will the US military power dominate the world

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:09:33 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:



Only because you are *very* prejudiced against us.

Anything but mate, I just happen to live and pay taxes in one of the few
European countries who has to pick the bill up for everyone else.

On an interpersonal level, I don't have issues with anyone from any
country. However that doesn't extend to the whole corrupt edifice of the EU
and the countries directly benefitting from it.

Belgium being a prime case in point.

The Swiss hide
the filth of the world in their safes and secret bank accounts,

Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ? A lot of the nonsense about
swiss bank accounts comes from EU govts whining about their citizenry
taking positive action to stop their livelihoods being destroyed.

Here in the UK, offshore bank accounts are not an issue. In high tax
jurisdictions they clearly are.

The swiss quite rightly are not going to give up their long cherished
privacy rights for no good reason.

we
sent politicians to jail for things that are more or less legal in say
the UK or USA -- such as taking 'grey' campaign contributions
from defence contractors -- and we are the corrupt ones? Come on!

You cannot compare that with the bribes dassault paid to secure the F16
contract for example.

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time and
here in the UK there are strict capitation limits on how much any candidate
can spend on election expenses.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:57:14 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
The Swiss hide
the filth of the world in their safes and secret bank accounts,

Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?

It's neither good nor bad.

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time

So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

and
here in the UK there are strict capitation limits on how much any candidate
can spend on election expenses.

But not on how much contributors can give to political parties.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:35:53 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:



Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?

It's neither good nor bad.


I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time

So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:49:50 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:35:53 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:
Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?

It's neither good nor bad.

I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
others not to find out?

What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
right to know?

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time

So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.

No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
me ask you:

a. is it OK for someone to donate a few pounds to a politician?

b. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

d. does the answer to (b) make any difference if the money comes
from a business (where not all the shareholders necessarily agree
with the donation) rather than an individual?

e. do the answers to (a) and (b) differ if the donation is to a
group of politicians, such as a party, rather than an individual?

f. what about when businesses donate to politicians through a
go-between fund in an (apparent) attempt to disguise what they are
doing?

g. what about when a politician, say a cabinet minister, makes
decisions that favour a company, and then after the politician
retires the company gives him a well-paid consultancy or
non-executive directorship?

h. should companies that donate to politicians be obliged to state
so on the packaging of their prodcuts, so consumers can choose
to buy or not buy them if they wish to?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:


I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
others not to find out?

That's a logical fallacy.

What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
right to know?

If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time

So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.

No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
me ask you:


[Snip another false dilemma]

You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
attempt at investigation of it.



greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:48:08 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, ess (phil hunt)
wrote:


I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
others not to find out?

That's a logical fallacy.

What is?

What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
right to know?

If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.

Ah, but how do you decide who has a "right" to know?

No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
me ask you:

[Snip another false dilemma]

It's not a dilemma, it's a genuine attempt to find out what you
think on the subject. Evidently you don't want to tell me; possibly
you don't want to have to work out what your opinions actually
entail.

You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
attempt at investigation of it.

Maybe I can, and maybe I can't -- I can think of lots of arguments
both ways; but that's rather beside the point since I wasn't
claiming such a thing in the first place.

BTW, *you* can't claim that the rainfall in Manchester is less
than that in London.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
a. is it OK for someone to donate a few pounds to a politician?

Yes.

b. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?

Yes.

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
stated political beliefs.

d. does the answer to (b) make any difference if the money comes
from a business (where not all the shareholders necessarily agree
with the donation) rather than an individual?

No.

e. do the answers to (a) and (b) differ if the donation is to a
group of politicians, such as a party, rather than an individual?

No.

f. what about when businesses donate to politicians through a
go-between fund in an (apparent) attempt to disguise what they are
doing?

Acceptable.

g. what about when a politician, say a cabinet minister, makes
decisions that favour a company, and then after the politician
retires the company gives him a well-paid consultancy or
non-executive directorship?

Acceptable.

h. should companies that donate to politicians be obliged to state
so on the packaging of their prodcuts, so consumers can choose
to buy or not buy them if they wish to?

No.


Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:55:27 -0400, John Keeney wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
stated political beliefs.

What if the politician changed his stated beliefs after winning an
election?

Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

I can't answer that question, unless you tell me what you mean by
freedom.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).