The Honor of the Quinn

(this is an essay I wrote in response to someone who had written an essay claiming that, first, one could not meaningfully speculate about "cartoon characters" having sexual intercourse, and secondly that, if one could meaningfully speculate about this, Quinn was definitely sexually experienced).

"The Honor of the Quinn" by Jordan S. Bassior

Daria is a fictional reality. In order to ask logical questions about the "internal" state of any fictional reality (i.e., what is implicitly true about the reality based upon consistency with what has been explicitly shown), we must willingly suspend our disbelief and, temporarily, believe that the fictional reality is "really real."

This doesn't mean that we go insane and really believe that Daria, Quinn, Jane etc. are "real people" in the sense that we might run into them on the street someday. They are not really real, not in the sense that you or I are real. It means that we play "let's pretend", and pretend for the sake of argument that the fictional reality is real.

Now, this is true regardless of the mode of presentation of the story.

"Cartoon" is a "mode of presentation", not a "level of reality." The Morgendorffers are no "more fictional" than the Bunkers or the Bundys, despite the fact that the "mode of presentation" of Daria is "cartoon" and the "mode of presentation" of All in the Family and Married With Children is "live action."

"Degree of realism" is a seperate issue from "mode of presentation." Monty Python's Flying Circus is a (mostly) live action show, but its "degree of realism" is very low. By contrast, Macross is a cartoon (specifically, an "anime" styled cartoon), but its "degree of realism" is fairly high. One can assume that characters on Macross are capable of having sex; one can't be quite as sure that characters on Monty Python's Flying Circus are.

Daria has a fairly high degree of realism. Some slightly slapstick things happen, but for the most part they are mildly improbable rather than wildly impossible. The main improbability is the number of funny things that happen, but that's because the "type of fiction" that Daria falls into is "comedic drama." The level of realism is, in fact, roughly equivalent to (or higher than) Married with Children.

There is absolutely nothing in Daria that suggests that the characters live in an asexual universe. Characters fall in love, lust after each other, and make sexual advances. Yes, the camera cuts away from them before they actually do anything more explicit than kissing or very tamely caressing one another, but that's because the show is, in terms of "degree of sexual explicitness," what would normally be considered "PG" (there is some dirty language and sexual innuendo, but no actual presentation of nudity or explicit sexuality).

It is thus reasonable to assume that, in the "internal reality" of the show there is actual sex going on. What do you imagine O'Neill and Barch did after the camera cut away in "The Daria Hunter" or "Just Add Water", or Helen and Jake did in "Antisocial Climbers" or "Fire!"?

Now, you might argue, a character such as Kelly Bundy has a real physical body, so she can "have sex" in a manner which Quinn cannot. So the question "Is Kelly a virgin" has a meaning which "Is Quinn a virgin" does not. Right?

Wrong.

Kelly Bundy has no more "reality" than does Quinn Morgendorffer. Both are fictional characters, living in a fictional world. The body you see displayed is that of the lovely Christina Applegate, whose virginity or lack thereof has no real bearing on Kelly Bundy's. To confuse the two is the classic mistake of the "obsessed fan" who mistakes the actress for her character.

(In fact, Christina Applegate and Kelly Bundy have almost antithetical personalities: Christina is a an intelligent and classy woman, while Kelly is a mindless bimbo; it's almost certain that the answer to the question would have been respectively "yes" and "no" during any of the early episodes, in which both Christina and her character were in their mid-teens).

The only difference between Quinn and Kelly in regard to the "reality" of their bodies is that Quinn's body is portrayed via a series of animation cells, while Kelly's via the motions of Christina Applegate. The cells are not Quinn, and Christina is not Kelly; in both cases they are "really real" only within their fictional realities.

(Consider the following: Quinn may also be portrayed in text, as she is in the script that the actress reads from, or in a fanfic. These means of portrayal don't make her "less real", though in the case of the fanfic the "Quinn" you are seeing is "less canonical", which is another issue. The same things apply to Kelly, of course).

As for Quinn's age, I don't see what there is about her being 15 1/2 years old that makes the question inherently perverted or silly. It's relevant, of course ... if you asked me "Is Aunt Amy a virgin" I would answer "almost certainly not" (because she's in her 30's and the chances are very great that she's had a lover or lovers by that time); likewise if you asked me "Is Rachel Landon a virgin" I would answer "almost certainly yes" (because she's prepubescent and there's no reason to think she's being sexually abused).

Quinn being around 15 means that she's old enough that if she wants to have sex, and isn't particularly scrupulous about whom she has sex with, she almost certainly isn't a virgin; it's also young enough that if she is reasonably moral and hasn't had any great love in her life, she almost certainly is. One of the many poignant things about adolescence is that it's the period when most people first make decisions of this nature.

Personally, I think Quinn's a virgin. Why? Because she clearly has no real love (or even liking) for the guys she dates: she shows an aversion to physical contact of any sort coupled with a general immaturity; and she was raised by a couple with traditional sexual values (the same couple that raised Daria, who is notably prudish).

It's obvious from this that she probably wouldn't want to have sex with any of her dates. Was she pressured into it?

Maybe. But when we see Quinn with guys in the show, it's very obvious that she's the one in charge. Quinn manipulates men; she rarely lets herself be manipulated in return, not figuratively and (I suspect) not literally either. Does Quinn's behavior fit any sort of common pattern? Yes, she does. She's a classic "flirt" or "tease" ... she uses (what appears to be an implicit promise of) sex to induce guys to attempt to please her, then gracefully maneuvers out of actually delivering on this promise.

What she's doing is playing "the game of dating", in which the guy tries to get sexually as far with the girl as fast as possible while giving her as little time and money as he can get away with, and the girl tries to get as much out of the guy in terms of time and money while giving him as little sexually as she can get away with. And she's very aware that it's a game, but she is so obsessed with it that she doesn't even realize that a more mature approach to love or sexuality is possible.

(Note: by "a more mature approach" I do not mean "more sexually active." What I mean is an approach that relates her actions to her emotions and that of the person she's inolved with, and the long-term serious prospects of the relationship, rather than to a game being played for arbitrary social points).

Quinn is very good at this game precisely because she's NOT romantically or sexually interested in any of her "boyfriends." She doesn't love any of them, and she's not really turned on by physical contact as such (she might be seducible by someone who knew how to sexually excite her starting with kissing and mild foreplay, but chances are that she doesn't know anyone fitting this description, since her dates are selected on the basis of social status, not sensuality).

As a result, Quinn probably has no problem saying "no" when she deems it inadvisable to proceed further. Despite all her talk of romance, what she's doing is as cold-blooded and calculating as one of Helen's legal negotiations. Neither her heart nor any less mentionable regions are seriously involved in the issue.

My theory is further supported by Quinn's strict rule about not dating anyone more than once per n weeks (I forget the number she quoted). The whole point of such a rule is to prevent the guy from being able to advance the argument "We've been going steady for [t amount of time], if you really liked me you'd go further." Quinn's strategy lets her go on an endless number of "first dates," and at 15 not even someone who flirts as outrageously as she does is really expected to go farther than first base on a first date.

(Her strategy is not going to work forever: as she gets older she's going to have to choose between "playing the game" and her moral values. But that's another issue entirely)

In article , [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

SPOILER * * * * * * IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN DYE DYE MY DARLING OR IS IT FALL YET YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ THIS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SPOILER ENDING SOON; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED * * * * * * * * * *

real love

physical

raised by a

Daria, who

<SNIP>

dating anyone

whole point of

argument

me you'd

of "first

does is

I hadn't seen "Daria Dance Party" until this past weekend and I was surprised at Quinn's vehemence about "not slow-dancing until the fifth date". Quinn is so uncomfortable with physical contact I doubt if she's ever really "made out", strange as that may seem. Have we ever seen her kiss? I don't remember it. Unless some guy took her by surprise or physically pinned her down, I really doubt she has.

At this point (after DDMD and IIFY), even if Daria and Tom have never progressed beyond what we've actually seem (hugging and lip-kissing), Daria is almost certainly more experienced at "making out" than Quinn. Not just more experienced, but more comfortable and competent as well.

As Jane would say "Que ironico!"

Daria's going to be shocked when Quinn comes to her for advice on the matter.

going to

that's

Emerson)

M Man said:

SPOILERS for "Dye Dye My Darling" and "Is It Fall Yet" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yep. She was outright _angry_ at those guys.

I assume she's kissed guys mostly because some degree of kissing (at least a goodnight kiss) is customary when dating. She also once makes a reference (in "Road Worriers") to the need to bring "smudge-proof lipstick" to a double date with a particular guy. However, I don't think she's gone much farther than kissing, if she's gone farther at all.

Well ... I don't think it's that Daria was "more experienced", because there's good reason to suppose that this was her first kiss (in DDMD). I think the main reason Daria was "comfortable" was because she really liked Tom as an individual, and thus _wanted_ to kiss him, rather than viewing kissing him as something she had to do in return for the "status points" he was supplying her by being seen with her.

It's quite possible that by the end of IIFY that Daria's gone farther than Quinn, though I don't think she went _very_ far with Tom.

Heh ... that _would_ be amusing :)

In article ,

fifth

least a

But it wouldn't surprise me if Quinn's response is that she doesn't do that until the n-th date.

double date

than

Quinn.

well.

because there's

I was only referring to Daria vs Quinn after IIFY.

kissing him as

supplying her

than

Although people like Jodie and Kevin and Brittany had trouble believing Daria was dating Tom, did everyone notice that Quinn tossed out the line "you're obviously very compatible" so casually. Of course Quinn knew about before everyone else, nevertheless she doesn't seem to think it's anything out of the ordinary.

I wonder if Quinn's sudden interest in her tutor is at least partially due to observing Daria and Tom (even with their halting start) and deciding her own game-playing approach to dating has not been very satisfying by comparison.

Emerson)

In article ,

It would make sense. She saw Daria and Tom in a relationship where both partners benefited from each other and realized that her parasitic dating style wasn't really working. So she started looking into the possibility of a relationship that would provide her with more than the instant gratification of money and attention. And then there's David's line "All you have going for you are your looks. And they won't last forever." And since she clearly grew to respect David's opinions, she'll now be on the lookout for a guy who's interested in her beyond the glandular level.

In article ,

Daria may well now be more experienced, but I don't think she will want to talk about it. That is way too private for her to talk about. Daria has a lot of trouble taking the walls down.

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly there.

"Get your fake sweaty palms off me! I don't slow dance until after the fifth date." -Quinn in "Daria Dance Party"

In this, "the third date is the one where you get lucky" world, Quinn's statement would suggest that she doesn't want anything to do with guys on a physical level. Because of her attitude towards men and bow she treats them like slaves instead of romantic partners, I would bet that she hasn't done much of anything with anyone.

Sara

And as to Daria, her self-respect would preclude any greater intimacy with Tom; Quinn's also maturing to the point where flirting does not demand anything more serious.

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

Invid Fan said:

The emotional intensity and hence (if you're honest with yourself) involvement is at least a _bit_ higher than that involved in taking a walk. This is because there is another person involved, with whom the experience demands considerable emotional interaction.

Now, _masturbation_ is "just a physical activity humans do" etc, but that isn't what we were talking about ...

Her frequent expression of deeply grounded moral beliefs on almost every topic. It would be rather strange if sex was the _one_ thing that she had _no_ morals about.

(Incidentally, given that her _own mother_ has suggested to her that her moral standards may be "too high", and was _relieved_ to see her kissing her boyfriend, that is a strong hint that this is not the case!)

That's one way in which her words and actions could be interpreted. But, most of the time, Daria has behaved honestly.

About both love _and_ sex, probably linked in most cases, if she's at all emotionally normal ... and there's no indication that Daria isn't, in that regard.

Ah, but now you're talking about her reaction to another human being because she finds him to be "special." You're no longer talking about the casual and emotionally meaningless sex that you were implying coming _in_ to this conversation. What you're talking about, in fact, is "falling in love."

Invid Fan writes:

You've been watching too many MTV soaps and 'reality' shows. :-)

She has extremely high moral standards about _everything_. That's kind of the point of the show. We're talking John Galt A=A morals here though, not just Ten Commandments morals.

No, she hasn't met a guy in Lawndale yet who thinks on her level enough to recognize her value. I don't think there's any evidence that she thinks she'll be unable to find someone. In the glimpses we get of her vision of the future, she always seems to have someone and be content. (Except the one where Trent's a couch slob, but that didn't last long.)

And because they deserve it. She'll still mock people even when she's getting some; she doesn't do it out of loneliness. Look at Aunt Amy -- she's clearly a confident adult who's far from a spinster, and she's still got that sarcastic attitude.

Well, when we've seen her dream about Trent, they've been talking in front of a fireplace, not going at it in bed. :-) In fact, whenever she has an image of the future, it focuses more on her successful career than on romance. I get the feeling that Daria is far more hungry for good conversation and moral compatibility than for sex, and that when she finds someone who can provide the former, the rest will come naturally as a minor but important part of that. I don't actually think Tom can meet her on her level for long -- he's not nearly as morally strict -- but the writers might disagree with me on that. :-)

Aaron

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that

Sara

Aaron Baugher said:

Yes, which means that she probably wouldn't consider it immoral to have sex with someone whom she was seriously in love with (regardless of marital status) _and_ she would consider it immoral to pretend to love someone whom she didn't, for personal advantage (also regardless of marital status). The consistent point in Daria's moral scheme is "honesty", and that cuts both ways: in some situations it means she'd be more willing to be sexual than someone with a purely religious code of values: in other situations it means she'd be _less_ willing.

Daria comes out of a stable and mostly happy family -- she complains a lot about it (all teenagers do) but it's obvious that Helen and Jake love each other and love her as well, and that this has been something she could always count on. She would, based on her background, consider it plausible that she would (as her mother did) wind up in a loving, long-term monogamous relationship.

What we've seen of her fantasies make it obvious that she sees marriage as a good thing, _if_ one is married to a worthy man. Daria's definitely an "equality feminist" in that she doesn't consider herself inferior because of her sex, but she's not a "radical feminist" by any means: she has no inherent hostility towards men simply because they're male, and she doesn't see marriage as an Evil Patriarchal Conspiracy.

(Note that in the one where Trent was a couch slob, one of the things wrong with her life was that she was an unwed mother).

Exactly. Daria probably _will_ grow more tolerant of the failings of others as she grows older, but that doesn't mean that she'll morph into a totally different personality.

That's a very good point. What she's looking for, then, is a man who will above all be her friend and partner in life first and foremost, rather than someone who romantically thrills her or sexually excites her as his primary attribute. (I'm not saying she would thnk _poorly_ of these as secondary attributes, mind you! ;-))

In article , Aaron Baugher wrote:

I'm now picturing Daria wandering through the cast of "Undressed." That would make hilarious fanfic, actually.

Wow, a mention of John Galt in a post about an MTV show that's a spinoff of Beavis and Butthead. I'm impressed (I really am).

"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message news:[email]...

Heh.

Who is John Galt? *wink*

LI (who managed to connect "Atlas Shrugged" with Simon LeBon once...long story)

[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :

I can understand that... I could do it....lets see...I'm into DD and Rush, Rush's drummer Neil Peart, has taken a lot of inspiration from Ayn Rand, who wrote the aformentioned book.....yeah I know contrived :)

Phill.

Which makes me wonder about these high moral standards of Daria's...she's off put by Tom's family's wealth and social position, enough to use it as a reason to kibosh her first romantic relationship....even talks to herself about it, and how they're from different worlds.

Why don't we ever see her considering her own class/status level? Both her parent's are professionals, the Morgendorffers live in a big, suburban house, and she has every material need filled. Yet, she never seems to be torn up by the idea that others don't have it so good.

If she's so class conscious, and so well read on the historical movements related to these issues (conversations with Tom in DDMD), why doesn't she show a bit more anger about this? Seems like a perfectly normal thing for an overly-bright 17-year-old to get worked up over.

If nothing else, the amazingly shallow materialism the rest of her family demonstrates would tend to drive her in that direction out of reaction.

Antithesis: Unless, of course, she is a Randite and is only out for herself, believing that those less capable deserve their lots.

me

Al B said:

about it,

I think this was an _excuse_ on her part because she was afraid of and uncomfortable with the whole situation, _especially_ because Jane was mad at her about it.

She's upper middle class; Tom's family is rich; and in any case this really wasn't the issue.

Because she's _not_ really "class conscious" in some silly Marxist sense.

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

Do you feel that having some "silly Marxist sense" is outdated? Has the idea of a class based system been wiped clean with the deft hand of globalism? Has working class, middle and upper class become simply, first world and third?

And where the hell is the second world...

or a woman...

Ouroboros said:

I think it was "outdated" when Karl Marx first thought of it, too.

globalism?

Actually, we stopped basing our "system" on "class" in 1776.

third?

Nope: there never have been hard and fast class boundaries in America, unless you want to count racial "class" (and we're moving away from _that_ mistake, too). There are "classes", but one is neither condemned nor guranteed to remain in the class of one's birth.

That referred to the Communist world. That's mostly vanished, with the death of Communism as an important international ideology. North Korea and Cuba are the pathetic, poverty-stricken remnants of _that_ evil dream.

Whoever would be a man must be a woman? ;-)

In article , [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

SPOILER FOR IS IT FALL YET

America, unless

mistake,

Maybe not in Lawndale. Does everyone else see a certain season 5 plot development coming from a mile away?

The Landons are seeking to join a very posh country club - the Sloans are among the most prominent members. Do you think that club has any non-white members yet? Do you think the Landons will get in without a stink? Or at all? Don't change that dial!

M Man said:

unless

mistake,

Why do you see Lawndale as a particularly racist place?

I have no idea.

Probably. If they're rich enough to be likely candidates for membership, they're also rich enough to massively sue the club if it refuses them based upon race.

Actually, the conflict I saw looming was the one foreshadowed by Helen and Jake wanting to go to that banquet and realizing that they lacked the money. Not a "class conflict" in the sense of the Sloanes rejecting the Morgendorffers, but rather a matter of envy of the Sloanes _by_ the Morgendorffers.

In article ,

America,

Generally, no. But the Sloans and their friends aren't typical. For one thing, their kids don't go to Lawndale High. Mrs Sloan, when she learned Daria attended Lawndale High instead of Tom's private school, seemed to be trying to force herself to act tolerant about it.

They probably don't even know that the football captain and valedictorian-apparent at Lawndale are both black.

They often don't. And Andrew Landon seems to be putting a lot of effort into getting into the club - golf lessons for the family, schmoozing Tom when he found out who his mother is. Landon's financial success, social position, and general all-around suburban upper middle- class lifestyle OUGHT to make his admittance a done deal - unless he's to be the first black member of the club.

My point is that the story line introduced in IIFY about the Landons applying for membership, the pointed snobbishness of the Sloans' world, and Mrs. Sloan's position on the country club membership commitee all looks like it's leading to the plot-development I mentioned.

membership,

based

Probably they can. Maybe they will. Andrew Landon, however, seems like the type who will (at least, at first) try to schmooze his way through anything.

Jodie will be mad as hell.

Of course, the club won't ADMIT that race was the turn-down reason. Exclusive clubs still do this sort or thing, even though it usually backfires on them - they get bad publicity, members in the public eye have to resign, the applicant usually gets admitted in the end anyway.

Helen and Jake

money. Not a

Morgendorffers, but

Emerson)

But don't forget that the Landons (the parents at least, Michelle in particular) LOOK for discrimination, even where there isn't any. In fact I'd say they are the most racist couple we've seen thus far though it's horribly anti-pc of me to say so.

Personally I'd find it absolutely hilarious for them to knock themselves out gearing up for a fight and then have there be absolutely no hint that they were different from any other applicants. But of course even if there was no hint they'd probably make one in their own minds....

Just my 2 bits of thought when I should have been in bed HOURS ago.

---------- In article , [email] (Tephra Adularia) wrote:

I sincerely doubt it, given the lack of diversity shown in Lawndale (given that Lawndale High is a microcosm of the town in general).

The Landon's admittance would be a shoo-in, but there's a caveat which may make them refuse. (see below)

Personally, speaking as a black person, the Landons (as I do) look and FIND discrimination because it exists everywhere. Even though Jodie, as pragmatic as she can be, recognizes this but doesn't let it effect her decisions. Knowing Michelle's pattern of skeptically reading into everyone's statements (demonstrated by her constant questioning Helen's opinions in "Gifted") could possibly factor in the Landon's acceptance in Winged Tree Country Club if they are indeed the first black family to be members. I don't think Michelle would relish being the "token" family. Plus, having those opinions would make (only) Michelle very prejudiced, perhaps bigoted (like George Jefferson), but not a racist. If you disagree, there is a difference.

Shawn St.Clair ([email])

Perfection is subjective

Shawn St. Clair said:

What's the difference, in your mind?

The difference is while bigotry lay with the individual, racism is the use of bigotry as a matter or policy, doctrine or law to deny the rights of others. It's not in my mind, you can see for yourself in Webster's.

Shawn St. Clair said:

I see. So if Andrew Landon denied someone employment because he was white, he would be "racist", but if he merely despised whites, he would be merely "bigoted?"

---------- In article , [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

(incidentally, Andrew Landon doesn't strike me as either racist OR bigoted, I was merely using him as an example!)

I don't see him as a bigot either, rather as a fiscal conservative (a Steve Forbes "flat tax" kind of person).

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

What is it now based on?

I think there have been class rules- definitely, but they have just been less obvious than in England. With the absence of royalty in America as a governing factor, the rich by birth lineage was not an applicable system. Also the idea that it is simple to transgress the conditions of your birth is quite ludicrous- it helps, of course, if we all believe that we can succeed (what is success anyway?), and buy more stuff and live the material dream. And yes in one way we have imploded into a huge middle class, with more expendable income, but in terms of real power- nothing has changed.

I just get pissed when i see exclusive language being used to speak for both genders- it is hideously outdated, in a society that absolves it's self of any gender based difference ;)

Ouroboros said:

Below a certain level of "obviousness", you aren't talking about social "classes" any more, but rather "subcultures" -- and most of these subcultures are open to new entrants.

(the only truly closed "class" I can think of in America are the "Boston brahmins", the old Northeastern elite. But they don't run the country anymore, and haven't for over 100 years, since the Gilded Age saw nouveau riche run right over them. Their Southern equivalent, located mostly around Virginia, was shattered by the American Civil War, a decade or two earlier).

Then if wealth is not based solely or even primarily on "birth lineage," we don't have "classes" in the sense that one is doomed to remain at the status of one's family, or even near it. Which is to say that, compared to most times and places, we are a "classsless" (or semi-classless) society. What we have are "income levels", which are variable.

What do you mean by "transgress the conditions" of one's birth?

Most Americans _do_ succeed in those terms. As for "what is success?" -- I'm not sure what you mean. An economic system can only provide material goods -- it can't guarantee happiness. The track record of Marxism in terms of providing _either_ "material goods" or "happiness", however, is quite dismal compared to that of a free enterprise system.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real power" -- I'd argue that in America, "real power" is held primarily by those ambitious to attain it. And "nothing has changed" since _when?_ 1776?

I suggest you study some more American history!

1) In English, "man" embraces both genders when used as a general term: i.e. "every man must follow his own path".

2) The notion that we should specify "man or woman" instead originated about 25 years ago. Emerson lived in the 19th century. Are you saying that I must:

a) refuse to quote from people who wrote longer than 25 years ago (thus trashing most of my own cultural heritage), or

b) mangle existing quotes by rewriting them?

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Why, Why do you keep refering to Comunisim as "evil" ? Can you justify that statement ? And no I don't mean Stalin did bad things and therefore Commnisim is bad. I'm talking about justifying that the *IDEA* of Communisim is bad.

For the record, I think it as Capitalisim, is neitehr in iseslf neither good or bad, but it has got tainted as being bad because of what people have done in it's name, likewise for Capitalisim.

BTW Jordan, serious question, and it is sorta relevant, approx how old are you, ball park figure will do...hehehe I'm kinda 31ish :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

Fundamentally, because it denies the rights of human beings to enjoy their own property. Furthermore, because the Marxist variety disenfranchises its political opposition, paving the way for dicatorship.

Not just Stalin. Also Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and pretty much _every_ Communist dictator has ruled abominably by Western standards. Frankly, I see "Communist" and "Fascist" as morally indistinguishable, and "Leninist" the equivalent of "Nazi".

When an idea results in (at worst) megadeaths and (at best) economic stagnation every time it is put into practice, while its antithesis leads to (at worst) economic stagnation and (at best) broadly based prosperity; reality is giving us a broad hint that this is a Bad Idea.

I reject the proposed moral equivalence. Capitalism has enabled freedom (*) and produced prosperity; communism has justified tyranny and produced economic stagnation. (**)

(*) As Marx (!!) was one of the first to point out.

(**) Marx, of course, was hoping that Communism would produce _more_ freedom and prosperity than capitalism. History has proved him wrong.

35. Old enough to remember the campus crowds cheering the victory of Communism in Vietnam, and their pointed silence as the victors began to slaughter the victims.

Communism, on paper, is a perfect system. The problem is that people are imperfect beings. Communism doesn't currupt communism, people corrupt communism. (I sound like an NRA spokesman) Communism is a great idea, nothing wrong with it at all, it's just that it doesn't work as long as humans are running the show.

By the way, for those interested you can now hear me on WRPI, 91.5 in Troy, NY at midnight on thursday nights. Listen online at http://www.wrpi.org

Woah... back the opinionated truck up there. Communism is not a perfect system to everyone. Those of us who believe in the objectivist (in the Randian sense, not the painting movement :) line of thought would have _serious_ problems with your assertation.

(According to the online Miriam Webster dictionary www.m-w.com) "com�mu�nism 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed"

I am not going to get into a political debate here about my feelings on Communism and the Green Party in general but I will say that blatantly stating that, "Communism, on paper, is a perfect system," is a bold/foolish/incorrect statement because not everyone subscribes to the views that you do. Take a look at www.aynrand.org/objectivism. Just because you want to share your hard earned money with some lazy shmoe off the street who would rather guilt hard working people into giving him money than get off his ass doesn't mean that the rest of us want to do the same. I work for _myself_, no one else.

"He's my very favorite slacker multi-millionaire." -ten points if you know where this quote comes from :)

(from the Green Party homepage, www.gp.org) "1. We call for an economic system... which put[s] human and ecological needs alongside profits to measure success, and are accountable to the communities in which they function." "2. Community-based economics constitutes an alternative to both corporate capitalism and state socialism." "Recognition of limits is central to a Green economic orientation. The drive to accumulate power and wealth must become recognized for what it is, a pernicious characteristic of a civilization headed, ever more rapidly, in a pathological direction."

Personally, it repulses and frightens me that people actually believe in this stuff... I'm buying my own island somewhere... I think I'll call it... Galt's Gulch.

Sara

In article , SM wrote:

To put it more simply, quoting Frank Zappa:

"Socialism doesn't work. The second word a kid learns, after Mommy, is MINE."

This proves the reason why I cannot possibly support the Greens. They say they are against State Socialism and then turn around and say that they believe in community-based economics. What is that, if not socialism.

Unfortunately, no party really speaks to my real political beliefs. After Gore came out as pro-State Censorship, there is only one person I can hold my nose and vote for, and that is Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. At the very least he wants to dismantle the drug war and is anti-censorship.

I really respect Nader. Don't get me wrong here. As a consumer advocate he's great. But as President...naaah.

--.\\<-H--

SM wrote:

A dictionary is, almost by definition, a bit simplistic. In particular, b) does not entirely ring true with my perception of communism. As Marx and Engels say in _The German Ideology_: "Communism is not for us a state of affairs which is to be established as an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."

The system referred to in b) would IMHO be socialism.

This economic view sounds a bit... naive, I guess. Much in the same way as I think of socialism. Separation of state and economy is generally a Good Thing IMO, but if you draw it to its extreme, it just becomes silly, and in some places clearly contradicts the goals of the philosophy. Free markets only function under certain conditions, and some kind of power has to enforce those conditions. Hence, we have governments. Sure, we can argue how *much* economic power they should have, but I can't see what good it would do to get rid of them entirely. Too much in the objectivist economic manifesto sounds like longing for good ol' medieval barter trade, to which I'm not that keen on returning.

Good for you. Socialism doesn't change anything though; you can still work for yourself, you just won't receive a substantial material compensation for your efforts. That's why socialism can be seen as utopian in nature: it is ultimately based on the premise that you don't *need* material possessions beyond the bare necessities; that humanity has outgrown them [1]. Clearly, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

-- Stefan.

[1] Obviously, this is not a position with which Marx would agree, as he disagreed with utopian socialists.

And I wholeheartedly believe that is morally wrong. Why work if you will not receive what you deserve? What's the motivation?

Anyway, to get back to my original off topic topic - :) - I just think that stating Communism is perfect, even in theory, is too absolute a statement because I was trying to point out that there are many people with completely opposite views on the ideal economic theory.

(You know, I usually hate off topic postings but I always slip when no new episodes come out for a long time - please accept my apologies for inappropriate ng behaviour - I'll shut up now)

Sara

Stefan Backstrom said:

That's an argument against anarcho-capitalism, not Objectivism. Objectivists are in favor of a classical liberal state: one which maintains police, judicial, and military functions.

Unless they've changed a _lot_ since Ayn Rand's death, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

So -- I have the right to work, and others have the right to steal everything I make? This doesn't sound like a very moral system.

Clearly, that isn't going to happen _ever_. Even if technology advanced to the point that we could convert energy into anything we wanted, there would still be at _least_ one economically scarce good -- energy. And I personally believe that space and time, and probably several other inputs, would remain "scarce" in economic terms (*)

(*) Meaning that people would still want more than existed, so "effective" demand would have to be compared to supply in some fashion, and this fashion would be either be a market or some less efficient rationing system.

Indeed -- Marx may have been seriously wrongheaded, but at least he acknowledged reality to _that_ extent!

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

But which doesn't interfere with the economy. Call me a commie pinko, but I do feel the state has a role to play even in a purely economic sense, like breaking up monopolies and printing money.

Well, my point is that free markets in a decentralized economy might not work as efficiently as you'd think they would. For markets to function optimally, everyone has to have equal and perfect access to information. I see no incentive in objectivism to provide such services, and decentralization is in this case likely to create many small monopolistic markets rather than one big free one. I'm not saying we have anywhere near perfect information in today's society either, but no one's saying that we live in an ideal economy.

Just curious: what is the standpoint of the objectivists on patents/intellectual property? Do they expire? Does the holder have complete control over them?

As for the barter economy part, I was just pointing out that few modern economies have managed to function without a centralized banking system. The government's role as lender of last resort and issuer of money is vital to keep the financial system alive; yet if the state is to be separated from the economy, it must relinquish control of monetary policy.

Since there are no rights to personal property under socialism, others can't steal anything from you; you don't own anything. Theft is not a valid concept where there are no material possessions.

I agree. I'm not sure if I made it clear that I'm not advocating socialism as a functioning system. It's just that I feel that all philosophies and ideologies are utopian to some extent, and to claim that one won't work is pretty futile. No ideologies are perfect; it's just a question of which is easier to adapt to reality. Or maybe the other way around.

-- Stefan.

Stefan Backstrom said:

I have no real problem with that, though I think that the only truly dangerous monopolies are coercive ones, and that a state has to beware of the temptation to try to print its way out of a deficit.

"Information costs" are going to exist in any system. No market can even theoretically be perfect, therefore. But a market made imperfect by informational problems is better than one made imperfect by direct intervention -- it's easier to fit.

decentralization is in

In practice, unless you have a "natural" (geographic) monopoly, local monopolies tend to have to remain competitive or suffer from the spread of other firms into their area.

Also, political decentralization isn't the same thing as economic decentralization, as long as sovereignity is undivided and banditry is suppressed.

Incidentally, I'm not an anarchist, and neither are objectivists.

I don't know --- SM, do you know?

Mmm, I don't see any real problem with a state bank, as long as the state resists the temptation to use it for political ends. The current US system with the Federal Reserve works pretty well, though I think Fed mismanagement back in the 1920's was partially responsible for the Great Depression.

Since, however, I still need material possessions to live, and even more so to _enjoy_ life, this puts me at the mercy of whatever agency controls the possessions.

I looked on the website for "patent" and "intellectual property" but they came up empty, so I don't really know. You would have to read more in depth, I guess, to find anything on it.

Sara

*----------------------------*
"... the popular guy died and
now I'm popular because I'm
the Misery Chick.  But I'm not
miserable!  I'm just not like
them!
	-Daria
*----------------------------*

SM wrote in message news:[email]...

The Simpsons? Sounds like something Homer said while reading Wired/"Weird"

labrat ______________________________ Why is it that the first piece of luggage out of the chute at the airport never belongs to anyone? ____________________________ If Mike Brady was such a great architect why did they have 6 kids and only one bathroom? ____________________________ Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money

In article ,

I think it's Weird Al. My Baby's In Love With Eddie Vedder. "She thinks he's so darned dysfunctional and Generation X-y!"

-Ash

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner :)

i would certainly have to agree with you. if you look at communism, it could almost be a "utopia". but hey, the people in the society (although, more likely the people in power) screwed up the whole thing.

"Jon Reiss" wrote in message news:[email]...

stagnation

worst)

giving

imperfect

(I sound

at all,

Troy, NY at

place."

In article , Jordan S. Bassior wrote:

Not exactly fair. I actually *agree* with you (and view the world pretty much the same way) but you're changing the terms of the argument.

I respectfully disagree. She seemed pretty bugged about it -- especially since she interpreted Tom's insensitive behavior (not letting her know she was invited to the ball, not being announced to his family at all) as his somehow being ashamed of her. And why would he be -- in her mind at the time -- if not because she's not as posh as she is?

As it turns out, she was wrong -- but it was a reasonable assumption. Probably driven by her own misgivings over Jane and her own personal fears, I grant you -- but it seemed like more than mere excuse-making from my view.

Approximate quote: "Isn't it bad enough that the whole town grovels at the Sloans' feet without having to put up with it in my own home?"

Sounds like Daria, all right.

Well, no, I guess she wouldn't be...on MTV -- a fantasy land where there is no class, and poverty is merely being "street" and "real."

Some would like to think so. I'll grant that most Western nations, especially the US, have more class mobility than they did. But this does not erase the idea of class.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

me

In article , [email] (Al B) wrote:

especially since

was

somehow

• if not

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding brewing between Tom and Daria. Tom thinks of his new girlfriend as cynical, intellectual, and anti-social - all of which is very true up to a point. What he doesn't yet realize is that she's very much a traditional romantic in a lot of ways. Her desire to go the ball and meet his parents looks like a desire to be "shown off" by Tom.

Now, will Tom realize this? Of course, he doesn't know anything about her fantasies (such as the one about Trent in Write Where It Hurts), but he might remember her comparing his gesture of knocking down "Leo" in I Loathe a Parade with throwing a cape over a mud puddle. Even though she was clearly warming up to Tom by then, that was still a very uncharacteristically flirtatious moment from Daria - inspired by something she saw as very romantic.

M Man said:

Yes!!! You've got it! And you stated it very well too!

Daria is _not_ truly a cynic (*). She never has been. Her "cynicism" has always been basically an armor she has grown to protect her idealism and romanticism from the cynicism and callousness of _others_. Most of the time she gets _angry_ it's because someone is failing to live up to her high standards: in DDMD and IIFY, she was very angry at _herself_ for failing to do so!

(*) Not in the routine meaning of the term, though she is, of course, in the sense _Diogenes_ meant it!

She is, of course, an intellectual. And, additionally, a supergenius. Which has increased her alienation, because she realizes that most of the people around her don't even _comprehend_ the issues that are important to her.

Her anti-social behavior derives directly from the lack (or perceived lack) of people she can be "social" with _on her level_. This is why when she met Jane, she quickly made friends with her, and when she allowed herself to really notice Tom, she fell in love with him. She _wishes_ for the company of people whom she can relate to as equals: she is however afraid to open up to most people (and with good reason!)

The big question here is this: is Tom also genuinely idealistic or romantic in the same general ways Daria is? If not, he may fail to appreciate or even notice this aspect of her personality, before it's Too Late.

Incidentally, one of the reasons she always liked _Trent_ was that he is, under the grunge, a genuinely kind, caring, and even chivalrous soul -- and she saw it. She stopped pursuing Trent when she decided that his flaws were too great for him to overcome.

In article ,

and

and

doesn't

of

has always

romanticism

gets

standards: in

in the

Which has

people around

lack) of

met Jane,

really

of people

most

about

"Leo"

very

romantic in

even

Probably he is. He seemed to appreciate Daria's cape over the puddle comment. In the same episode, his "thank you for sharing the moment" was a romantic comment delivered in a romantic way. Probably the sort of comment that would have been wasted on his then-girlfriend Jane.

is, under

she saw

too great

Emerson)

Al B said:

since

Ok -- Daria was insecure, and judged Tom unfairly. Which means she's Not Perfect.

Horrors :)

Which was, of course, an overstatement.

There's no real "class" system in modern America. What we have is the faint remaining shadow of the class systems of the past. If you'd ever seen a real class system in operation, you'd recognize the difference.

It's an idea that is increasingly indistinguishable from "subculture".

Ok: can you reasonably argue that, in America, most people are doomed to remain at the level of status and wealth that they were born into?

Adapted from a chart at: http://inequality.org

Change in Average US Household Net Worth, 1983-86:

Bottom 40 percent: -76.3 percent

Middle 20 percent: 10 percent

Next 20 percent: 20.7 percent

Next 10 percent: 23.7 percent

Next 5 percent: 20.8 percent

Next 4 percent: 21.4 percent

Next 1 percent: 42.2 percent

Source: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-98," April, 2000, Table 3. http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/300.html

I don't agree with your very narrow definition of social class, or that only truly class-stratified societies must function exactly as did Victorian England.

By David Cody, Associate Professor of English, Hartwick College, posted to http://landow/stg/brown.edu/victorian/history/history.html

"Class is a complex term, in use since the late eighteenth century, and employed in many different ways. In our context classes are the more or less distinct social groupings which at any given historical period, taken as a whole, constituted British Society. Different social classes can be (and were by the classes themselves) distinguished by inequalities in such areas as power, authority, wealth, working and living conditions, life-styles, life-span, education, religion, and culture.

Arguing that class is nothing but a subculture is beside the point -- subculture can be and is a definition of class -- if that subculture's distinctive qualities derive from its social condition and means.

"This basic hierarchical structure (presented here in highly oversimplified form), comprising the "upper classes," the "middle classes," the "Working Classes" (with skilled laborers at one extreme and unskilled at the other), and the impoverished "Under Class," remained relatively stable despite periodic (and frequently violent) upheavals, and despite the Marxist view of the inevitability of class conflict, at least until the outbreak of World War I. A modified class structure clearly remains in existence today."

The quote above correctly talks about a modified class-structure -- reformed through pressure brought to bear by labor movements, liberal reformers and our government's efforts to redistribute enough wealth to prevent uprisings by the very poor. (Well, that was a goal up until 1980, anyway. Then, we started building prisons.)

You're asking me whether rigid class stratification exists in the US. It does if one can argue that there are significant impediments to most individuals attaining either capital (as in our old friend, means of production) or political power.

When exactly was the transformation that eliminated all impediments for everyone? Who owns American corporations? Lots of people own a little bit, but how many have a controlling interest?

"As of 1995, 40 percent of American households owned stock either directly or through a mutual fund or some sort of retirement plan. _Almost 90 percent of the value of all stocks and mutual funds was held by 10 percent of the households._ " (Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances) -- http://inequality.com

The chart above shows that a majority of people -- at least 60 percent -- would find becomeing owners difficult today -- they are therefore trapped in their class. This bottom 60 percent -- probably more -- most likely cannot buy the educations -- and homes in ZIP Codes -- that would connect them to power elites -- such as board memberships in major corporations, seats in legislatures or professional credentials. Or memberships at the Country Club, n'est pas?

Al B said:

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming that each individual remains in his category over the period. For instance, a kid who grows up, gets a job, and moves into his own apartment is likely to drop to a "poorer" group, despite the fact that his situation has actually improved. Likewise, in an ethnic group, a whole wave of immigrants may move up and be replaced by recent immigrants in the bottom category: this may be tracked as a reduction in wealth of that "category" despite the fact that the overall trend for that group is upward!

The principal impediment to attaining capital is the need to put your nose to the grindstone. The principal impediment to attaining power is the need to become involved in politics. Most people don't bother, because Life is Comfortable.

everyone?

I never said that "all impediments" were eliminated for "everyone". However, the vast and continuing growth of wealth in America from 1750 to the present, and the expanding participation in our republican politics, has dissolved _most_ impediments for _most_ people.

Perfection is unattainable.

By definition, only _one_ person may have a controlling interest in any given corporation, if anyone does. This is irrelevant, as _wealth_ is determined by share ownership, not board control.

class.

Why must someone own a controlling interest in a corporation to become rich? Futhermore, what prevents people from starting their _own_ corporations? (answer: very little, and many people do justthat).

elites

I'm not sure what you mean by "connect" -- in reality, members of "power elites" are simply people, whom (because we _don't_ have a rigid class structure) anyone with the willingness to network can get to know. I personally know a 16-year old girl who has no trouble interviewing celebrities for an online news site, fer pete's sake! Show some initiative!

Jodie's father, incidentally, is very obviously _already_ a member of the "power elite." Note the banker's reaction in "Partner's Complaint."

In fact, if business ownership and professional credentials are the keys to membership in this elite, Jake and Helen are, too. Jake owns a consulting firm, and Helen is a lawyer.

The fact that the Sloans are at an even higher level should clue you in to the fact that there is not simply one wealthy class, but rather numerous subcultures at all economic levels, whose interactions are much more complex than the Marxist model would imply.

No society is _completely_ classless. America's in 2000 is about as close to it as any society has ever become. Incidentally, the _reason_ why Americans are able and willing to buy on credit is that they have good expectations of increasing their personal wealth in the future; they can see that they are richer than they were in the past, and richer than their parents and grandparents were.

As for being "free", what society has ever been freer?

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

The fact of the matter remains that the current economic system that we use in the West has a fixed base of a few very rich and a large base of middle and poor. A new study has revealed that statistical differences in income are not based on individual changes in circumstance- rather it appears that the base statistics reiterate through out the whole system as a stable pattern, much a like a fractal.

I think this is a rather naive and pompous statement- plenty of people work very hard just to make it in the black. Politics is a puppets game, the idea of gaining power through the political game is an illusion. Real power comes from having both the resources and the income to push your agenda *through* the figure heads. This is why media moguls, the ones controlling representation in an increasingly image and media saturated world, are counted among the richest and most powerful people in the world.

I would not attempt to speak for most people if i were you.

Yet statistically only few are getting very very rich-

The big corporations leaning on the little ones for a start- the economic game is not fair, there is a ceiling.

Propaganda relies on this symbiosis between media and image. Does an interview equate to sharing power?

Yes, we can see how this model works on a grand scale via third world debt.

I have never lived in any society other than my own, Australia mind you, not America- i would image freedom is relative and value systems and notions of "wealth" subjective..

Ouroboros said:

the

First of all, most non-rich (in America anyway) are middle class. Our system is diamond-shaped, rather than pyramid-shaped as pre-industrial societies were.

Secondly, while the bulk of the population cannot (by definitiion) be "rich", the general level of wealth rises continually, so what it means to be "middle class" constantly improves.

Thirdly, what's the alternative? Attempts to replace capitalism with communism have simply led to greater poverty in the societies which have tried it.

"Very hard" by modern standards is _nothing_ compared to what it meant 100 or 200 years ago. And the improvements in working conditions were made possible by the economic growth resulting from capitalism.

How do you imagine politicians gain power, then?

The people who are actually elected to office are far from "figure-heads" -- you should learn how the system really works. It's fascinating and much more complex than your propaganda.

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

Aye- so the class structure is still there. However if you look at the global economy, which has replaced ideas of capitalism, the shape of wealth distribution is triangular. It's all good and well to speak from a privileged position about how everything is fair and wonderful for all, but the fact remains, that this is a presumptuous and incorrect analysis. If you think the systems working, talk to someone who isn't.

It's also called inflation- to keep up with rising goods and property prices, peoples wages rise, and vice versa. Materially we are improving, however as our expendable income is spent mostly on the accouterments of image (as our basic needs are taken care of)- ala fashion club, i fail to see how this synonymous with evolution or even progress.

If we really wanted to focus on progress we would look at how our throw away lifestyles are impacting on the very earth we live on and with.

But again- ideas of progress and evolution (not in the Darwinian purest approach), are thoroughly culturally subjective.

I do not advocate one or the other- I find flaws in both. Many people believe that capitalism has had it's day and has now been replaced with globalization. If you look at capitalism, which grew out of geographical expansion and economic theory of the 18 Century, you will find that the governing principle behind it is Rationality. i.e. Progress and civilization is achieved through a rational application of science and economics. Economics was meant to serve the people- this is rational.

However, as a system capitalism/globalism has ceased to be rational, even ideas of left and right are still part of the same irrational structure. They appear to sit in binary opposition but in fact define the same thing through their opposition.

This irrationality can been seen in a system that supports itself ( cybernetic) but is thoroughly abstracted from the people it is meant to serve. Like politics really.

I think the first alternative is to recognize this- although it is difficult because it looks at the basic structures that govern our lives in the West.

Look at slave labor, the sweat shops that produce the garments that us middle class spend our expendable income on blissfully unaware that for a lot of people life is very hard. The under class- the people that toil to support this structure at the bottom just so they can pay their rent on time- are hidden.

That is not the question- the question is that power is not a political game, it is an economic one.

Propaganda?

My ideas, my point of view- and before you go belittling anyone over their perceived lack of knowledge you might want to read up on postcollonial economics- try John Ralston Saul "Voltaire's Bastards" then read "The Unconscious Civilization". Also a background in Post Structuralism may indeed break down some of those firmly ingrained and ultimately elitist and exclusivist notions of yours.

Indeed- <ironic smile>

Ouroboros said:

is

Not really, because there are no real barriers to individuals rising and falling between "classes." In a true "class structure" there would be attitudes about "staying in one's place" that would inhibit such motion.

It's quite common for people, in the course of their lives, to progress from the lower to the middle classes, and in some cases even attain the upper classes. It's also quite common for middle classs people to become rich (indeed, most who live a long time do so simply from compounded interest). And the reverse motion, alas, also happens.

That's simply because the Third World is at a more primitive stage of economic development. There is nothing about the wealth of the First World that _requires_ anyone else's poverty. Indeed, we are enriched by wealthy trading partners.

I never said any such thing. NO system can make everything "fair and wonderful for all." Especially not communism, which usually has quite the opposite effect.

Why would they be better off under some other system?

"rich",

"middle

No, "inflation" has _nothing_ to do with "rising wealth". Inflation has to do with the ratio between money (of various kinds) and goods.

That's OUR choice, what to spend our money on (or invest in, for that matter). I, for instance, am almost totally unconcerned with image.

I'm not really sure of the difference.

Not a significant pat of our economy.

The vast majority of "sweat shops" are staffed by people who not only volunteer for the jobs but are glad of them. Difficult as it may be for you to believe, these are the best jobs they can get, in their current situations. They are also usually stepping-stones to eventual better jobs.

Your idea that the wealth of America is "supported" by the poverty of other lands is incorrect. If the rest of the world was richer than they are now, we'd be _better_ off in absolute terms, not worse.

Power is most definitely a "political" game. It's about who can give orders, not who has the most money. _Wealth_ is the "economic" game. Now, the complex part is that the two games intertwine -- and the conversion of wealth to power, or power to wealth, is not automatic. Indeed, such conversion is what most of the subtler tactics of the game involve!

economics-

some

yours.

Why is the idea that any person, or nation, can get rich through hard work and wise planning, an "elitist and exclusivist" one? I welcome others into the club of prosperity, I do not exclude them!

jsbasssior wrote:

If you accept this a priori, then apart from perhaps educating a few others, I'm wasting my time discussing this with you. However, I must say it has been fun, and you got me off my duff to do a bit of writing.

The wealth of the United States was stolen from its indigenous people, and those stolen resources were then transformed into commodities through slave labor. The current condition is more of the same, on an international, "globalized" scale.

Why don't more people accept this, even though it's now taught in school? Imagine if you could speak to a fish in an aquarium. Ask him: "How's the water today?" He'd reply: "What's water?"

me

Bearded888 said:

partners.

That's how trading [address] The greater the value that others have to trade, the better the deals that _you_ can make!

I don't deny that there are frequently _political_ "beggar thy neighbor" sentiments -- the last big round of these sentiments fuelled the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, spread the Great Depression worldwide, made recovery from it more difficult, and helped bring us World War II. But these are due to popular misunderstandings of the economics of trade, not due to the nature of trade itself.

Imagine that you have something of value to trade. Would you rather trade it with the rich, or the poor? Who will be willing to give you more for it?

It's true that in _relative_ terms we're richer if others are poorer. However, I'm not interested in becoming "richer" by beggaring others: I'm interested in what _I_ have to enjoy, not what others _don't_ have. I think that's a much healthier attitude towards life, don't you?

The _raw materials_ were. That's not the same thing. And, incidentally, any particular "indigenous people" on any plot of land had, at some point, stolen it from _earlier_ "idigenous peoples", since there was probably nowhere on Earth (save perhaps Tierra del Fuego and similarly unattractive territories) where the people inhabiting a region were the first to settle there, even 200-500 years ago.

slave labor.

Yet, oddly enough, the primary development of the United States took place in the North, where labor was free ...

We obtain raw materials by theft and work them into finished goods through slave labor?

Remind me to invest in the next sea-raiding expedition we send to Africa, to steal their gold, ivory, and gems, k? <g>

Because she is a suburban teenager. Speaking as a teenaged daughter of two lawyers who has been raised upper-middle-class, the large portion of us don't usually think of the people who don't have it so good. Speaking for myself, I don't need the guilt. Sure, it may not be right. But it's the truth. There are many things I could do, but I don't want to. Sure, there's probably a problem with that. But I, using the selfishness of any teenager, would rather care about myself and the various problems incurred by hormones and such.

Besides, I have enough guilt over the Holocaust.

~Aabi "I'm not here for your amusement, you're here for mine. And stop throwing things at me!" ~Johnny Rotten

Evil waiter will recieve an unholy tip!

At least you're honest. I'll give you credit for that.

me

In article ,

Lots of good points.

Cuscutis said:

Hee hee hee -- a fellow Honor Harrington fan! :)

Actually, I think Daria and Honor would get along fairly well ...

In article ,

a

I don't see it. Honor is a strong-willed woman with zero tolerance for fools and a willingness to put them in their place. Daria is... Hmmm, maybe your right. :)