> Comments on the state left me rather at a loss to reply directly -
>the argument seems to be that terminology can be redefined so that somehow
>all those peasants labouring at giant bridges etc are not working for the
>Kralori state, or perhaps that the size of the state has nothing to do with
>the number of people working for it.
The argument has always been about the size of the state apparatus (namely the bureacracts and related flunkies such as overseers). By insinuating that I say that all the peasants are not working for the state, David is indulging in strawman tactics yet again.
> Simply put, terms as I use them - the state apparatus is everyone
>who is spending their working hours in a way directly directed by the
>state,
And I have criticized this definition time and time again by saying that it makes meaningful dicussion of the per capita size of the state apparatus impossible as everybody is part of the state apparatus regardless of whether there is little bureacracy or none. Simply introducing a definition of "executive" to identify decision makers does nothing to rescue David's definition of state apparatus from absurdity.
> They would also seem to have a large public service based on the
>Genertela book, but apparently this is Wrong, for no reason I can discern
>other than it has the temerity to disagree with Peter (and a rather good
>detective novel he read once).
At least David's denseness here is wilful.
>>[The state does not need full time labourers]. What ancient states
>>do have is access to a large body of idle labour that appears every
>>summer (and also winter).
> You have obviously misunderstood what I meant by full time.
I had understood perfectly what you meant by fulltime. Covering your backpedalling with allegations that the other person has misunderstood what you wrote does you no credit.
>I meant it in its conventional meaning ie - it is what they do
>with their working day, rather than implying it was their
>occupation year round.
So full-time soldiers are people who soldier only for part of the year? Yeah, right.
>>The statement does not say that Sha Ming is sacked for late
>>payment. It does says that it has never paid its taxes on
>>time _and_ has been sacked several times by the army.
> Ah, round again. To repeat - you may interpret that those two
>clauses are joined by an 'and' purely by coincidence,
Indeed it is round again. If David actually consults the what I wrote in reply to this point when he first raised it, I had actually said it indicated that Sha Ming was a centre for unrest and said nothing whatsoever about the "and" being a coincidence. In short: yet another strawman by David.
>>Look up the definition of thoughtcrime and then contrast this
>>to what the PoIM do (i.e. physically turn themselves into
>>dragons).
> But physically turning yourself into a dragon is not a crime if
>accompanied by correct spiritual practice. So the POIM are being persecuted
>not for turning into dragons, but for incorrect spiritual practice.
They don't turn themselves into dragons, they turn themselves into False Dragons which are further removed from True Dragons than Dream Dragons are.
>And are
>the POIM members who have not yet begun to transform themselves physically
>still criminals for studying Charismatic Wisdom?
Why should they be? The Mandarins have got better things to do than to punish thoughtcriminals.
Powered by hypermail