PCT hierarchy. That is, you define all behavior in terms of controlling intensities, categories, relationships, and whatever else might exist at the higher levels
that you will be able to ‘engineer’ or at least ‘reengineer’ this complex set of processes.

So as a going away present I leave you with these questions;

Happy learning everyone.

In a message dated 10/20/2005 1:28:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

[From Rick Marken (2005.10.20.1025)]

Bill Powers (2005.10.20.0911 MDT)

It’s not life that is unfair, but unfair people,
Yes, so how does PCT explain ‘unfairness’?

people who do not value the
What does ‘value’ mean in and for PCT?

rights or welfare of others,
What are ‘rights’ in PCT?

Doesn’t the rights and welfare of others mean everyone except yourself?

If so, what does PCT or control say about the ‘rights’ of others that is different than the ‘rights’ any single individual might have?

and simply try to grab as much for themselves as
they can.
I would think a control system would ‘grab’ what it needed and nothing more. If it would, why would it? If not, how does PCT account for the different goals?

This is not “natural” or “human nature” or “just the way things
are.” It’s a crime against humanity,

How does PCT explain a ‘crime’? How does PCT explain “human nature”? What does it mean to be ‘natural’ in PCT and how does one tell the difference?

not simply an expression of humanity.

What is ‘humanity’ in terms of PCT? And how does PCT explain it?

That is how I propose we perceive such things,

How do you know what I perceive? Aren’t you being a bit presumptuous here? This might be what you perceive but I for one don’t share this view.

You talk as if there is only one ‘correct’ way to perceive something. Is this correct ? If so on what basis do you make this claim?

and the people who do such
things. I propose that we stop speaking of them as if they’re clever or
successful or admirable or worthy of praise and emulation or somehow better
than the people they take advantage of.

Why is it important for me to adopt your values and ideals? What is in it for you?

I propose that we stop teaching
children to admire the rich or powerful and want to be like them. I want
children to grow up realizing that “behind every great fortune there is a
great crime.”

What a wonderful view to teach your kids. Is this what PCT has led you to believe? If so, how was PCT involved in the thought process that got you to this point?

I want them to see the desire for power over others as a danger,
as a disgusting disease, as a stupid misunderstanding of what people are and
how they work.

How does PCT explain this ‘misunderstandings’? How does it occur?

If we can get a lot of people to reorganize the way they think about richness and power

I thought ‘reorganization’ was a random uncontrollable event? If not, how does PCT explain how one might get someone else reorganized in the way

you wish? And of course, how do you get to orchestrate how you might ‘reorganize’ yourself? This sounds a great deal more powerful than the MOL if possible.

, there will be far fewer people who want them,

Which means?

because rich people and powerful people want to be admired just as everyone else does –

What does it mean to be ‘admired’ in PCT? And why do people want anything? Do people want admiration as much as power? If so, why?

they think what they’re doing is admirable and right.

Who determines what is ‘right’, and by what standards, chosen by which group of people?

If they find that the general reaction is one of disgust or pity instead of admiration, they >>might decide to look for other things through which to gain social approval.

And if they don’t? How did they get there in the first place? How would PCT explain why ‘approval’ might be more ‘important’ than ‘power’ for any single individual?

Rick’s response;

Very nice sentiments.

I am assuming here that this means Rick shares Bills views. If so, I have the same set of 29 questions for him as well then.

I hope this goes a ways toward convincing people (who
think otherwise) that the PCT model of human nature does not inevitably lead
one to an anti-government, “free-market” (every man for himself) capitalist
stance.

Actually just for he record it hasn’t ‘convinced’ me about anything about PCT and what it has to say about ‘human nature’. Maybe you can ‘teach’ me all about PCT and human nature by answering the questions I posed?

Linda and I have the joy of having raised two extraordinarily
generous children who know that the desire for power (which often shows up
as a demand for “respect”) is a disease

Is this a 'PCT" perspective as well? If so make it question #31 and #32 would be, what kind of ‘disease’ is respect and is it contagious?

and who admire (and respect) people,

When did they come down with the disease and is there any hope of a cure for it? I’m sure your kids did not get the disease of respect from you.

like themselves, who value the welfare of others.

Thanks for the post (and for PCT).

Yes, I thank you both for some wonderful insights, and a wonderful learning experience.

Regards,

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · October 23, 2005, 12:53am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.22.1935EDT]

<I’m possibly confused here. Was Borland’s original announcement about a new product an express warranty, "or did it have to be in the form of a contract with individual signatures, etc?>

I am not a lawyer. But, I negotiated many major commercial contracts with attorney assistance in the 1980’s. So, I have some background in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governing commercial contracts or sales, including Warranties, Disclaimers and Limits of Liability. Generally, the UCC governs unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

As I recall, the Borland language Bill posted which he thought was “slimy” was made under Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) law as applied to “forward looking statements” made in investment literature/statements. Borland can include product related statements in such literature. I can accept that language about just what new products might be able to do in use for customers would be very non-committal so as to limit the possibility of liability to investors who concluded the software would “enable weather forecasters to prevent hurricanes” when the producer never really intended such a user benefit.

When you buy a product, there is a UCC warranty, unless you disclaim it and express one. If that SEC language is what is on the product sales carton under Warranty or Guarantee, I think that is a “slimy” deal. Generally, new products (goods or services) sold under the UCC must be “fit for their intended use” or “suitable for their intended purpose.”

Even so, you can limit such warranties to say 30 or 90 days. You can limit it to use in accordance with instructions provided. You can limit product warranties to defects only in “design and workmanship.” Intended use results may be limited or totally disclaimed.

If freckle reduction creme does not compeletely remove freckles or warts, the customer can’t sue the producer. Most watches are warranted to be water-resistant and not water-proof. Such terms have legal ramifications and may not be understood by the purchaser. Cavet Emptor.

You may not personally think such commercial business law is “fair” to consumers. Perhaps lobbyists try to influence such law to their advantage. Would you expect a business person to do less under PCT? Instead of blaming the business people, why not rail againstthe government agencies and people who are supposed to represent the public but may like their “football” tickets too much to upset the lobbyist? Unfortunately, the governed do not have any say in such law. Their only power is in not to buy. And, that power can be substantial when consumers act together as in a boycott. PCT probably explains well why boycotts are sometimes used and mostly not used.

[Should customers of Borland expect it to make their products useful forever?]

I was, but I also mentioned the New Orleans flood victims for a real life analogy of “fairness” whether between customers and businesses or citizens and government.

<Sure, and I agreed , in advance, with most of what you are saying here. But, as I remember Bill’s first message about this wasn’t it to the effect that Borland was getting away with something slimey and unfair, and that the relevant laws (written by industry-obligated reps, of course) enabled this type of behavior?>

I think the idea of how industry may influence consumer law came up later. IAE, govenment agencies write the law, NOT the industry reps.

Not only could the little people do so, I suggested that they reorganize. They can boycott companies who try to sell products with such slimy terms. But, they typically don’t. And, Bill or you, better than I, should be able to figure out why knowing PCT.

<(They have managed to do a much better job of that in the Nordic countries (Skandan. & Finland) and not only does their industry not seem to be suffering but surveys about “best places in the world to live” seem to feature them consistently at the top.>

I don’t know this. I even doubt it. Volvo has not taken over Ford. It’s the other way. Best places to live surveys are valid only if the criteria used are the ones important to you. I have no interest in moving to Scandanavia. Do you? I wonder why Dag would not prefer to move back?

This is good to know. It is about our politicians who design the laws not about business owners. With many of them being slimy, the laws they write are often slimy too. Do the obscene levels of state and federal taxes or gasoline ever bother you? They don’t hurt the rich, they hurt the poor. Same for the onerous Social Security laws. There is plenty of dirt to throw around.

Throwing dirt seems like a waste of time to me. But, it feels good in a sense, I suppose.

Bozo_the_Clown · October 23, 2005, 4:47am

[From Marc Abrams (2005.10.23.0028)]

In a message dated 10/22/2005 8:55:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, KJKitzke@AOL.COM writes:

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.22.1935EDT]

<Dick Robertson,2005.10.20.1256CDT>

Ken, you’re wasting your time. As I tried explaining some economic realities to Rick and failed, Dick will hold onto these thoughts of ‘unfairness’ forever.

This whole discussion was a strawman by Dick. His real motivation was stated later in this post;

Apparently Dick is not familiar with who pays what in taxes. Just to review;

the top 1 percent – the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 – paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.

A ‘level’ playing field? Perhaps not unleveled enough for some folks. Lets eliminate the bottom half entirely and add that to the top half so the top half will pay 100%.

But then you might ask how the bottom half might live. Easy, on the taxes paid by the top half.

The Top 1% paid 34%. Dick likes a ‘level playing field’ for Dick.

And, I’m afraid you probably have a better grasp on how control affects us then Dick, Rick, and Bill combined. Put plain and simple, these guys don’t have a clue in hell.

They seem to think ‘entrepreneurs’ and business people operate under a different kind of PCT system than they do. What a joke. PCT, a theory of all purposeful human behavior, yeah right.

Talk about truth in advertising. Give me a break.

Dick_Robertson · October 24, 2005, 2:46am

From Dick Robertson, 2005.10.24.1020CDT]

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.22.1935EDT

Kenny,

I appreciate that you went into some detail to give me your views on
this issue of the responsibility of manufacturers to their customers,
and why we “little people” end up taking abuse from them, in the short
run. I hope that PCT minded people (especially) will come up with new
and creative ways to exercise more influence.

Best,

Dick R

···

]

<Dick Robertson,2005.10.20.1256CDT>

<I’m possibly confused here. Was Borland’s original
announcement about a new product an express warranty, "or did it have
to be in the form of a contract with individual signatures, etc?>

I am not a lawyer. But, I negotiated many major commercial
contracts with attorney assistance in the 1980’s. So, I have some
background in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governing commercial
contracts or sales, including Warranties, Disclaimers and Limits of
Liability. Generally, the UCC governs unless the parties agree
otherwise in writing.

As I recall, the Borland language Bill posted which he thought
was “slimy” was made under Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) law as
applied to “forward looking statements” made in investment
literature/statements. Borland can include product related statements
in such literature. I can accept that language about just what new
products might be able to do in use for customers would be very
non-committal so as to limit the possibility of liability to investors
who concluded the software would “enable weather forecasters to prevent
hurricanes” when the producer never really intended such a user benefit.

When you buy a product, there is a UCC warranty, unless you
disclaim it and express one. If that SEC language is what is on the
product sales carton under Warranty or Guarantee, I think that is a
“slimy” deal. Generally, new products (goods or services) sold under
the UCC must be “fit for their intended use” or “suitable for their
intended purpose.”

Even so, you can limit such warranties to say 30 or 90 days.
You can limit it to use in accordance with instructions provided. You
can limit product warranties to defects only in “design and
workmanship.” Intended use results may be limited or
totally disclaimed.

If freckle reduction creme does not compeletely remove freckles
or warts, the customer can’t sue the producer. Most watches are
warranted to be water-resistant and not water-proof. Such terms have
legal ramifications and may not be understood by the purchaser. Cavet
Emptor.

You may not personally think such commercial business law is
“fair” to consumers. Perhaps lobbyists try to influence such law to
their advantage. Would you expect a business person to do less under
PCT? Instead of blaming the business people, why not rail againstthe
government agencies and people who are supposed to represent the public
but may like their “football” tickets too much to upset the lobbyist?
Unfortunately, the governed do not have any say in such law. Their
only power is in not to buy. And, that power can be substantial when
consumers act together as in a boycott. PCT probably explains well why
boycotts are sometimes used and mostly not used.

[Should customers of Borland expect it to make their products
useful forever?]

<Wait , wait, I thought we were talking about new
products.>

I was, but I also mentioned the New Orleans flood victims for a
real life analogy of “fairness” whether between customers and
businesses or citizens and government.

<Sure, and I agreed , in advance, with most of what you are
saying here. But, as I remember Bill’s first message about this wasn’t
it to the effect that Borland was getting away with something slimey
and unfair, and that the relevant laws (written by industry-obligated
reps, of course) enabled this type of behavior?>

I think the idea of how industry may influence consumer law came
up later. IAE, govenment agencies write the law, NOT the industry reps.

<The implication I read in it was a question, "Does Borland
(or other co’s in similar positions) have all the power in a case like
this, or couldn’t we “little people” reorganize our perception of the
law, such as to take back a bunth of that power ourselves?>

Not only could the little people do so, I suggested that they
reorganize. They can boycott companies who try to sell products with
such slimy terms. But, they typically don’t. And, Bill or you, better
than I, should be able to figure out why knowing PCT.

<(They have managed to do a much better job of that in the
Nordic countries (Skandan. & Finland) and not only does their
industry not seem to be suffering but surveys about “best places in
the world to live” seem to feature them consistently at the top.>

I don’t know this. I even doubt it. Volvo has not taken over
Ford. It’s the other way. Best places to live surveys are valid only
if the criteria used are the ones important to you. I have no interest
in moving to Scandanavia. Do you? I wonder why Dag would not prefer
to move back?

<My interest in this whole argument was strengthene as I read a book
by David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal: the covert compaign to rig our
tax system to benefit the super rich–and cheat everybody else. That
idea didn’t seem so surprising, but one of his conclusions was, Namely
that, if you follow it out to its logical conclusion, the ones who
design such contrivances ultimately shoot themselves in the foot. Their
own investments suffer as their destruction of the underpinnings
devalues the whole economy.>

This is good to know. It is about our politicians who design
the laws not about business owners. With many of them being slimy, the
laws they write are often slimy too. Do the obscene levels of state
and federal taxes or gasoline ever bother you? They don’t hurt the
rich, they hurt the poor. Same for the onerous Social Security laws.
There is plenty of dirt to throw around.

Throwing dirt seems like a waste of time to me. But, it feels
good in a sense, I suppose.

Martin_Taylor2 · October 30, 2005, 9:44pm

[Martin Taylor 2005.10.30.17.31]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.18)]

<Bill Powers (2005.10.18.0712 MDT)>

<Kenny, you're forgetting something. The government is us. You and me, and everyone else who lives here.>

I completely disagree. I, and as far as I know you too Bill, are the governed! If we can't agree on that, trying to address any other of your perceptions is probably a waste of our time.

Why do you think that being the governed is incompatible with being the government?

I do have to acknowledge that "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is an idea long past its stale date in the US and in most other Western countries. But the idea was never inherently self-contradictory.

···

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

I've been looking at the enormous number of messages on CSGnet in the two weeks I've been away, and have only got up to 12 days ago, so bear with me if I seem to ignore stuff that has been said in more recent messages.

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

In what I've seen so far, there have been references to "free market" and "capitalism" and "government" as if there were inherent contradictions. But one has only to look at the process of biological evolution to make it seem likely that an effective free market for individuals would quickly evolve into a grouping of cooperating clusters (a.k.a. tribes, corporations, co-ops...), and thence (or separately) into what we call government and governmental regulation. Individual free-swimming cells don't have as much power as cellular aggregates (multicellular organisms), and they don't have as much power in the absence of quasi-social regulatory mechanisms as they do when the roles and limits of each subsystem are defined. Likewise, it seems probable that wealth (in the sense of having the most ability to control one's own perceptions) is greatest in situations where there is both freedom and regulation of excessive use of that freedom.

Government is indeed us, and we are the governed. But the government is us only if we choose to take on that role, rather than refusing to get involved in the political process, even to the extent of voting. Otherwise, the government is those that do get involved, and (see above) the most powerful are those that aggregate together to produce coordinated effects (e.g. corporations that don't like regulated freedom). In cases of conflict, the more powerful is the winner.

Martin

Bozo_the_Clown · October 30, 2005, 11:40pm

Well said Martin

In a message dated 10/30/2005 5:45:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM writes:

···

[Martin Taylor 2005.10.30.17.31]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.18)]

<Bill Powers (2005.10.18.0712 MDT)>

<Kenny, you’re forgetting something. The government is us. You and
me, and everyone else who lives here.>

I completely disagree. I, and as far as I know you too Bill, are
the governed! If we can’t agree on that, trying to address any
other of your perceptions is probably a waste of our time.

Why do you think that being the governed is incompatible with being
the government?

I do have to acknowledge that “Government of the people, by the
people, and for the people” is an idea long past its stale date in
the US and in most other Western countries. But the idea was never
inherently self-contradictory.

I’ve been looking at the enormous number of messages on CSGnet in the
two weeks I’ve been away, and have only got up to 12 days ago, so
bear with me if I seem to ignore stuff that has been said in more
recent messages.

In what I’ve seen so far, there have been references to “free market”
and “capitalism” and “government” as if there were inherent
contradictions. But one has only to look at the process of biological
evolution to make it seem likely that an effective free market for
individuals would quickly evolve into a grouping of cooperating
clusters (a.k.a. tribes, corporations, co-ops…), and thence (or
separately) into what we call government and governmental regulation.
Individual free-swimming cells don’t have as much power as cellular
aggregates (multicellular organisms), and they don’t have as much
power in the absence of quasi-social regulatory mechanisms as they do
when the roles and limits of each subsystem are defined. Likewise, it
seems probable that wealth (in the sense of having the most ability
to control one’s own perceptions) is greatest in situations where
there is both freedom and regulation of excessive use of that freedom.

Government is indeed us, and we are the governed. But the government
is us only if we choose to take on that role, rather than refusing to
get involved in the political process, even to the extent of voting.
Otherwise, the government is those that do get involved, and (see
above) the most powerful are those that aggregate together to produce
coordinated effects (e.g. corporations that don’t like regulated
freedom). In cases of conflict, the more powerful is the winner.

Martin

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 1, 2005, 1:54pm

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.18)]

<Bill Powers (2005.10.18.0712 MDT)>

<Kenny, you’re forgetting something. The government is us. You and
me, and everyone else who lives here.>

I completely disagree. I, and as far as I know you too Bill, are
the governed! If we can’t agree on that, trying to address any
other of your perceptions is probably a waste of our time.

<Why do you think that being the governed is incompatible with being
the government?

I do have to acknowledge that “Government of the people, by the
people, and for the people” is an idea long past its stale date in
the US and in most other Western countries. But the idea was never
inherently self-contradictory.>

Hi Martin. Good to see you back posting. My perception of the “government” and the “governed” goes like this.

In a strict sense, everyone who is a citizen of the US is “governed” by the authority of the “government.” But, the vast majority of the citizens, the governed, are NOT part of the government. Those citizens who comprise the governement are the elected, appointed and hired officials who exercise power and authority over the governed.

To perceive that because US citizen-voters have the opportunity to elect government officials somehow makes “us the government” as Bill Powers proclaimed, is just NOT viable. Of course, we have a representative form of governement, not a true democracy. The individual citizen has no power or authority on policy/law adopted by its elected representatives. Even a voter referendum is little more than a poll.

From a PCT standpoint, governments can be extremely coercive. They (the government officials) make the rules for what individual citizens MUST and MUST NOT do. Sometimes you perceive their rules as disturbances. And, government tyranny can, and does, lead to civil disobedience and revolutions.

My desire is for the smallest governement possible. A Government that can do what individuals CAN NOT do for themselves. Intrusion into individual lives, protecting us from ourselves, is abhorent to me. Whether it is a law to use seat belts, motorcycle helmets or what I can charge for a good or service, I say, bug out government. Naturally, there are thousands of gray areas where exercising individual rights (controlling your own perceptions) may harm others or prevent them from controlling their own perceptions. It is a sticky wicket.

Of course, this is idealism written in a speech. It has no standing in governement. The government and the governed are two different entities. Sometimes their goals are congruent. But, there are untold examples of how the governement sets itself against, and contradicts the desires of the governed.

As I later pointed out, I can as a citizen counter-control incompetent and unethical businesses by not buying their products. But, I can’t counter-control the monolithic governement that is incompetent or unethical. They have guns and weapons, always bigger than mine. And, they are willing to use them. I would like to clip their wings a bit and get them off my back.

Am I more clear? Can you understand where I am coming from, especially as a PCTer?

B_Thalhammer · November 1, 2005, 3:43pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.01.0942 CST)]

[Tone: Considered, scholarly as far as time permits, researched, informed, and happy as anything. Cynical where appropriate, not unlike that of the rhetoric of the Galilean Cynic Guy in times past... Not to be confused with ranting, attitude problems (any more or less than the Galilean's approach). Not anything else that could be directed as a slur in my general direction.]

Kenny, I don't think your idea of governed and government as two different entities is part of our Constitution and its Amendments, or part any of the state or local laws. I looked, did you? Did you perhaps read into our government structure some other fascist or communist "constitution?" Are you confusing rule of LAW (representational democracy) with rule of MAN (fascism? communism gone bad? [btw, some religous orders are good communists, hehe, living in communes, in that they share out all resources and VOTE or submit to a superior they have vowed to follow] so...).

There is a process called representation that was very important to Founders in the way they wrote the Constitution. How to represent States (senators), how to represent the People (reps). That was in the articles I sent recently. Then, within States, which originally appointed senators, there is also a method that parallels the Federal government in representing districts (state senators) and smaller areas within the districts (state reps). Further, local government has a way to allow representation in counties, townships, school boards, villages and cities. At each level, we elect (except in the case of the Federal government) the chief exectutive. Then elected senators, representatives and executive participate in nominating and approving non-elected individuals. And those appointees hire civil servants for those administrative and operational roles. This is all government that derives from the PEOPLE. Hence the governed choose and abide by their government. So, what is the problem? :-/

[Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01)]
<Martin Taylor 2005.10.30.17.31>
>[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.18)]
>
><Bill Powers (2005.10.18.0712 MDT)>
>
><Kenny, you're forgetting something. The government is us. You and
>me, and everyone else who lives here.>

Hi Martin. Good to see you back posting. My perception of the "government" and the "governed" goes like this.
In a strict sense, everyone who is a citizen of the US is "governed" by the authority of the "government." But, the vast majority of the citizens, the governed, are NOT part of the government. Those citizens who comprise the governement are the elected, appointed and hired officials who exercise power and authority over the governed.

Not only citizens, but resident aliens, visitors, and illegal aliens are subject to the LAWS, not to the GOVERNMENT itself.

To perceive that because US citizen-voters have the opportunity to elect government officials somehow makes "us the government" as Bill Powers proclaimed, is just NOT viable. Of course, we have a representative form of governement, not a true democracy. The individual citizen has no power or authority on policy/law adopted by its elected representatives. Even a voter referendum is little more than a poll.

How can the individual citizen have no power? What is the Rapture Right that drove the selection of Alito? Am I reading you right? Do I understand you that you both claim you have no power, that individuals aligned with your agendas have no power over That Man in the White House? Kenny, I am confused. What is Rove's job, but to reach out to your powerless lobby groups? Oh, give me a break!!! :))

From a PCT standpoint, governments can be extremely coercive. They (the government officials) make the rules for what individual citizens MUST and MUST NOT do. Sometimes you perceive their rules as disturbances. And, government tyranny can, and does, lead to civil disobedience and revolutions.

I would say again, from what you write, I think you are confusing government of LAWs vs. government of MAN. Laws are designed to constrain activities, it is true, but I am glad that my constitutionally-elected government constrains machine guns, intrusions in to MY privacy, and a government that prevents establishment of religious maxims as a law of the nation (ten commandments, leviticus, etc.!). I am glad that my government is there to protect the borders with LAWs, not with Minute Men. And there to protect young women from MEN who would have her return to family, spouse, and community surely to be hurt, killed or made destitute. LAWs protect minorities against an unfair and uninformed majority (civil-rights, equality, sects which are not compatible with majority sects). :((

My desire is for the smallest governement possible. A Government that can do what individuals CAN NOT do for themselves. Intrusion into individual lives, protecting us from ourselves, is abhorent to me. Whether it is a law to use seat belts, motorcycle helmets or what I can charge for a good or service, I say, bug out government. Naturally, there are thousands of gray areas where exercising individual rights (controlling your own perceptions) may harm others or prevent them from controlling their own perceptions. It is a sticky wicket.

Grey areas indeed. Sometimes I think you confuse lack of strength and resources with lack of consensus. The government is LAW, and with a diverse set of communities (atheist, wicca, catholic, christian, jewish, islamic, jahovah witnesses, mormon, native, ammish, mennonite, handicapped, deaf, GLBT, children, barren, seriously-ill, senior, hispanic, african-american), the traditions of just one set will not work for the rest. The purpose of government is to have the forum, the represenatives, the authority we give the reps to make consensus, the authority to carry out the law, and the responsibility to modify the law when it has strayed. Without that forum, it would be a chaos of different law traditions, from leviticus to sharia to the revenge vendetta. You want to have that? Leave the country and, let's say, try living in Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Nigeria, Congo, Former Pol Pot Cambodia, and places where the government is either bad or criminal. Compared with those, US Government is not oppresive at all, at least not until it is dominated by one group, such as the Conservative Christian fringe? That would be oppresive! :))

<I do have to acknowledge that "Government of the people, by the
people, and for the people" is an idea long past its stale date in
the US and in most other Western countries. But the idea was never
inherently self-contradictory.>
Of course, this is idealism written in a speech. It has no standing in governement. The government and the governed are two different entities. Sometimes their goals are congruent. But, there are untold examples of how the governement sets itself against, and contradicts the desires of the governed.

YOU do have standing in government, by speaking your mind in this forum, by talking to representatives to influence them, by meeting with your school board. Come on! You have "oppresive" free speech, granted to you by the Founders in the US Constitution. Unfortunately, free speech is one of the things that are under assault by the neocons, so you may not be able to retain your standing unless you vote for free speech candidates. :-/

As I later pointed out, I can as a citizen counter-control incompetent and unethical businesses by not buying their products. But, I can't counter-control the monolithic governement that is incompetent or unethical. They have guns and weapons, always bigger than mine. And, they are willing to use them. I would like to clip their wings a bit and get them off my back.

The government right now is quite monolithic: Three branches of the government decidedly conservative. And unless you profess not to vote, you may have voted for these unethical, incompetent, and uninformed elected officials. Am I wrong? Those conservatives are consistently appointing more conservative and, at times, incompetent non-elected officials, who must hire people on their level of competency? Where oh where was James Lee Witt when we needed him? Yes, we need to clip the wings of the monolithic government we have right now, starting with The Chief Executive and his cronies so we can get BACK to government by LAWs not by MAN. :))

You seem very clear in your contradictions. You stand corrected!

Am I more clear? Can you understand where I am coming from, especially as a PCTer?

Yes, you seem to write that you are controlling for system-level perceptions of you alone in the world, separate from others, responsible only to your deity (I presume), but seeming by your words to not care a whit about what happens to anyone except yourself (true libertarian principles, I guess).

--Bryan

Bozo_the_Clown · November 1, 2005, 4:13pm

In a message dated 11/1/2005 10:49:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.01.0942 CST)]

Ken Kitzke*

Am I more clear? Can you understand where I am coming from, especially

as a PCTer?
Yes, you seem to write that you are controlling for system-level
perceptions of you alone in the world, separate from others,
responsible only to your deity (I presume), but seeming by your
words to not care a whit about what happens to anyone except
yourself (true libertarian principles, I guess).
–Bryan :)*

I find this interesting. Aren’t we all “PCTer’s”? That is, isn’t everyone a collection of control processes? If so, Ken’s statement is the equivalent to; “Can you understand where I’m coming from, especially as a human being?”

And the response is a typical non-answer answer. What does it mean to have a ‘system’ level perception? Was this supposed to shed some further light on Ken’s keen insight? Would it matter if it were a ‘program’ level one?But I think the most useful concepts conveyed was …(I presume) & (…I guess).

As far as ‘libertarian’ principles are concerned, I see you got over your capitalism nonsense, maybe you should take a look at the Cato institute http://www.cato.org/ and see if your presumptions are accurate or not about libertarians. Individual liberty is a bit different than selfishness and narcissism and you should try and understand the differences involved.

B_Thalhammer · November 1, 2005, 4:45pm

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.01.1035 CST)]

Exactly. I am coming from the point of view (my system image is comprised of various principles at reference levels at such and such a state) that Kenny seems to out of touch with the precepts of the Constitution. Therefore, he may be anti-constitutional, and should try to live in a place where they ain't got one.

Libertarians are an important part of the lobby matrix, as is Right to Life, Pro-Choice, Human Rights Campaign, Commununists, Socialists, religious groups, etc. This is kinda the same topic as mixing up the central tenets with the way that they are not understood properly. Hence my correction (kinda in jest) of Kenny.

The governed and the government are the same, according to the Constitution. If you want that to be different, go to DC and lobby for it, I guess.

And let no one say that some original republican tenets such as anti-slavery, anti-racism, inclusion of minorities, protection of the environment, protection of the people against corporate greed, fiscal conservatism (not the absence of fiscal spending, btw), ethical actions, patriotism, etc. are not bad, but sadly, they are not being espoused very well by That Man in the White House and his cronies, eh? Actually, it has been southern democrats/dixiecrats who switched parties to hijack these rather supreme ideals first espoused by Lincoln, Grant, T. Roosevelt, Dirkson (in our state) and other conservative yet not radical minds.

Capitalism is great, but unfettered captitalism, like unfettered, libertarianism, unfettered progressivism, unfettered communism, and unfettered neocon-ism (if that is an -ism yet) must be constrained for the greater good. What that is is decided in the forum called free speech within a representational democracy.

Misunderstanding the purpose of government, twisting the its role and looking at individual freedom to such a degree that someone would wish to abandon common law for the revenge vendetta (past post by Kenny) seems a lot like what we read in Kenny's rather not-well-thought-out post.

PS, thank you for not swearing, Marc, it was a pleasure to read your post thist time.

--Bryan

···

In a message dated 11/1/2005 10:49:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

    [From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.01.0942 CST)]
     > Ken Kitzke/
    /> Am I more clear? Can you understand where I am coming from,
    especially
     > as a PCTer?

    Yes, you seem to write that you are controlling for system-level
    perceptions of you alone in the world, separate from others,
    responsible only to your deity (I presume), but seeming by your
    words to not care a whit about what happens to anyone except
    yourself (true libertarian principles, I guess).

    --Bryan :)/

    I find this interesting. Aren't we all "PCTer's"? That is, isn't
    everyone a collection of control processes? If so, Ken's statement
    is the equivalent to; "Can you understand where I'm coming from,
    especially as a human being?"
         And the response is a typical non-answer answer. What does it mean
    to have a 'system' level perception? Was this supposed to shed some
    further light on Ken's keen insight? Would it matter if it were a
    'program' level one?But I think the most useful concepts conveyed
    was ...(I presume) & (...I guess).
         As far as 'libertarian' principles are concerned, I see you got over
    your capitalism nonsense, maybe you should take a look at the Cato
    institute http://www.cato.org/ and see if your presumptions are
    accurate or not about libertarians. Individual liberty is a bit
    different than selfishness and narcissism and you should try and
    understand the differences involved.

Richard_Marken2 · November 1, 2005, 6:42pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.101.01.1040)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01) --

My desire is for the smallest governement possible. A Government that can do
what individuals CAN NOT do for themselves. Intrusion into individual lives,
protecting us from ourselves, is abhorent to me. Whether it is a law to use
seat belts, motorcycle helmets or what I can charge for a good or service, I
say, bug out government. Naturally, there are thousands of gray areas where
exercising individual rights (controlling your own perceptions) may harm
others or prevent them from controlling their own perceptions.

I agree. I think we mainly disagree about what those gray areas are. One
gray area is abortion. I think you believe that a woman who exercises her
individual right to have an abortion infringes on the rights of another
person (the embryo). I think a woman's right to control her own body trumps
any conceivable rights of an embryo (or fetus). I think most people believe
this as well. But I think nearly all people would believe it - and abortion
would not even be an issue -- if both men and women could get pregnant. I
think empathy usually gets you to the right place, values and
government-wise. Selfishness just gets you conflict.

As I later pointed out, I can as a citizen counter-control incompetent and
unethical businesses by not buying their products.

Really? What have you gotten those businesses to do? Please give me an
example of counter-controlling a business by not buying goods.

But, I can't
counter-control the monolithic governement that is incompetent or unethical.

I don't understand. I thought counter-control depended on having a
controller who was trying to control you, which (as you noted) is certainly
what the government is there to do.

They have guns and weapons, always bigger than mine. And, they are willing to
use them. I would like to clip their wings a bit and get them off my back.

The government is people, like the president, senators, congressman,
staffers and bureaucrats. What, exactly, would be involved in clipping
their wings to get them off your back?

Also, from what I can tell, you seem to think highly of president Bush. If
this is true, then your anti-government stance is puzzling. Bush's party is
now the government inasmuch as all branches are controlled by Republicans.
And you still want government off your back? Is there any public person or
group who could represent and/or implement your views? Who would you vote
for to be in the government? Anyone we know?

Regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

Bozo_the_Clown · November 1, 2005, 8:27pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1433)]

In a message dated 11/1/2005 1:47:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.101.01.1040)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01) –

My desire is for the smallest governement possible. A Government that can do
what individuals CAN NOT do for themselves. Intrusion into individual lives,
protecting us from ourselves, is abhorent to me. Whether it is a law to use
seat belts, motorcycle helmets or what I can charge for a good or service, I
say, bug out government. Naturally, there are thousands of gray areas where
exercising individual rights (controlling your own perceptions) may harm
others or prevent them from controlling their own perceptions.

I agree. I think we mainly disagree about what those gray areas are. One
gray area is abortion.

Sorry Rick, this is not a gray area. This is a very black and white one. This issue is not so much the abortion itself. That is a value judgement we each must make.

What Kenny is talking about is NOT whether abortions are ok or not, even though he himself may personally abhor them and you think they are ok. The issue here is quite different.

We are supposed to be living in a Republic. Do you know what that means? That means the central Federal Government is of secondary importance to that of the state, and local law should supercede all.

There would have been no United States if the federal Government demanded the power it currently holds.

The question about abortion has two
facets. One, who has the right to pass laws on it, the state or federal government. That is, is it a state or federal issue. The second is the moral one.

The real problem with the pro-choice folks and the reason they are up in arms about any ‘conservative’ coming onto the Supreme Court is that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned and the issue would then be thrown back for each of the states to decide.

In this country laws are made by the legislatures, not the courts. If certain states want to legalize abortions that should be the right of the state, and just because it might be legal doesn’t mean its moral or ethical either

I think you believe that a woman who exercises her
individual right to have an abortion infringes on the rights of another
person (the embryo).

Person pal; have you ever seen what a 12 week old fetus looks like in the womb?

I think a woman’s right to control her own body trumps
any conceivable rights of an embryo (or fetus).

I agree, but a fetus is no longer just an ‘extension’ of her body. Some states have instituted double murder charges for folks who kill pregnant women and their babies. How this is this any different, and I say each state has the right to have such laws.

I think most people believe this as well.

Really? Then why not leave the issue where it belongs, in the ballot box of each of the states?

But I think nearly all people would believe it - and abortion
would not even be an issue – if both men and women could get pregnant. I
think empathy usually gets you to the right place, values and
government-wise. Selfishness just gets you conflict.

As I later pointed out, I can as a citizen counter-control incompetent and
unethical businesses by not buying their products.

Really? What have you gotten those businesses to do? Please give me an
example of counter-controlling a business by not buying goods.

Ken did not mean counter-control in the technical sense. What he meant was that by not buying a company’s product you exert some pressure on their bottom line.

Why is it ‘selfish’ to not want to commit murder in the eyes of some people? Because Rick Marken says it isn’t murder? Good, so for Rick Marken he can open abortion clinic’s in the states that have legalized it, and provide them very unselfishly for free to those who desire them.

But, I can’t
counter-control the monolithic governement that is incompetent or unethical.

I don’t understand. I thought counter-control depended on having a
controller who was trying to control you, which (as you noted) is certainly
what the government is there to do.

Here we see a strawman developing quite nicely by Rick. Notice he starts off the sentence with “I don’t understand” followed by some words indicating he does in fact understand what ken intended and saw fit to ‘correct’ something he did not understand.

Governments have no bottom line and government bureaucrats have no incentive to do what is best for the consumer, only what is politically expedient.

They have guns and weapons, always bigger than mine. And, they are willing to
use them. I would like to clip their wings a bit and get them off my back.

The government is people, like the president, senators, congressman,
staffers and bureaucrats. What, exactly, would be involved in clipping
their wings to get them off your back?

If Rick Marken had the capacity to make laws by himself according to his own standards, I would want him off my back. As a controller I don’t like anyone trying to control me, and as Ken was trying to say, I will attempt to counter-control when and where possible.

It seems Rick and martin have a good deal more in common than a shared understanding of the word tolerance.
I can laugh at your attempts to control me, it is quite a different matter when dealing with the government.

In fact, for controllers (that means all of us humans) one reason I believe we have governments is to do things we could not or would not do normally do to each other. Government by necessity is coercive and the less coercion the better off we all are.

Also, from what I can tell, you seem to think highly of president Bush. If
this is true, then your anti-government stance is puzzling.

Yes, Bush has been a huge disappointment in that he has taken on the mantle of big government.

Bush’s party is now the government inasmuch as all branches are controlled by > Republicans.

So?

And you still want government off your back?

Yes, something you just don’t quite understand do you? It doesn’t matter whether you are suffocated by Republicans or Democrats, although in our present state Republicrats might be a better term for both.

Is there any public person or group who could represent and/or implement your views? Who would you vote for to be in the government? Anyone we know?

Try http://www.cato.org/

Regards,

You might actually learn something but I doubt it.

Marc

Bozo_the_Clown · November 1, 2005, 9:00pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1532)]

In a message dated 11/1/2005 11:51:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

···

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.11.01.1035 CST)]

Capitalism is great, but unfettered captitalism, like unfettered,
libertarianism, unfettered progressivism, unfettered communism,
and unfettered neocon-ism (if that is an -ism yet) must be
constrained for the greater good. What that is is decided in the
forum called free speech within a representational democracy.

A noble pursuit, except who gets to decide how it should be fettered, and for the greater good of whom? The majority? If so you got what you wished for. If not, who decides which special interest groups ‘win’ and which ‘lose’?

Keep in mind we are all controllers, and we all desire to control our immediate environments, even egalitarians like yourself.

You are blind Bryan to the fact that you have more in common with Kenny than you think or care to admit. You are both passionate about your desires to control what each of you believes to be critical for others to control for. Your values might be different, but that comes from different life experiences and make-up.

The sooner you both understand that each of you has a right and an obligation to respect the controller in each of us, the better off we will all be.

Being ‘tolerant’ in the Taylor/Marken mold will not cut it. Respect for the fact that we are all controllers and as such we will each try and maintain that control unilaterally when and where possible I think is important for us all to understand.

In fact, if PCT or control ‘teaches’ us anything it is this vital fact. No one is ‘above’ this and no one can eliminate it. At best we can and need to manage it, and bring it under control (no pun intended). Right now we are blind to the consequences of our own efforts at control and how the controlling affect’s others.

Misunderstanding the purpose of government, twisting the its role
and looking at individual freedom to such a degree that someone
would wish to abandon common law for the revenge vendetta (past
post by Kenny) seems a lot like what we read in Kenny’s rather
not-well-thought-out post.

What do you think the death penalty is or any prison term if not ‘revenge’? Laws by there very nature are intended to be coercive. So, we ask government to take on the role of doing things (being coercive) that we ourselves may find distasteful individually.

PS, thank you for not swearing, Marc, it was a pleasure to read
your post thist time.

Your welcome, always glad to help out when I can.

Regards,

Marc

Richard_Marken2 · November 1, 2005, 9:59pm

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.01.1400)]

Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1433)

Rick Marken (2005.101.01.1040)

I agree. I think we mainly disagree about what those gray areas are. One
gray area is abortion.

Sorry Rick, this is not a gray area.

Darn, and I was so sure it was.

We are supposed to be living in a Republic. Do you know what that means?

Let's see. Is it a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body
of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
responsible to them?

That means the central Federal Government is of secondary importance to
that of the state, and local law should supercede all.

Darn, wrong again. But are you sure that's not Federalism you're mis -
defining?

The real problem with the pro-choice folks and the reason they are up in
arms about any 'conservative' coming onto the Supreme Court is that Roe vs.
Wade could be overturned and the issue would then be thrown back for each of
the states to decide.

I don't think the right to an abortion -- the right to have the government
off your back for this most personal of decisions -- is a state level issue.
I don't see why women in some states should have this right while women in
others don't.

In this country laws are made by the legislatures, not the courts. If
certain states want to legalize abortions that should be the right of the
state, and just because it might be legal doesn't mean its moral or ethical
either

I thought laws could be made by the Federal legislature, too. Or is that not
the way a Republic works? I also thought we didn't need to pass laws to give
people permission to make private decisions that affect only themselves.

I think most people believe this as well.

Really? Then why not leave the issue where it belongs, in the ballot box of
each of the states?

It will probably come to that. The reason I'm against making it a state
decision is that it seems like every woman in the country who has to
confront this terrible decision should have the right to make this decision
for herself, in private, without the government (local, state or federal) on
her back.

Ken did not mean counter-control in the technical sense.

Are you sure? Why don't we let Kenny reply.

Yes, Bush has been a huge disappointment in that he has taken on the mantle
of big government.

Only on the spending side. He's been doing a pretty good job of shrinking it
on the revenue side.

Try _ http://www.cato.org/_ (http://www.cato.org/ )

You might actually learn something but I doubt it.

Me too.

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

Bozo_the_Clown · November 1, 2005, 10:57pm

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1713)]

In a message dated 11/1/2005 5:05:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.01.1400)]

We are supposed to be living in a Republic. Do you know what that means?

Let’s see. Is it a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body
of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
responsible to them?

That means the central Federal Government is of secondary importance to
that of the state, and local law should supercede all.

Darn, wrong again. But are you sure that’s not Federalism you’re mis -
defining?

The real problem with the pro-choice folks and the reason they are up in
arms about any ‘conservative’ coming onto the Supreme Court is that Roe vs.
Wade could be overturned and the issue would then be thrown back for each of
the states to decide.

I don’t think the right to an abortion – the right to have the government
off your back for this most personal of decisions – is a state level issue.
I don’t see why women in some states should have this right while women in
others don’t.

And that is the issue. It’s not for you to decide one way or the other for anyone else. If you choose to live a certain way, go right ahead, but I think each state should have the right to make their own laws. I don’t need nor do I want the federal government involved in my local business.

In this country laws are made by the legislatures, not the courts. If
certain states want to legalize abortions that should be the right of the
state, and just because it might be legal doesn’t mean its moral or ethical
either

I thought laws could be made by the Federal legislature, too. Or is that not
the way a Republic works?

Notice I said legislatureS , not legislature. So the rest of your red herring is out the window.

I also thought we didn’t need to pass laws to give
people permission to make private decisions that affect only themselves.

See the head, eyes, nose, fingers? That’s at eight weeks pal, it only gets better. You may think that this human is just some ‘extension’, but not everybody agrees with you. Get over it.

The world does not operate according to the dictates of one Rick Marken. As a controller, you are a doozy and you are blind to your own attempts at controlling, like this reply of yours. You really have no idea what it means to control outside of your silly toy models.

No, just misstating. I intended to say Federal Republic, but it matters not, you understood my point

I think most people believe this as well.

Really? Then why not leave the issue where it belongs, in the ballot box of
each of the states?

It will probably come to that. The reason I’m against making it a state
decision is that it seems like every woman in the country who has to
confront this terrible decision should have the right to make this decision
for herself, in private, without the government (local, state or federal) on
her back.

But that is precisely the reason we need and have governments. Anarchy might seem like a good idea but as a controller you should know better. People will attempt to control others whenever it suits their purposes and goals, and there is little we can do about that except be aware of the reasons for it, and have laws that “protect’s” us from one another.

Ken did not mean counter-control in the technical sense.

Are you sure? Why don’t we let Kenny reply.

Good idea.

Yes, Bush has been a huge disappointment in that he has taken on the mantle
of big government.

Only on the spending side. He’s been doing a pretty good job of shrinking it
on the revenue side.

I disagree, revenues have not been shrinking, he needs to reduce spending a great deal.

Try _ http://www.cato.org/_ (http://www.cato.org/ )

You might actually learn something but I doubt it.

Me too.

See Rick, we can in fact agree upon something.

Regards,

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 1, 2005, 11:58pm

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.01)]

I rejoice in our agreement. When it comes to understanding human behavior, finding agreement about HPCT is worth debating. And expanding HPCT in theory, models and applications is a goal I think we share. It is an emerging science, isn’t it?

<I think we mainly disagree about what those gray areas are. One
gray area is abortion. I think you believe that a woman who exercises her
individual right to have an abortion infringes on the rights of another
person (the embryo).>

Truly, Rick, what business is it of yours to know, or for you to characterize, what I think and believe about abortion? Plus, if I wanted you to know, I would not express my views about such a personal subject on this public PCT forum. I don’t see any point to it.

<I think a woman’s right to control her own body trumps
any conceivable rights of an embryo (or fetus). I think most people believe
this as well. But I think nearly all people would believe it - and abortion
would not even be an issue – if both men and women could get pregnant. I
think empathy usually gets you to the right place, values and
government-wise. Selfishness just gets you conflict.>

You apparently like letting everyone know what “Rick” thinks about every black and white, and every gray, issue we encounter in life. Just because you are a respected and knowledgeable expert in HPCT, what makes you think you are an expert in abortion, economics, prescription defects or anything else, especially on this forum?

Perhaps if you were asked about your opinion on abortion and how it enhances our understanding of human behavior on this forum, it would be justifiable to expound on what you think. But, why are you on a soapbox here? And, as far as your comment about men facing an unwanted pregnancy would slam dunk the issue, I think that idea is pure tripe.

As I later pointed out, I can as a citizen counter-control incompetent and
unethical businesses by not buying their products.

<Really? What have you gotten those businesses to do? Please give me an
example of counter-controlling a business by not buying goods.>

Really Rick! Just today I called the toll-free Customer Satisfaction number at Pizza Hut. I reported an incident with the store manager. So, besides having told the manager that I would not be coming back and why, I filed a formal complaint which will be given to the manager’s boss. Will it change the manager? Will it change Pizza Hut policies? Can’t say for sure. But, I tried to counter-control what they do because they say that CS matters at Pizza Hut. I have already received two free pizza tickets. I am not sure if I will use them at that store and reconfront that manager, but I might.

But, I can’t
counter-control the monolithic governement that is incompetent or unethical.

<I don’t understand. I thought counter-control depended on having a
controller who was trying to control you, which (as you noted) is certainly
what the government is there to do.>

The difference IMHO, is there are people in authority at businesses who care about customers leaving and going to a competitor. So, I have a chance of getting some measure of control back in my hands.

Now, if I don’t like the timing of stop lights for cross roads, which halt main thoroughfare traffic even if there is NO cars waiting to cross. Do you think anyone in goverment, local or state, really cares? What effect will telling them that if they don’t automate the signals, I won’t pay my taxes. Or, if I am really upset, that I am going to move out of PA! There are no easy, fast and reliable means in a monolithic government to have a citizen counter control the government authorities and their irresponsible and inconvient policies and behavior.

There are things you, as an individual, can try.

Vote the rascals out? What difference will one rep changed make? It is a secret ballot.

Form a civil rights movement like Rosa Parks? Who has the time she had? What is the success rate of protest movements?

Try un-civil disobedience/protest/revolution? Odds really drop off on success and go way up on being jailed or executed. Fine for martyrs.

<The government is people, like the president, senators, congressman,
staffers and bureaucrats. What, exactly, would be involved in clipping
their wings to get them off your back?>

I did not claim one person could. That is why I just don’t worry about it any more. We really all vote for a handful of people who cannot control what the government does. Consider all the failed presidential initiatives, from health care to social security and tax reform. Bankruptcy may be the only solution. Then, you have to start over and smaller. Government at all levels seems to be good at deficits regardless what I do or say.

<Also, from what I can tell, you seem to think highly of president Bush. If
this is true, then your anti-government stance is puzzling. Bush’s party is
now the government inasmuch as all branches are controlled by Republicans.>

You think incorrectly. Does that solve your puzzle. I prefer to leave my politics private.

<And you still want government off your back? Is there any public person or
group who could represent and/or implement your views? Who would you vote
for to be in the government? Anyone we know?>

I could do it. Will you vote for me for president of the USA? It should be a natural step from President of CSG.

Richard_Marken2 · November 2, 2005, 12:07am

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.01.1610)]

Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1713)

And that is the issue. It's not for you to decide one way or the other for
anyone else.

Yes, I'm sorry. Deciding for others is reserved for the states, right?

If you choose to live a certain way, go right ahead, but I
think each state should have the right to make their own laws. I don't need
nor do I want the federal government involved in my local business.

Yes, I think this would have been particularly annoying in the 1860s when
the federal government was trying to limit people's ability to enslave other
people.

See the head, eyes, nose, fingers? That's at eight weeks pal, it only gets
better. You may think that this human is just some 'extension', but not
everybody agrees with you. Get over it.

Well, if you're going to base your treatment of a fetus on its superficial
appearance, then do you treat it like a bug before 1 week? I happen to
think abortion is horrible and that everything should be done to avoid it.
That means sex education and making contraception readily available. But,
ultimately, a woman has to be able to make that decision for herself. Try to
imagine how you would feel if you had an unwanted pregnancy that you could
safely (if not happily) terminate and the state said you had to bring it to
term. I think I would be rather put off, to say the least.

The world does not operate according to the dictates of one Rick Marken. As
a controller, you are a doozy and you are blind to your own attempts at
controlling, like this reply of yours.

What did I say that made you think that I think the world operates according
to my dictates? And as a controller, I am pretty good at controlling some
things and not others. I am often unconscious of (blind to) my own
controlling, especially when I'm doing it well; I believe that when you
become conscious of skillful controlling, the controlling breaks down.

It will probably come to that. The reason I'm against making it a state
decision is that it seems like every woman in the country who has to
confront this terrible decision should have the right to make this decision
for herself, in private, without the government (local, state or federal) on
her back.

But that is precisely the reason we need and have governments. Anarchy might
seem like a good idea but as a controller you should know better. People
will attempt to control others whenever it suits their purposes and goals,
and there is little we can do about that except be aware of the reasons for
it, and have laws that "protect's" us from one another.

I wasn't advocating anarchy. I don't see how you got that from what I said.
I was saying that I don't think the right to abortion is a state issue, for
the same reason that I don't think slavery is a state issue: I can think of
no regional basis for having the right to abortion (or to own slaves) in
some states but not in others. I can see a regional basis for, say,
regulating beach access. But I can't see a regional basis for differentially
dealing with abortion or slavery.

I disagree, revenues have not been shrinking, he needs to reduce spending a
great deal.

If he really did cut spending significantly I believe we would end up with a
real recession. Like Reagan, Bush II is keeping the economy going through
government spending. When spending declines (as it did in the early 90s
after the cold war) you get recession (as we saw in 1991) and then you need
an intelligent Democrat to come in and fix the mess, though after 3 more
years of this madness I don't know how fixable it will be.

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

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

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

Bozo_the_Clown · November 2, 2005, 1:12am

From [Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1918)]

In a message dated 11/1/2005 7:08:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:

···

[From Rick Marken (2005.11.01.1610)]

Marc Abrams (2005.11.01.1713)

And that is the issue. It’s not for you to decide one way or the other for
anyone else.

Yes, I’m sorry. Deciding for others is reserved for the states, right?

You really are blind. ‘Deciding’ for others is something all controllers attempt to do. It helps reduce the threat others might pose to us in our attempts to control for ourselves.

It is not about any kind of government or economic system. It is about control.

If you choose to live a certain way, go right ahead, but I
think each state should have the right to make their own laws. I don’t need
nor do I want the federal government involved in my local business.

Yes, I think this would have been particularly annoying in the 1860s when
the federal government was trying to limit people’s ability to enslave other
people.

Your history is as weak as your economics and politics.

See the head, eyes, nose, fingers? That’s at eight weeks pal, it only gets
better. You may think that this human is just some ‘extension’, but not
everybody agrees with you. Get over it.

Well, if you’re going to base your treatment of a fetus on its superficial
appearance,

Yes, I realize it’s what is inside of a person that really counts…

then do you treat it like a bug before 1 week? I happen to
think abortion is horrible and that everything should be done to avoid it.

The point is not what you or I think about abortion. It’s about how we decide what is and is not permitted in our society and how that is accomplished. As controllers we each want our views to be the dominant one accepted and adopted by all.

It is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about control

The world does not operate according to the dictates of one Rick Marken. As
a controller, you are a doozy and you are blind to your own attempts at
controlling, like this reply of yours.

What did I say that made you think that I think the world operates according
to my dictates?

No it doesn’t, but like any good controller, that won’t stop you from attempting to control whatever & whomever you can. But this is not limited to you. We are all like that, and that is where the problem lies.

And as a controller, I am pretty good at controlling some
things and not others.

Yep.

I am often unconscious of (blind to) my own
controlling, especially when I’m doing it well; I believe that when you
become conscious of skillful controlling, the controlling breaks down.

I agree, and we are also blind to the consequences that our attempts at control have on others. Tom Bourbon and his work in counter-control just started to scratch the surface.

It will probably come to that. The reason I’m against making it a state
decision is that it seems like every woman in the country who has to
confront this terrible decision should have the right to make this decision
for herself, in private, without the government (local, state or federal) on
her back.

But that is precisely the reason we need and have governments. Anarchy might
seem like a good idea but as a controller you should know better. People
will attempt to control others whenever it suits their purposes and goals,
and there is little we can do about that except be aware of the reasons for
it, and have laws that “protect’s” us from one another.

I wasn’t advocating anarchy.

I didn’t say you were. Anarchy is the absence of government.

I don’t see how you got that from what I said.

You said government should not decide anything for anyone, so the absence of government is Anarchy. If you have any government you will have laws, and those laws will always limit the types and kinds of behavior that is permissible among the group of people where that law is applied. Laws will always be made by one group that is aimed at another. That is one reason why a Federalist system is needed. Our government should be an inverted pyramid with the most ‘power’ concentrated at the bottom (local) and the weakest at top

I was saying that I don’t think the right to abortion is a state issue, for
the same reason that I don’t think slavery is a state issue:

Anti - Slavery was written into the Constitution with the 13th amendment. There is no such law concerning abortion in the Constitution.

If you want a pro-abortion amendment written into the Constitution then campaign for it. There is no ‘rights’ to an abortion written or implied in the Constitution

Our 10th Amendment is also quite clear. All laws not specifically stated in the Constitution revert back to the individual states.

The interstate commerce rule has been hijacked by congress to allow congress to grant itself power it should never have. After all congress men are controllers too.

I can think of no regional basis for having the right to abortion (or to own slaves) in
some states but not in others. I can see a regional basis for, say,
regulating beach access. But I can’t see a regional basis for differentially
dealing with abortion or slavery.

Whether you ‘see’ it or not is immaterial and irrelevant.

I disagree, revenues have not been shrinking, he needs to reduce spending a
great deal.

If he really did cut spending significantly I believe we would end up with a
real recession. Like Reagan, Bush II is keeping the economy going through
government spending. When spending declines (as it did in the early 90s
after the cold war) you get recession (as we saw in 1991) and then you need
an intelligent Democrat to come in and fix the mess,

Like Jimmy Carter?

though after 3 more
years of this madness I don’t know how fixable it will be.

We survived FDR’s depression, we’'ll pull through this.

FDR did work wonders. He took a recession and with his policies he turned it into a full fledged world-wide depression that lasted for 10 years. It was only our entry into the Second World War that got our unemployment situation straightened out when millions went into the military, but it wasn’t until after the war and all those regulations lifted and 4 years of pent-up war demand, did our economy begin to roar.

One of the great myths of all time is how big government ‘saved’ this country. But then again, what would you expect politicians to say? If everyone realized how little we actually ‘need’ them where would their power go?

People who feel they have all the answers for everyone else are the folks who have to be watched the most whether they be Democrats, Republicans, or anything in-between

Regards,

Marc

Kenneth_Kitzke_Value · November 2, 2005, 1:56am

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.11.01)]

<[Tone: Considered, scholarly as far as time permits, researched,
informed, and happy as anything. Cynical where appropriate, not
unlike that of the rhetoric of the Galilean Cynic Guy in times
past… Not to be confused with ranting, attitude problems (any
more or less than the Galilean’s approach). Not anything else
that could be directed as a slur in my general direction.]>

I fail to see what is “scholarly” or carefully “considered” in your commentary. What is your scholarly source that the “Galilean Guy” was a cynic? You might enhance your scholarly credibility by correctly using the geographical location reference. It is Galilaean.

If you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth, are you afraid, ashamed, or what, to use His world recognized name? I don’t know anyone (except you) that use this title for Him. It seems highly disrespectful and unscholarly of you to refer to Him that way when the most widely sold book in the world does not use such a title or characterization. Billions of people believe in Him as Savior and LORD with all their hearts. Your cynical approach is rather insulting to them as well and you do not seem at all like Him from my studies. I don’t think you have a good understanding of who He was or what He taught and did. How many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover to be able to offer an expert characterization?

<Kenny, I don’t think your idea of governed and government as two
different entities is part of our Constitution and its
Amendments, or part any of the state or local laws. I looked, did
you?>

Neither is PCT in the Constitution. Does that make it a wrong idea? You touted that “God” is NOT found in the Federal Constitution. That’s right, just the Creator is referenced there. Who did you think the Founders were referring to as their Creator? And, have you checked on how many State Constitutions have the word “God” in them? Or, should we ignore the State Governments? I wonder where that idea came from?

This is personally insulting. It is not scholarly or respectful. And, throwing tsk tsk, hehe and that ending attempt at a smile does not make it okay. I am not a fascist, communist or part of a religious order living in a commune. Those are very unfair and inaccurate things to suggest about me. You know very little about me. I wish you would apologize and drop the innuendo and insults. This is a scientific group, not a political, philosophical or religious group. Why not take your scholarly knowledge about the Constitution or how our Government governs to some forum which focuses on that? You might have a ball, and some scholarly challenges, there.

I feel there is too much government for the governed. Big deal. I seldom complain or discuss politics in this forum or anywhere. You wrote diatribes about what is wrong with the government and how elections are stolen and all sorts of nasty sounding stuff. It seems to me that it is you as the governed (or, if you prefer, the government) that has the problem. Deal with it. But, please deal with it somewhere else. This is a HPCT psychology scientific forum. What has Bush 2 and his Presidency have to do with that?