> >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 04:19:47 GMT, Mike Coburn
> ><michael.l.cob...@gte.net> wrote:

> >>I admit to being very socialistic about National Catastrophic
> >>Health Insurance, and Forgivingly means tested disability
> >>insurance, and about education of the young.

> >None of those has anything to do with socialism, which is collective
> >ownership of the means of production, and _nothing_else_.

> >-- Roy L

>    State ownership of production is communism.  Redistribution of
> wealth is socialism.

> Eric Pinnell

> Qui Desiderat Pacem, Praeparet Bellum
> (Let Him Who Desires Peace, Prepare for War)

> Flavius Vegetius Renatus - 3rd Century AD

> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

> > Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > > "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"

> > Since our means are finite and bounded and our needs are limitless,
> > how is this supposed to work? Obviously someone has to decide
> > what is a need, and what is a mere desire. That means the Comittee
> > will decide who gets what. Frankly, I would prefer the market place
> > to make that kind of apportionment. I don't take kindly to have some
> > filthy little Maoist tell me what my * real * needs are.

> > Bob Kolker

> I would agree with this.  However, your real needs are defined by
> nature and not by mayonnaise.  BTW, needs are not limitless.  Only
> desires are limitless.

> --
> Mike Coburn

> Mike Coburn wrote:

> > "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

> > > Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > > > "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"

> > > Since our means are finite and bounded and our needs are limitless,
> > > how is this supposed to work? Obviously someone has to decide
> > > what is a need, and what is a mere desire. That means the Comittee
> > > will decide who gets what. Frankly, I would prefer the market place
> > > to make that kind of apportionment. I don't take kindly to have some
> > > filthy little Maoist tell me what my * real * needs are.

> > > Bob Kolker

> > I would agree with this.  However, your real needs are defined by
> > nature and not by mayonnaise.  BTW, needs are not limitless.  Only
> > desires are limitless.

> > --
> > Mike Coburn

> Right, needs are air, food, water, warmth.
> I fear that there is substantial evidence that if
> "From each...needs" is your goal, you are able to
> produce very little more than needs.

> Keith Willshaw wrote:

> > "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"

> Since our means are finite and bounded and our needs are limitless,
> how is this supposed to work? Obviously someone has to decide
> what is a need, and what is a mere desire. That means the Comittee
> will decide who gets what. Frankly, I would prefer the market place
> to make that kind of apportionment. I don't take kindly to have some
> filthy little Maoist tell me what my * real * needs are.

> Try not paying taxes and see how much the government respects
> your position.

>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:34:56 GMT, William Hamblen
>><william.hamb...@nashville.com> wrote:

>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:51:01 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>>><ke...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>"Mike Coburn" <michael.l.cob...@gte.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:3BDC9E28.6C197AB8@gte.net...

>>>>> In the US, 95% of the people would fair batter under
>>>>> an asset tax system that replaced the income tax.

>>Asset taxes are the most idiotic taxes ever invented.   The idea that
>>you are forced to sell an asset to pay a tax for which you have no
>>income at potentially firesale prices is merely the easiest
>>refutations to the 'fairness' concept.  This idea was first trotted
>>out by some ditz in the Carter administration who pointed out that
>>these 'old people have so much money and we need to get it from
>>them'...tax them out of their houses, in other words.

>Come on Jack, you know a lit better than this. Asset taxes go
>back millenia. There are several modern versions in Europe.

>Peter Skelton

>>>Asset taxes are the most idiotic taxes ever invented.   The idea that
>>>you are forced to sell an asset to pay a tax for which you have no
>>>income at potentially firesale prices is merely the easiest
>>>refutations to the 'fairness' concept.  This idea was first trotted
>>>out by some ditz in the Carter administration who pointed out that
>>>these 'old people have so much money and we need to get it from
>>>them'...tax them out of their houses, in other words.

>>Come on Jack, you know a lit better than this. Asset taxes go
>>back millenia. There are several modern versions in Europe.

>Sorry, I don't consider the Clinton  argument that "the Europeans
>are doing it more so" as worth the toilet paper to wipe it up.

> Wordstar was certainly available for the 8086 Platform

> I had a copy which was used for editing really long files
> as Wordstar paged sections of the document to disk
> so you werent limited by available memory