Go Back   Colonial Fleets > REJUVENATION CENTER > Galactica Cafe
Notices
Galactica Cafe A place to socialize and have fun!

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 30th, 2004, 02:03 PM   #31
Antelope
Guest
 
Antelope's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975
thanks jewels for understanding my viewpoint. We do have to stop shipping good paying jobs overseas or it will be our downfall economically! Cheaper labor is not always the answer!


Antelope, my step dad is a federal employee and doesn't whine about his wages and he does work hard. The perception of the federal employees whining is a bit skewed. Many of them work very hard and get no thanks for their efforts.
If you are an American farmer or anyone related to the American farming industry you should be grateful that most countries in the developed world have shipped all their well paid farm jobs (and I'm not referring to fruit pickers) to the United States. Our government does a good job attacking the foreigners in various international bodies to ensure those foreign farm jobs are exported to low cost America.

It's a good thing Japan doesn't enact legislation stopping U.S. passenger air craft sales in order to start a high wage aircraft industry in their own country. I can think of a host of high wage people in Long Beach, California that will be making 50 Boeing 7E7s for All Nippon Airline whose wages depend on foreign trade. It is also a sad thing for the Japanese people that they keep opening car production plants in the United States and Europe there by eliminating higher wage jobs in Japan.

Every one feels sorry for the poor overseas and many give to charities to feed them. Once the poor man gets an education, pulls himself up by the bootstraps and starts to earn a decent wage in the world economy the rich man who used to "care" about him and now must compete with him tries his best to change the rules of the game to keep the man poor.

I have nothing against individual federal employees. As a former federal employee myself I know that the majority of federal employees are hard working people who know they have a good thing and appreciate it. My comments are directed in a couple areas of federal employment. The first being the common statement you hear from many if not the majority of federal employees that they are paid less than people with the same skills in the private sector. The wages in the private sector are set by the laws of supply and demand. People in the private sector are paid according to what the employer can get away with. As a former private sector manager I can assure you when a large company raises wages it is because we can no longer hire the people we need to do the job at the old wage levels. The very fact that federal government continues to have vast qualified applicants for every available job open to the public shows that the federal government pays far in excess of the market wage for federal jobs. On top of that the federal government gives continuous longevity wage increases whether you are promoted or not. This exacerbates the already inflated pay scale. Those in the federal government have also rigged the ability to obtain higher wage positions within the government by not allowing qualified members of the public to compete against them accept in entry level positions. This rigging of the system allows less skilled federal employees to be given higher wage positions than more qualified people in the general public.

Accept when constrained by severe budget shortfalls, something state and local employees face but never non-military federal employees the government will continuously grow. Over time the government agencies invent more and more unneeded work while devoting less and less of their ever growing resources to actually doing the job they are paid for. This is not part of an evil plan just the nature of government. The majority of the hard working federal employees are in fact doing little actual productive work that serves the people they serve. Most federal employees are merely moving paper work from one federal employee to another while a large percent of actual workers in the federal work force are simply servicing the vehicles and machinery of the paper movers.

If the federal government tomorrow told the head of each government agency that they would be paid a million dollars a year if in one month they could figure out how to do their job with half their budget or else they would be fired I can guarantee that we could lay off half the federal work force next month. The American public outside of government would never see the difference.

I think it's funny that when the government had their budget battle during the Clinton administration that the only thing they used to fire up the public was closing the national parks. Truth be told outside national defense, national parks(which should be turned over to the state they are in anyway), and the FAA there isn't a whole lot more the government does that can't be contracted out at half the cost. They say that for every $1 the government spends on welfare checks they spend $2 on government employees to get that check there. I have read that if the government really wanted to help people they would be better off dropping hundred dollar bills out of the back of cargo planes over urban areas. The odds would be better that the money reached the real poor than the system we have today and you would eliminate all the paperwork.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2004, 02:30 PM   #32
jewels
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
 
jewels's Avatar
 


FORUM STAFFFleet Modertor
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,101


Default

Antelope: I think BSG & my point is you can't expect our economy to do well if our high paying jobs are going overseas or being filled with Visa holders who can barely speak English and who don't understand that "no" is not a bad word. What is cheap now will be very expensive later to fix with the right labor.
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]

"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
jewels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2004, 03:03 PM   #33
Antelope
Guest
 
Antelope's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewels
Antelope: I think BSG & my point is you can't expect our economy to do well if our high paying jobs are going overseas or being filled with Visa holders who can barely speak English and who don't understand that "no" is not a bad word. What is cheap now will be very expensive later to fix with the right labor.
The customer service telecommunications jobs being outsourced to India can hardly be called high wage jobs here in America. The Indians answering the phones are overwhelmingly better educated and are far more likely to speak gramatically correct English than the Americans they replaced.

For over 20 years U.S. computer companies have been importing highly educated Indian computer specialist. If they were the disaster you describe they wouldn't keep doing it. The biggest threat these Indians pose is that if they don't work for American companies they will start building their own companies and compete with us at all levels of the computer industry. Indian officials complain that they spend a lot of money to educate them only to "lose" them to America.

I wish that Americans could compete with them but the bottom line is that these people for the time being are as educated in their trade as our people are but will work for less. You can call them names and insult their culture but if they weren't producing what the employers wanted they wouldn't be here or we wouldn't be employing them there.

I hope India becomes a prosperous nation with a highly skilled work force. As the world's biggest democracy they could be a great friend. In addition as they get wealthier they will be a better market for U.S. exports.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2004, 05:12 PM   #34
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Okay, I have no time to answer all that you wrote, so I pick up the most nteresteing bits.

Quote:
My seven year old daughter is quick to tell me how things are not fair whenever she perceives an inequity. Sometimes you just need to accept that the world is never going to be designed for us and do the best with the situation.
This is really not an argument. When it comes to inequity, you just can`t say that "that`s the way it is". The reason is that the old anarchistic tribal socieites that lasted for over 20.000 years were extremly egalitarian. To say that inequity is "natural" is therefore bogus, because societies without any state regulation whatosoever have in allmost every know instance been extremly egalitarian, with just the chief and the shaman rising above the crowd, if they even have that. Both the rule of law and property rights are a form of government intervention. When you own land or natural resources, you have redesigned the world to fit you.

But then again, that`s the problem with libertarianism, human beings don`t exist for themselves but for the "market".

Quote:
It's a sad part of the nature of their industry. Like everything else in life however noone forces you to work there or anywhere else.
Well, I find to reasons why this i basically wrong. Firstly, you are actually forced to work! People need food, shelter and water to survive. The areas which are best for farming, fishing and the ground containing useful natural resources are owned by someone. This means that people who don`t own these life important resources themselves. That means that they MUST work for others to get what they need. Acutally, owning natural resources are a form of extortion. You take what other people need by force, and demand that they do what you want for you to give them access to it.

Secondly, that is just not the way a market economcy works. You argue as if all people lived on their own small little pacific island, where they have all that they need to live. That is not the case, people have to trade with other to get what they need, and people have social needs. Also, having what other people need are also a source of power, and power can be just as effective as coercion.

Quote:
Once the poor man gets an education, pulls himself up by the bootstraps and starts to earn a decent wage in the world economy the rich man who used to "care" about him and now must compete with him tries his best to change the rules of the game to keep the man poor.
Well, I rather feel that this is about you wanting to have your socialdarwinistsic utopia, without having to present rational arguments that it is the best solution. You just open the borders, knowing very well what the practial consequences will be, and just stand by and says "that`s nature" when it starts to have effect. Yes, I do agree that free trade helps the poor countries, but not to such a degree that the state finances and labour markets collapse, which is what you really want, isn`t it? You don`t care for the poor of the third world at all, just like the socialists, you want to use the "brown man" to crush your enemies in the west.


Quote:
Personally it always seems to me that government attempts to protect domestic industry only leads to them becoming uncompetitive.
Well, the problem with those countries is that they are so far behind, that they don`t really do anything that efficiently. The countries that have really succeeded, like Japan and South Korea had protective tarriffs when their industries were in their infancy.

Quote:
When we did again the U.S. had to do 90% of the fighting.
You claim that the great US military expences are a hindrance, I do not agree! Your high military expenditures have helped to give us computers,(partly) the internet and sattelite communication. Also, you have contributed to removing governments that did not support your economic model, someting Europe has not. It has been your military might that has contributed to giving you the edge.

Quote:
They are becoming a capitalist economy without a welfare statem and a potential huge consumer base.
Well, China resemble Japan and South Korea it seems, and both those countries are ranked below all the nordic countries when it comes to degree of capitalism. All the three original tigers regulate and subsidizes their economies to hold people at work.

Quote:
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

Enlighten him a little further, and he owns a chain of seafood restaurants.
Ain`t much use knowing how to fish, when noone wants to employ a fisherman.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2004, 09:52 PM   #35
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

Quote:
that`s the problem with libertarianism, human beings don`t exist for themselves but for the "market".
Libertarians believe that individuals are ends unto themselves, never a means to other's ends.
You are on record as supporting the "mob rules" notion that it is ok for citizens to vote with an eye toward taking money or resources from others with your comment
Quote:
And when it comes to a democracy, it is useless without people being able to get something out of it. If they can`t get something out of it, democracy is really useless.
To argue that such a notion of "democracy" is less moral than social darwinism is fallacious.
Such a notion of "democracy" is tyranny of the majority.

Quote:
societies without any state regulation whatosoever have in allmost every know instance been extremly egalitarian
Interesting, so primitive cultures did not war on each other for resources?
Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Quote:
Well, I rather feel that this is about you wanting to have your socialdarwinistsic utopia, without having to present rational arguments that it is the best solution.
Start with Lugwig Von Mieses "Why Socialism Fails" if you need proof that the socialist model is doomed. Then look at recent history. A reasonable man would assume that this is widely known.

Quote:
You don`t care for the poor of the third world at all
Are you using your psychic powers as "evidence" now?

Quote:
Ain`t much use knowing how to fish, when noone wants to employ a fisherman.
Here you miss the point that the fisherman does not need to work for someone alse, and indeed can go on to employ others.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 03:00 AM   #36
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Libertarians believe that individuals are ends unto themselves, never a means to other's ends.
Well, it sounds that way in theory, in practice it`s a whole different matter. To get to do what you want, you more often than not needs money. To get money you have to trade with others, which means that you have to satifsy others, thereby becoming a mean for others to get what they want. The problem arises when you need the other person more than he needs you. Then you can easily become a mean for the ends of others.

Also, libertarians like socialists doesn`t really care about the individual. Both systems put abstract prinsiples above those individuals that does`t fit into the system. Libertarians set "freedom from coercion" higher than the well being of individuals.

Quote:
You are on record as supporting the "mob rules" notion that it is ok for citizens to vote with an eye toward taking money or resources from others with your comment
Well, those that accusation can also be made against those supporting property rights. Property rights and even the rule of law are also state regulations that gains some people in comparison to others. If we should have a truly neutral society, we also have to abolish property rights and the rule of law, because these regulations make some people prosper at the expense of others.

Also, the reason for this is that many regard the market in itself to be unfair. They therefore feel that money should be redistributed to make it more fair. Another reason to do it is utilitarianism,a nd the diminishing utility value. A hundread dollars do more good for a poor than a rich person. Many of these people would also be better off in a total anarchy than libertarianism. It is therefore fair that those who gain the most from property rights, gives some compensation to those that lose out. If you should wonder, absolute material wealth does not produce more happiness in itself, as long as you don`t starve or freeze to death, it is what you have in comparison to others that produce happiness, bar a few things as living expectiancy and freedom from hard physical labour.

Quote:
To argue that such a notion of "democracy" is less moral than social darwinism is fallacious. Such a notion of "democracy" is tyranny of the majority.
Well, that may be your point of view. Actually, what you call a mob is much more civilized than your economic elites. In a libertarian society, the poorest, large segments of the working class and even parts of the middle class gets really squezed into the mud. For them, society is completely ruthless. The mob is really much more moderate. The acutally lets the rich keep so much of their wealth, that they are still much richer than the common man. They don`t hire deathsquads to kill the children of the rich, they doesn`t try to move the rich peoples jobs to India and they don`t take any chance they get to squeze the rich even more.

If you look at history, revolutions have almost always came as a direct result of the elite failing to make a compromise with a lower class in a desperate situation. Those that you call a mob has actually a lot more understanding than that. They think that some form of capitalism is okay, and the feel that material differences are a good thing. Heck, they mostly even respect that their place in the societal hierarky, even if they are at the bottom! What they really wish is to be demanded fairly, to be safe from material hardship, to get a standard of living they feel is fair compared to the effort they give. They also feel that they just shouldn`t be left to die when the get sick, just because they work at McDonalds. The point is that the masses are much better at showing restraint towards the elite, than the elite is at showing restraint towards the masses.

Quote:
Interesting, so primitive cultures did not war on each other for resources?
Sounds like revisionist history to me.
Well, I never claimed that. That a society, in this instance a tribe, has an egalitarian social structure, does not imply that that particular society does not wage war. Anyhow, the stone age can be divided in two in this regard, the hunter gatherer nomad period, and the latter more agricultural orientated period. Most of the violence of the stone age came in the latter of these periods. Most of the violence came as a direct result of population growth spawned by agriculture, which again was made possible by collective property rigths.

Quote:
Start with Lugwig Von Mieses "Why Socialism Fails" if you need proof that the socialist model is doomed. Then look at recent history. A reasonable man would assume that this is widely known.
Well, you assume that all system either has to be libertarian or socialist, a dichotomy that has never been based on the facts. Almost any really existing economic and social system since the early egyptians have been a mixture of some kind of market and some kind of state. The normal thing is some kind of mixed economy, and the existence of the mixed economy existed for several thousands years before anyone really got the idea to either base society on the market or the state alone.

Quote:
Here you miss the point that the fisherman does not need to work for someone alse, and indeed can go one to employ others.
If to many people fish for a living, they will deplete the resources in a few years.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 03:46 AM   #37
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

Unbelievable.
I should have remembered Mark Twain's advice about arguing, as you are dragging me down to a nonsensical level.

I'll try to go a bit slower.

You assert that it is rational and good for voters to go to the poles with a view toward what they can get out of their vote. Taken to mean that they should vote for greater benefits that someone else pays for. A selfish interest on the face of it. You have no problem with this exploitation, but you seem to have an issue with capitalism doing the same thing with private property.
Explain yourself. What makes it moral for voters to steal from the rich?

You cannot have it both ways and still be rational.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 04:02 AM   #38
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

I`m a utilitarian. What is moral or not is not really that interesting. Moral is just an excuse people make for not having to argue rationally for their position. Moral in some form or another have always been used by extremistis like Ayn rand, Karl Marx, Muhammed and Adolf Hitler. In every instance, morals have been used to "remove" from society those elements that these thinkers have regarded as been "undesirable" og "unusable".

When it comes to having someone else pay for it, they vote that way because they feel that what the market pays people are not fair to start with. You can not argue that "that`s just the way it is", because capitalism is NOT a natural state. Anarchism is the natural state. If you want something else than the natural state, I do think it is quite reasonable to expect arguments why is should be so.

Actually, I didn explain the difference when it comes to the rich and the rest. The masses acutally feel that they have to gain from the rich being prosperous, if not quite as prosperous as a completely free marked allows. The rich hovewer, seem to have no interest in the poor and many other amongts the working classes being prosperous. The rich may lose some absolute gain, that is true. BUT, there are many thing that the do not lose. I have mentioned the effect of diminishind utility. That means that when the rich is "robbed" as you elegantly put it, and the money given to the poor. This will gain more utility for the poor than the rich lose. The fine thing is that the mass actually show restraint, something that the rich do not do. The rich still are the richest people in the country after tax, with all the benefits that gives!
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 05:44 AM   #39
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

Utilitarian? As in the greatest good for the greatest number?

Since you state
Quote:
Moral is just an excuse people make for not having to argue rationally for their position.
by what means does a decision maker determine what good is? I am looking for a rational defense of how this can be done without a moral template.

Who decides what good is under your philosopy?

And since you seem to value logic and rational thought, explain the apparent disconnect between the altruistic ideals you claim, and the assertion that people should vote to further their selfish material interest. Try making rational and logical claims to support your position instead of simply disparaging other philosopies if you are sincere in valuing rational debate.

In terms of "natural state" or "state of nature" as Locke would phrase it, capitalism indeed has historically evolved from states of anarchy. In fact, true anarchy cannot prohibit capitalism, for if it does, then it was never true anarchy.

As for the example of the "poor" gaining more utils from a fiat gift of $100 than a rich man, I argue that it is totally dependent on how each individual would expend those utils. Rich or poor may fritter away such a windfall. The notion that it is inherently more utilitarian to "give" wealth to the poorer is not supported.

Does freedom in the abstract have any utility?
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 06:51 AM   #40
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
by what means does a decision maker determine what good is? I am looking for a rational defense of how this can be done without a moral template.
Well, you do yourself state what is good and what is bad, as you say that coercion is bad and property rights is good. I do like Jeremy Benthan use the existing society as a template, and then I judge every potential new legislation whether it creates more good or not. Sure, you cannot make an absolute judgement about this, BUT i do prefer to attempt to follow what is right, even if what is right is practically impossible to determine up to a hundread percent, rather than accept a cheap and simple goal like "freedom", "equality" and "order" as supreme goals in theirselves. Such simple goals are for people that either want a simple world view to cling to, or just tries to mask that they want others harm.

Also, what is good actually are objective, just that we can`t realisticly meassure it accuratly yet. Joy is produced by certain chemicals and reactions in the brain, and therefore is a absolute and objective phenomenon. Also, what is wrong or right for most people are expressed in their political votes, the sum of which is the sum of what "society" regard as good. Also, the genes of human beings are fairly similar. Actually, the genetic variations amongs human beings is fairly small. This means that human beings are fairly similar, and therefore to a large degree value the same things. Most people want an attractive partner, wealth, respect, lots of interesting friends and status. If someone prefer other ideals, it is often because they understand that they will not be able to achieve those more or less universal goals, and therefor reside to find happiness in other pursuits. This shows in reality, people claim to have different ideals, but when someone offer them lots of money, the have a rather "bad" habbit of changing their preferencens.

You can actually say something about what makes people happy and what does not make them happy. We know that starvation, homelessness and labour harder than the person is able to without discomfort produces unhappiness. And it is these issues that I try to adress. I want to concentrate the state about these things, and leave the rest up to the individual.

Quote:
Who decides what good is under your philosopy?
Who decide what is good under your philosophy? As I stated above, there are some things that almost every individual percieve as good. I bet here are fewer people that enjoys a life of homelessness, than enjoy the taste of human flesh.

Quote:
And since you seem to value logic and rational thought, explain the apparent disconnect between the altruistic ideals you claim, and the assertion that people should vote to further their selfish material interest.
Well, I never used the word altruism. It is rather about creating a fair social contract between conflicting egos. What you really do is imply that some people should accept a society that in every respect is against their interests. I would also call that a kind of altruism.

Of course, it`s not bad if people actually cared about the interests of others, something most euro voters actually do. But should also be the right of every human being to use their vote to assure that their interests are being taken care of. Except communists, religious fundmantalists and libertarians/conservatives, most voters are actually quite happy to regard the interests of others as well, as long as they feel fairly treated.

Quote:
In terms of "natural state" or "state of nature" as Locke would phrase it, capitalism indeed has historically evolved from states of anarchy.
Well, anarchy survived for over 20.000 years, which is a hell of a lot longer than any other economic system. Also, you libertarians are quite funny on how you regard the mixed economy. The early economic systems actually were a kind of mixed economy, as almost every existing economic system since BC 8000 have been. When it fits you, the mixed economy is socialism, and other times, it is capitalism. All dependent on how it fits the libertarian way of thought. Just as quickly as man started trading, governments started to regulate that trade. I really wouldn`t call Egypt and Sumeria capitalist economies, when you regard the large power of the priests and kings, and the fact that they used such enormous resources on builidings like the pyramids, ziggurat and Stonehenge.

Also, trade does not make capitalism. Even if man has traded for several thousand years, the early anarchistic agricultural societies were still very egalitarian up until the time of the state. If you claim that trade means capitalism, the Soviet Union was capitalist because the traded on the world market.

Quote:
In fact, true anarchy cannot prohibit capitalism, for if it does, then it was never true anarchy.
Anarchism do prohibit capitalism, because capitalism needs property rights, and property rights are anti anarchistic. Property rights to land and resources means a loss of freedom, because it means that you are dependant on the choices of others to survive, as you cannot go out and farm your own food or hunt without asking others for permission. Property rights also allow people to aquire wealth, that again gives them power. And during an anarchy, the use of violence is regarded as legitimate.

Quote:
I argue that it is totally dependent on how each individual would expend those utils.
That is true to a degree, but there exists some limit. Almost all people would spend their first money on food, shelter and clothes, and spend on other things when these needs are met. It is therefore fair to claim that up to those demands being met, what I claimed is certainly true. And basically, that is what I want to secure everyone. Also, there is other aspects of this. Having a car is very different to not having a car at all. The extra mobility, job prospects and the time saved by not having to walk or bicyle. When it comes to the size of the car, the difference is less. The difference between having a Fiat and not having a car, is far greater than the difference in having a Fiat and a Rolls Royce. The difference between the two first is a quantum leap in time consumption and mobility, while the difference between the later is more qualitative. The car is faster, bigger and have more refinement, but the practical effects on your life is mainly the same. The same logic applies to a great deal of other areas.

Also, many material possesions does not create utility in themselves, but compared to what amount you have of them compared to other. Examples are expensive furniture, designer clothes and other such status objects. The more money you have, the greater is the propability that the money gets spent on such objects of status.

Sure, many poor may squander the money away on alcohol and drugs, but you always have exceptions. The fact that gangmembers would be better of without a police force is not a good argument against the existence of a police force.

Quote:
The notion that it is inherently more utilitarian to "give" wealth to the poorer is not supported.
As stated earlier, that dependes on the amount. As long as the money is spent on basic needs, you clearly does not have a point.

Quote:
Does freedom in the abstract have any utility?
Freedom is an emotion. A sense of being free. Your definition of freedom is just one definition of freedom. A definition of freedom that does not take into account the fact that human beings are dependent on each other, and that their possibilities depend on the decisions that other people take. I would rather claim that the greater power given to the elite under libertarianism creates less freedom. For me, freedom is that you actions and possibilities are not dictated or affected by other people to a large degree.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 07:59 AM   #41
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

I see several internal contradictions in your statments.

First you claim
Quote:
You can not argue that "that`s just the way it is",
but later claim
Quote:
I do like Jeremy Benthan use the existing society as a template
or are you just claiming that it is ok for you to use existing societal values, but not for those with differing viewpoints?

Quote:
Quote:
Who decides what good is under your philosopy?

Who decide what is good under your philosophy?
Answers a question with a question. This is poor form for logical debate. It is evasive and non-responsive.

[QUOTE]Anarchism do prohibit capitalism, because capitalism needs property rights, and property rights are anti anarchistic. [QUOTE]

If under anarchy, there is no government, then just who would enforce against "anti anarchistic" activities? Are you using the term anarchy in a non-standard usage?

Anarchy cannot prohibit capitalism, this has been adequately demonstrated in Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia."

Throughout your posts you seem to be ascribing true motives and thoughts to those you disagree with. Are you psychic? If not, then you are merely being arrogant and presumptive. Tell me what I am thinking now.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 08:47 AM   #42
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Marley
or are you just claiming that it is ok for you to use existing societal values, but not for those with differing viewpoints?
No, it is not inconsistense. There is a difference. You think that that is the way it should be, and that is the way it always should be. You have an ideal society, which should never be changed. I hovewer, use existing society as a template as a temporary meassure, for convenience only. I do not regard this as an ideal postion, but it`s the only position realisticly feasible. Trying to model the entire society from the ground upwards is practically hopeless. When you model a sociey very different from the one we got, it is very difficult to assess the practical consequenses. When you reform slowly, you can isolate the effects of each part of legislation, and change it if it don`t work as expected. Also, it is much easier to assess the practial implication of one change at a time. I do think that every societal rule is open for change, it`s just for practial reasons I use the existing society as a starting point. Remember that I`m not that used to writing in english, and some of my use of concepts may therefore be wrong.

Quote:
Answers a question with a question. This is poor form for logical debate. It is evasive and non-responsive.
Not neccessarily. If noone else has a proper certain standard, it may indicate that such a standard is unrealistic.

Quote:
If under anarchy, there is no government, then just who would enforce against "anti anarchistic" activities? Are you using the term anarchy in a non-standard usage?
I see, I used the wrong english term. I didn`t mean that an anarchy means that someone actually organizes a kind of anticapitalist police force, and stops anyone attempting to become capitalists. What i meant was that in practice, capitalism under anarchism is close to impossible. Because anyone who becomes the first to attempt to seize property for themselves, would be subject to attack form the surrounding tribes.

When you look at history, anarchism does not lead to capitalism. After anarchsim, you got collectivist egalitarian agricultural societies, what Marx called "primitive communism". This was no utopi hovewer, as it appears to be the most violent period in human history. After that, you either ended up with feudal socieites or "slave societies" ruled by a combination of despotic monarchs and priests.

Quote:
Throughout your posts you seem to be ascribing true motives and thoughts to those you disagree with. Are you psychic? If not, then you are merely being arrogant and presumptive. Tell me what I am thinking now.
Well, I consider bot libertarianism and "modern socialism" and "modern non-utilitarian liberalism" to be "designer ideologies". They are not made by honest people wanting to change society for the better, but ideologies produced "on order" to further the interests of special interets groups within a society.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 08:59 AM   #43
Micheleh
Watashiwa Shin no Noir
 
Micheleh's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior
SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDFormer Assistant
Richard Hatch

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 1,038


Default

This is a fascinating discussion, but Norwegian, can I give you a tip? You'll likely do better if you actually let Darth speak for himself and don't seemingly try to be simply explaining how well you knew all about him and his motives, which is how it appears to this casual reader. No ideaology is as inherently dangerous as one which is blindly subscribed to and used as justification for the devaluation and demonization of all others.

Try listening, you might be surprised.

*Gets back to work.*
Micheleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 09:18 AM   #44
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheleh
No ideaology is as inherently dangerous as one which is blindly subscribed to and used as justification for the devaluation and demonization of all others.
Well, unlike most other liberals, I do actually believe that some thoughts can be labelled evil. I think that all ideologies that is immune to human suffering to reach their goals are evil. In this category, I would place nazism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, muslim fundamentalism and other such ideologies.

When it comes to knowing the opinions of others, libertarians have certainly done this in this thread. Wasn`t it Antelope who could mystically tell that I wanted the poor countries to import our produts, when I stated I wanted some tariff barriers around Europe?

You can negotiate with reasonable people, but when people deliberatly want evil, no negotiating is desirable! Some people are just enemies of human kind, the kind of people who want the human race to exist for their principles to exist, and not for itself.

Hitler claimed he wanted the best for his nation, Stalin claimed he wanted the best for the workers, fortunantly, most of the world didn`t believe them. I really does not believe that a good moral person over the age of 30 can really be a libertarian, communist og national socialist.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 09:26 AM   #45
jewels
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
 
jewels's Avatar
 


FORUM STAFFFleet Modertor
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,101


Default

eeeep!

I was just trying to encourage people to register to vote when I started this thread. My goodness!

This interruption is just to remind everyone to get yourselves set up to vote in November. What ever your opinion, it does still matter and count.

Jewels
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]

"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
jewels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 09:29 AM   #46
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Just to make an additional comment. Why must people always use this kind of forums for political ramblings? I didn`t start anything here, but when I see various posts by libertarians and conservatives flashing their political beliefs, I really can`t help myself!

If a forum like this is used for rightwing political ramblings, people on the left and "euro center" may feel that this board is a rightwing thing, and people of other persuasions should just "sod off".
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 09:46 AM   #47
BST
Snowball, My Angel Baby
 
BST's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAAdmin
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere across the heavens... aka Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 9,184


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwegian
Just to make an additional comment. Why must people always use this kind of forums for political ramblings? I didn`t start anything here, but when I see various posts by libertarians and conservatives flashing their political beliefs, I really can`t help myself!

If a forum like this is used for rightwing political ramblings, people on the left and "euro center" may feel that this board is a rightwing thing, and people of other persuasions should just "sod off".

In any discussion, you are going to have differing points of view. Whether the person's "slant" is 'right-wing', 'left-wing', or 'middle of the road', the primary focus should be the 'presentation of the argument'. Some debates interest folks of all political stripes, some don't.

__________________
Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
The night is falling
You have come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore .


Children are a message that we send
to a time that we will never see.
BST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 09:48 AM   #48
jewels
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
 
jewels's Avatar
 


FORUM STAFFFleet Modertor
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,101


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antelope526
The customer service telecommunications jobs being outsourced to India can hardly be called high wage jobs here in America. The Indians answering the phones are overwhelmingly better educated and are far more likely to speak gramatically correct English than the Americans they replaced.
I'm not talking about customer service jobs. I'm talking about good, solid IT jobs for which skilled people exist right here who are out of work.

Last year 400,000 H1b visas were issued to foreign IT workers when 450,000 of our own skilled IT workers were out of work. The president and USCIS (INS' new name) cut the number of visas this year by 65,000. All the visas for the entire year were issued by February of this year as a result.

Now tell me how it can be good for an economy to have 450,000 highly skilled people unemployed or underemployed (working for minimum wage or so) instead of the $50,000/yr or more their old job paid?
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]

"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
jewels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:03 AM   #49
Micheleh
Watashiwa Shin no Noir
 
Micheleh's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior
SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDFormer Assistant
Richard Hatch

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 1,038


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwegian
Just to make an additional comment. Why must people always use this kind of forums for political ramblings? I didn`t start anything here, but when I see various posts by libertarians and conservatives flashing their political beliefs, I really can`t help myself!

If a forum like this is used for rightwing political ramblings, people on the left and "euro center" may feel that this board is a rightwing thing, and people of other persuasions should just "sod off".
No one 'started' anything, and it's a discussion, not 'political ramblings'. No one has told you to dsod off, they've just disagreed and asked you to support your statements logically.

Jewels- I empathise totally. Too many companies are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. One of the main reasons they are is because of the 'bottom line', and you know what kills me? The bottom line isn't so much of a thing becuase of the effeect it has on the viability of productivity of the company- it's more about the public perception of the company due to the numbers generated by quarterly fiscal analysis, and even moreso, the shareholders' perceptions.

Most companies today place far too much importance on the profits of the shareholder and the perception of the public that certain numbers are nessecary to appear to be fiscally viable. They are willing to sabotage themselves by promoting short term gain, which fosters an illusion of growth, had at the cost of serious damage to the infrastructiure of the company and the economy as a whole. This damage is done by the loss of the existing skilled labor force in the short term, and the erosion of belief in such ideals as company loyalty and job security in the long term. In my lifetime, I have seen this effect on a dramatic scale.
Micheleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:05 AM   #50
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BST
In any discussion, you are going to have differing points of view. Whether the person's "slant" is 'right-wing', 'left-wing', or 'middle of the road', the primary focus should be the 'presentation of the argument'. Some debates interest folks of all political stripes, some don't.

But there is a lot of political discussion boards around. Isn`t that a more fitting place for political debate? I also feel that there are to camps that really HAVE TO flash their beliefs regarding of setting, and that is the libertarianis and the liberal "Bush haters". I really feel that they should use political boards to express their point of view, but when it is started, I won`t back down from it!
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:05 AM   #51
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

I think political discussion is important for the same reason I think voting is important.

Quote:
Well, I consider bot libertarianism and "modern socialism" and "modern non-utilitarian liberalism" to be "designer ideologies". They are not made by honest people wanting to change society for the better, but ideologies produced "on order" to further the interests of special interets groups within a society.
While this is certainly an opinion you are entiled to hold, it is just an opinion. It assumes that those who hold differing ideologies and opinions are dishonest and evil. This may be true sometimes, but such notions embrace generalizations and steroetypes, both close cousins of racism, and prejudging based on professed political belief rather than skin color or national origin.

I can make a very rational case for the justice of private property. It need not be evil or selfish. And the concept evolved as a "spontaneos order" over time. No more an evil designer ideology than utilitarianism or any other political filter.

I would argue that many wars in primitive days were a result of lack of recognized private property. Stable borders reduce the risk of war. It delineates who makes what decisions within certain boundaries.

Much of the beauty I find in libertarian ideas is that, far from it being a designed ideology for supporting special interests or oppressing certain groups, it provides a mechanism in which individuals can act separate or collectively as they choose to persue different goals.
It recognizes that no one person or group has all the right answers for everything. Neither the will of the majority in a democratic scheme, or the autocratic edict of a benevolent dictator will do the "right thing" in all cases.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:08 AM   #52
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheleh
No one 'started' anything, and it's a discussion, not 'political ramblings'. No one has told you to dsod off, they've just disagreed and asked you to support your statements logically.
Well, logic is mostly used by libertarians in a societal setting. Most social scienists used the hypotetical deductive method today. Some examples of failed logic is capitalism growing out of anarchy, and anarchy being "survival of the strongest". I also feel that they use a lot of "appeal to autority" and "appeal to majorirty". That means taking values that are common in America for granted, even if there really is no reason to take them for granted.

My point is hovewer, that we have a lot of political discussion boards that can be used to discuss politics.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:11 AM   #53
Micheleh
Watashiwa Shin no Noir
 
Micheleh's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior
SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDFormer Assistant
Richard Hatch

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 1,038


Default

So you think that anyone participating in this discussion should stop, because you've decided this isn't the place for political discussions? Don't be silly. People can discuss whatever they like. If you don't agree, don't read the thread.
Micheleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:14 AM   #54
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

Come on now, we can all use the standard index of logical fallacies to obfuscate a point.

The last thing I would resort to is an appeal to the majority, because I think the majority is usually wrong, especially in America.

Logic is logic (oh my, a tautology!) whether you like its style or not. Failure to respond with a reasoned reply loses a debate by default. If you spell out a different decision making paradigm, I'll indulge you on those terms.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:16 AM   #55
ernie90125
Also Present
 
ernie90125's Avatar
 




SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDOwner:
BattlestarFanFilms.com

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 2,062

Default

I've just been reading this thread because it is the only to have had a new post since I last checked.... I look at these last two posts and wonder....

Micheleh is right that people can discuss whatever they like. But Norweigan has a point that there are " a lot of political discussion boards that can be used to discuss politics. "

I'm not entirely following why this thread is happening on a Battlestar Galactica messageboard ??????

Ernie90125
ernie90125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:17 AM   #56
Darth Marley
GINO Public Defender
 
Darth Marley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357

Default

One thing I really hate about the quarterly number crunchers is that they seem to think profits must always be growing.
As I see it, if I am making a steady profit, why would I need the numbers to increase?

Growth is a poor metric for economic performance, even in a quarterly analysis.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
Darth Marley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:20 AM   #57
Micheleh
Watashiwa Shin no Noir
 
Micheleh's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior
SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDFormer Assistant
Richard Hatch

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 1,038


Default

Well, I suppose it could have been titled OT:Rock the Vote. Most of the posts have been informative and intelligent, and I like reading those, especialy when I can learn something. We talk about all kinds of OT things at CA, especially in the sciences.
Micheleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:25 AM   #58
Norwegian
Guest
 
Norwegian's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Quote:
I can make a very rational case for the justice of private property. It need not be evil or selfish. And the concept evolved as a "spontaneos order" over time. No more an evil designer ideology than utilitarianism or any other political filter.
The problem is that again libertarians define this differently as they see fit. what libertarians want is what can be called "total property rights", as in property rights without any form of taxation or regulation. They critizise existing societies for not having property rights because they have taxes and regulations. When they want to show that property rights are natural hovewer, everything goes really. Then, societies that have taxes and regulations HAVE property rights. Actually, I also support property rights, but not absolute property rights, but property rights with taxes and regulations. What libertarians want is not "normal property rights", for in all existing societies with very few expetions, maybee Iceland during the 900s and frontier American, property rights and taxes/regulations has existed in concert. You here use the fact that property rights are common to defend them, when those property rights that are common are the kind of property rights that I want, not the more pure and extreme form that you want.

And when it comes to taxes and regulations, they also have evolved spontaneously over time. Even the welfare state have developed slowly over time. There is a whole of a lot evolution since Elisabeths poor laws until the first public pensions systems, with the first regulations of minimum wages and working hours.

Quote:
I would argue that many wars in primitive days were a result of lack of recognized private property.
They was a result of one group saying "we own this" and another group saying "no you don`t". The most decent thing to do would have been to continue to live as hunters and gatherers, that this is the only form of economic system that does not infringe upon the freedom and life of others to a large degree. As it does not imply occupying resources and land over time, thereby depriving others of their livelyhood on a permanent basis.

Quote:
Stable borders reduce the risk of war. It delineates who makes what decisions within certain boundaries.
Yes, but it also creates lasting relationships of dependance and power, which you do not have in a pure hunter and gatherer society.

Quote:
Much of the beauty I find in libertarian ideas is that, far from it being a designed ideology for supporting special interests or oppressing certain groups, it provides a mechanism in which individuals can act separate or collectively as they choose to persue different goals.
Again, the whole ideology discards the fact that human being are born different, are dependant on each others and the possibilities of one human being is in large part governed by the decisions of other people. Your ability to pursue your own goals is in a large part dependent on your genes, the choices of others and pure luck. Bentham also saw this, and thought that only if everyone has a basic standard of living, they will all be able to pursuit their own goals. This is why a lot of academics are not libertarians, because libertarian ideology and it`s view of the world does not fit in well with political, sociological and psychological phenomenon. Also, to pursue their goals, people need some sort of material basis. If you are homeless, you have few possibilites to pursuit your goals. Actually, libertarianis is one of few societies where some people actually find it rational to kill someone, simply because they are going to starve, have a life so felgercarbty that death is better or simply have no future, that they may as well kill or/and steal, simply because they have nothing to lose from the consequences of it.

Quote:
It recognizes that no one person or group has all the right answers for everything. Neither the will of the majority in a democratic scheme, or the autocratic edict of a benevolent dictator will do the "right thing" in all cases.
Exactly therefore, I prefer an ideology that gives some "slack", and does not claim to know exactly how society should be organized.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:26 AM   #59
BST
Snowball, My Angel Baby
 
BST's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAAdmin
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere across the heavens... aka Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 9,184


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antelope526
The customer service telecommunications jobs being outsourced to India can hardly be called high wage jobs here in America. The Indians answering the phones are overwhelmingly better educated and are far more likely to speak gramatically correct English than the Americans they replaced.
antelope,

What would you consider "high-wage" to be?

I happen to work in the customer service telecommunications industry and take incredible offense at your remarks. I will attribute it to coming from someone who has read all that there is to read about it but, otherwise has NO personal experience.

As far as the grammatically correct English, they might do that but, it's hard to tell because they speak so DAMNED fast. I have had conversations with my counterparts in Delhi, Bangalore, etc and have purposely stopped them and requested that they SLOW DOWN the velocity at which the words come flying out of their mouth!

Oh, and by the way, I didn't just fall off the apple cart yesterday. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Management and have worked for my current employer for nearly 20 years so, I am somewhat educated about the topics of which I speak!
__________________
Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
The night is falling
You have come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore .


Children are a message that we send
to a time that we will never see.
BST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2004, 10:28 AM   #60
Antelope
Guest
 
Antelope's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Norwegian:
I was afraid we were going to scare you away! I am enjoying your responses even if I disagree with most of them. I will use your quote of:

What good is it knowing how to fish if noone wants to employ a fisherman.

That is hilarious.

On the serious side I can't really figure out where you are at. You write a lot of stuff that seems to support government controlled socialism. You write stuff that seems to support a return to a tribal premodern society. You write stuff that seems to be in opposition to individual property rights but then also is opposed to government regulation. I don't know where you are getting at. It seems you advocate some kind of return to a premodern tribal society with no property rights and no government (although isn't the chief the government?) I don't want to put words in your mouth so please let me know exactly what kind of system would you like to see. At present I am confused by your writings because they seem to advocate things that oppose themselves.

Personally this is what I want:

Free trade throughout the world. I would make exceptions for items nations agree are important for national defense and human survival in times of famine.

The government is responsible for public safety and infrastructure development (roads,sewers,etc.). The government is NOT responsible for any kind of wealth transfer from one living person to another. In other words no welfare, social security or unemployment checks from the government. If you want to pay into a private insurance policy regulated by the government for those needs that would be your own business.

The government would be responsible for the primary education of the country. All students will be tested during their last year of high school. The top ten percent on the standardized test will get a government funded university education. All others will receive no government funded education aid. They are free to go to college if they pay for it themselves.

The role of government in business will be to enforce environmental standards and to break up monopolies. In the U.S. all federal government land except military installations would be returned to the states the land is in. This would be the majority of the land West of the Mississippi River.

Everyone who makes less than the national average income would pay no federal taxes. Everyone who makes more than the national average income will pay for all government expenses based on an equal percentage tax with no exemptions. Only those that pay taxes will have the right to vote. Upon death all money inherited by anyone other than a spouse in excess of 20 times the national average income will be taxed at 75% to eliminate the potential of a heriditary oligarchy forming.

That's my utopia at the moment. It wouldn't be perfect but a good start.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vote for Gun on Ice Planet Zero! (please) peter noble The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 1 October 17th, 2020 08:43 PM
It's against the law to give your pet rock a spanking oldwardaggit The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 49 February 25th, 2005 06:15 PM
Spacey2004 Awards - Vote Now Sci-Fi Miscellaneous Entertainment 6 March 21st, 2004 01:22 PM
Vote for Bonnie Hammer! jjrakman The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 15 August 3rd, 2003 07:18 PM
Vote for your favorite website redsquadron1 The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 11 May 17th, 2003 11:09 AM




So sez our Muffit!!!

For fans of the Classic Battlestar Galactica series



COPYRIGHT
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM. Contact the Fleet - Colonial Fleets - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content and Graphics ©2000-Present Colonial Fleets
The Colonial Fleets Forums are run by Battlestar Galactica fans, paid for by Battlestar Galactica fans, for the enjoyment of fellow Battlestar Galactica fans.



©2000-2008 Colonial Fleets