Poli-Sci Digest Volume 7, Part 2
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 6 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 36
Today's Topics:
'Public' Information Monitoring &
Soviet versions of History &
Civil Rights &
Centrism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < DAUL@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Date: 20 Feb 87 23:57 PST
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD
From: < WBD.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: 'sensitive' information
The current issue of InformationWEEK (Feb. 16, 1987, pg. 17) has a
short article on the effects of the recent definition of "sensitive,
but not unclassified information" issued by John Poindexter, former
NSC adviser to Reagan.
He said that any information which the "disclosure, loss, misuse, or
destruction of could adversely affect national security" would be
subject to careful monitoring.
The article then mentions some of the types of information that might
fall in this category...then there is a very eye-openning paragraph:
"Under these guidelines, the US Air Force, the CIA, and the
National Security Council have asked the keepers of some fo the
country's largest PUBLIC [my emphasis] databases, including Mead
Corp.'s Nexus, to supply names of subscribers and install software
that will allow the company to more accurately track who asks for
what information and when."
Under the broad definition of vital information, an agency of the
government may decide that any other private information is valuable,
and it can monitor or hinder, that flow of information.
I was just imagining the next step...tie the government systems into
the city and university libraries, then start checking into what we
buy at book stores, followed eventually by monitoring what we read in
the papers. I feel like some of my freedom is eroding again.
Thoughts?
Well, now I will have someone watching what I read and what I pee.
Isn't it nice to have all this attention?
--Bi//
P.S. Sorry to complain...guess I am just having a bad day!
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:bh01@clutx.BITNET>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 09:31:52 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet versions of history
There was an extremely depressing editorial in the Sunday, January 4
what Soviet schoolchildren are taught about the United States in the
fourth grade. (Gillette is the Times's correspondent in Warsaw at
present, having just finished duty in Moscow.) Some highlights:
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 17:49:13 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Soviet history
Steve Walton quotes from Robert Gillette's editorial:
"Under capitalism, children labor in heavy industry ...
That was indeed the case in the 19th century.
"The Red Army crushed both Germany and Japan [in World War II],
only to have the United States drop its atomic bombs on an
already-defeated Japan."
"For Soviet fourth-graders, World War II began not in September,
1939, when Germany (and its then-ally, the Soviet Union) attacked
Poland, but in June, 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
> 'For a long time before, the capitalist countries
> had prepared to attack the USSR,' the book says. 'They hated the
> free socialist state.'
We (the capitalist countries) did indeed attack the Soviet Union in
1919, but we didn't have the willpower or resources to crush the
budding union. There was again a war scare in 1923, and if Patton had
had his way, we couldn't have stopped at Berlin.
> ...book, 'even as the Red Army was destroying the Japanese army, the
> government of the U.S.A. sent its pilots to drop atomic bombs on the
> cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to frighten the people of the world
> with these fearful weapons. The atomic bombing was a crime of the
> capitalists of the U.S.A. against humanity, which the people of the
> world will never forget.'"
More properly, we dropped the bomb to frighten the soviets.
> The overall picture presented is of a US which is completely and
> utterly evil, oppressing both its own citizens and those of other
> lands, wantonly murdering others for no very good reason, and
> desiring the complete and utter destruction of the "free socialist
> state." So much for glasnost. No wonder _1984_ is a banned book
> in the SU.
Need I remind you of our very own president's remarks about the "Evil
Empire"? And haven't we indeed oppressed the people in Central
America all throughout this century, and even as I write this? Any
why were we in Vietnam, anyway? There was certainly no economic
reason for it. And don't forget Ronnie's off-the-cuff remarks about
having just pressed the button that will annhilate the Soviet Union?
I don't want to sound like a Soviet apologist. Some of the things
that they have done to their own people are beyond apology, but we
mustn't revile the Soviet Union for pointing out our flaws. Even as
they exaggerate our flaws, we exaggerate theirs.
-russ
GEnie: BH01
BITNET:BH01@CLUTX
uucp: decvax!sii!trixie!gould!clutx!bh01
------------------------------
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: March Through Forsyth County, Georgia
Date: 14 Feb 87 22:09:02 GMT
From: rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) (Bob Brown)
> Surely the leaders of the March know that while laws can be
> passed to make you respect me before the law, there is no
> legislative process that can soften your heart toward me
> (and the other way). So after the $500 K was spent on the
> March, the tolerant are still tolerant and the bigots are
> still bigotted. I submit nothing was accomplished save the
> promotion of a few aging civil rights leaders and a serious
> waste of our tax $$.
That is not true, the history of the Civil Rights movement in this
country disproves this (and this is exactly the argument that's been
used since the issue heated in the 50's-60's, and before, and since
apparently.)
In the first place, even if passing a law forces a jerk to behave like
a civilized person against his/her will, the beneficiary of the law
has benefited. If you were a black person you might not care a whole
heck of a lot if everyone in the now shared bathroom (remember
white/colored bathrooms?) hates you, you no longer have to suffer the
indignity of a separate, almost always inferior, bathroom facility. Or
school, or housing, or job, or whatever. So the benefit, regardless of
the hearts and minds of the onlookers, is obvious.
I am of Jewish background. To be perfectly frank, I don't give a sh*t
if one of my neighbors thinks "we" shouldn't be allowed in his or her
neighborhood (well, I do care, but in an abstract sense, it's not
something I *have* to deal with, I am quite sure some people *do* have
such feelings in my neighborhood.) They can rot in hell. The law
protects me. It protects them too. If they try to put their bigoted
beliefs into action I will have them arrested and the law says they
must suffer those consequences. So they shut up, it's half the battle,
I can live my life. They can live theirs. Somewhere the "No Jews or
Dogs" signs that used to be in front of apartment buildings in Boston
disappeared. Do the residents of those buildings pine for their
return? Probably very few. Why?
It might be nicer if those people had a change of heart voluntarily,
but I'll take this much thank you. And I believe so would most blacks,
I doubt any of them would like to have waited until people all rose up
and tore down the barriers voluntarily, they simply demanded their
rights guaranteed as U.S. citizens, whether or not it fit the current
tastes of the bigots.
In the second place, the condemnation by law of racist practices is a
strong social force, as would be the condoning of racial practices.
You can't tell me that those "people" (and I use the term when
describing racists only charitably), raised in an environment where
blacks could be excluded, didn't get a message very early in life that
we live in a society where racism is condoned. Even a thing to be
promoted and defended. How? By simply looking around them, that's how.
When it stops, by law or whatever means, and they see these people in
their classrooms, neighborhoods and other daily activities they may
fight at first but eventually they may just have to come to the
conclusion that their attitudes are wrong. Terribly wrong. So what if
it takes a generation or two, it has to start somewhere.
Better yet, they may finally realize by their own first-hand
experience that the blacks who were "forced" upon them are actually
fine people. They will never learn such a lesson if they can maintain
their segregation, can they? We can argue about the role of
government, but protecting the rights of its citizens is not something
that often is questioned by rational people. No one has the right to
racism, at least not in action, so that point is moot.
It is not a waste of our tax dollars to fight racism. If someone can
make a law or engage in a practice against blacks they can just as
easily do it against people who's last name is Brown, what's to stop
them? You think you have some special immunity? Perhaps, wait a few
years, maybe the winds will change. Racism must be fought at the
conceptual level, not only where it seems to be a specific problem.
As I understand it, there were many problems and incidents in Forsythe
county, among them a black family who was hounded out of their home
for being black. Would you like to be hounded out of your home? Of
course not, it goes to the most basic of human rights. The right to
be.
It's easy to sit in the bleachers and throw peanut shells at those
who would take a public, vocal stand against racism and say oops,
I think you blew it on that one because blah blah blah blah.
It's much harder to find a way to combat this cancer. Raising the
issue, pointing it out etc is a start. And that's all I suspect these
people were hoping to do, this time. Rome wasn't built in a day.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 8 Feb 87 08:48:57-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Middle of the road
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
It still seems that you interpret "free society" as meaning NO{_
government, i.e. anarchy. This is not the case. In an anarchy,
people without scruples will form robber bands and eventually
governments.
No, one requirement of an "ideal free MARKET" is that there is no role
for the government. Whether such a free market can exist in a society
or whether the resulting society is really free is another matter.
In an anarchy, people without scruples will form robber bands and
eventually governments.
Hmm, are governments derived from robber bands? Or it is the case
that forming a government is a "natural" phenomenon? That is, if
there is no government, at least one will eventually be formed without
exception.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 8 Feb 87 15:58:35-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Middle of the road
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Discrimination and incompetence are self correcting in a free
market, as I have explained in previous messages.
By your kind of reasoning denial of individual rights by the state is
also self-correcting since eventually the people will get so upset and
revolt to free themselves. However that is not the point. The point
is whether an individual that is discriminated against gets to see and
benefits from the correction in his/her lifetime, or whether an
incompetent individual gets punished by the market in his/her
lifetime. If you can't guarantee these in a libertarian society, you
can't say that the libertarian society guarantees equality for all
individuals nor that individuals will learn from bad decisions (e.g.
by being incompetent) as they will be promptly punished by the market.
Furthermore the "correction" may come not through the free market but
through changing the system of government. So yes, in THEORY the
market is self-correcting, the problem is whether it will correct
itself in time to make a difference to the individuals affected.
You also assume that discrimination and incompetence are restricted
only to the market. If police, court or government officials
discriminate, you don't get equality under the law i.e. you can't have
a libertarian system. Also if these government officials are
incompetent, you get an incompetent government not a libertarian
government, i.e. one that enforces the libertarian laws incompetently
(e.g. you get incompetent protection of rights---who knows what kind
of system you'll end up with).
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 6 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
Education &
Drug Testing &
Civil Rights &
Voluntary taxes &
SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 14 Feb 87 02:58:01-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Education
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Parents have to do their job at home to supplement what is
being taught in school.
Of course. Which has nothing to do with the issue.
Not true. If parents don't do their job at home, they can't blame the
school (public or private) for failing to educate their children. I
don't know what the cost is for providing "complete" education (i.e.
education with no parent involvement at home). But if this cost is
too high for parents to bear (i.e. the service is too expensive to
purchase in the free market), then parents who want to have a good
education for their children will have to do their job at home.
Blaming the school or the government and not themselves is not going
to make the problem go away.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sun 22 Feb 87 01:55:37-EST
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Testing for "health" and drugs
To: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa
Michael C. Berch < mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA> writes:
> I am against drug testing as a policy matter, and if I were an
> employer I would not use them. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the
> difference between a prospective employee's right to inquire into the
> financial health of the company, etc., and the prospective employer's
> right to inquire into the health of the applicant, including drug
> use, alcoholism, or heavy smoking.
There is a difference because a company's financial "health" is not
the same as the health of a person's body! An individual has the
right to the privacy of their own body -- i can think of no more
*fundamental* right. However, a corporation is an artificial entity
-- a legally constituted association of individuals -- with no such
inherent right. Of course, it should have the right to privacy of
records, to a great extent, but financial records are nothing like a
human body. [I say "to a great extent" meaning that fiscal records
should be private up to the point where it is necessary to verify
compliance with laws concerning the interactions between people
(however few or many those laws might be).]
A more appropriate and symmetric situation would be where the
potential employee would have the right to inquire into the personal
health of the employer, or of all the officers of the company, or at
least to everyone who has access to his/her employment records.
~joe testa~
------------------------------
From: rw@beatnix..UUCP (Russell Williams)
Subject: Re: March Through Forsyth County, Georgia
Date: 17 Feb 87 18:03:20 GMT
Reply-to: rw@beatnix.UUCP (Russell Williams)
In article < 4218@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
[Lots of stuff eloquently justifying legal action to end bigotry]
As someone who grew up in the south (Birmingham) in the 1960's and
1970's, I can only agree with Barry. Additionally, marches,
demonstrations, etc. are just part of the P.R. arsenal all movements
use to focus attention upon their cause. Change came in the south
primarily because of federally enforced legal changes. But these
changes came about because the marches, demonstrations, etc. focussed
the attention of the nation on the condition of southern Blacks.
Racism was (is) much easier to ignore when not publicly revealed.
Russell Williams
..!{sun|styx}!elxsi!rw
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 8 Feb 87 14:12:33-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Voluntary taxes, free riders and free lunches
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I am concerned with a lot more than taxation. When people send
messages arguing that taxes are ok, I send back messages that
taxes are not ok.
I couldn't tell from your messages. I have yet to see you denounce
racism or sexism as vehemently as you denounce involuntary taxes.
Perhaps you see taxation as more evil than racism or sexism. If that
is the case then taxation is of higher priority to you. I do find
this rather odd, since libertarianism champions individual rights and
racism/sexism has the effect of denying rights to some individuals.
Furthermore, whether taxes should be voluntary or involuntary is not
as clear cut as some shallow thinking would lead one to believe (read
on).
You have accepted the necessity for the state's role in national
defense and the police. Thus you have also accepted the fact that (1)
these services cannot be provided by the private sector i.e. cannot be
bought by an individual in the free market and (2) they are necessary
i.e. any rational individual would deem them as necessary (or cannot
live as a free individual without them or you can't have a free
society without them). Putting (2) in another way, in a modern
society, no individual has the choice of not buying the services.
That is, for all intent and purposes, the services are compulsory.
Does an individual then have a choice of not paying for them? If yes,
then you are saying that there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Instead of your welfare addict (a favorite whipping boy of some
people), you end up with a free rider who chooses not to pay for those
services by not paying the voluntary taxes. These free riders would
perhaps lie (about their need for police protection, say) to get
somebody else (perhaps someone who might be more insecure but not
necessarily richer) to foot the bill so that they (the free riders)
can use the money which would otherwise go to the taxes to buy other,
very likely private, goods. Now if there is lying, then the situation
clearly is not fair and is a form of fraud. If there is no lying,
then you might say it is ok since those who pay the taxes know that
they are also paying for the services for those who wouldn't.
Let's explore the case where the voluntary contributors pay the taxes
knowing that there will be free riders. I can see two
problems---unequal service to customers and corruption. Both leads to
unequal protection under the law. If you are a policeman and you know
that a significant portion of your salary is (consistently) paid for
by a small group of individuals, you would tend to provide a better
service to the paying customers (as in all business transactions).
You would try to keep them happy so that they will continue to pay the
voluntary taxes. There is also a potential for corruption here. You
as a policeman would perhaps bend the law every now and then so that
your paying customers would continue to pay the taxes e.g. not send
them to jail so as not to deprive them of earning their (and your)
income. With this in mind, a big time drug trafficker would have the
incentive to "contribute" legally to the police or the military. This
(paying off the police) already happens in countries with involuntary
taxes, it is going to be even more prevalent in a country with
voluntary taxes. You might say that this should not happen. However
I think this would happen. Remember what you said earlier about
he/she who pays the piper gets to chose the tune? Putting it in
another way, he/she who pays the cop get to chose the laws (or at the
very least how they are implemented). Similar arguments can also be
made against service fees for the police.
Perhaps now you won't be so sure about what you said in another
message with regard to involuntary taxes:
I am sorry if you feel that being forbidden from taking
money from other people against their will is an unreasonable
restriction on your freedom.
Involuntary taxation is robbery only if individuals can choose not to
use the services (e.g. police, national defense) or that individuals
can choose to purchase the "compulsory" services from the free market
i.e. private sources. To allow an individual not to pay for a
"compulsory" service is to encourage free riders, fraud, inequity
(under the law) and corruption. The last three, in addition to being
wrong, can destroy your libertarian system.
Now let's look at the other ways of financing the government:
There are many means of financing a government without the use of
coercion. For instance a fee to be charged for each contract,
based on the value of the contract. It would be allowed to not
pay it, but the contract isn't enforcable in court if you don't.
Same problems as those for voluntary taxes. Why pay it when you don't
have to or when you can spend your money on a fancy private good?
There is no incentive for the economic man to be honest. Appeal to
ethics? Perhaps, but there are no guarantees.
Another source, already being used with great success, is
lotteries.
That depends on what you mean by great success. Can we fund our
defense or police needs based on lotteries alone? How much do the
lotteries contribute to the police and courts in states like
California or Massachusetts?
And there are the estates of people who die without a will or any
relatives.
Please provide figures on how much you expect to get from these rich
individuals and for how long. I do see the state (and non-paying
citizens) being motivated to discourage rich people with no living
relatives from willing their estates to anybody.
And of course fines in criminal cases.
Assuming that there is enough criminal cases and that convicted
criminals do pay the fines. What happens in a society where there are
very few criminals or where most of the criminals can't afford to pay
the fines? The state would be motivated not to reduce the crime (and
conviction) rate below that level necessary for keeping the state
financially afloat. (-: That is, the crime industry is good for the
state. :-)
Many small national governments get much of their revenues from
selling stamps and coins to collecters.
Who owns the stamps and coins? Individuals or the state? If it is
the state you just contradicted yourself about the state not owning
anything in the economy. Also, I thought you said that government
should not be in the business of selling private goods.
And, yes, direct voluntary contributions.
Again see above. Please provide figures on how much you expect to
get.
These should be more than adequate to finance the police, the
courts, and domestic military defense, which are the only
legitimate functions of the government of a free country.
Under some, not necessarily realistic, assumptions yes. Again please
give figures and numbers supporting your claim. You can't finance a
government on hope and unsubstantiated statements.
I do not accept anyone's authority to tax me.
Even when the state provides you with the services which you see as
absolutely necessary? Should the state provide those services
irrespective of whether anybody pays for them or not? If yes, then
you are saying that state should not be subjected to the very basic
form of market discipline which is: "there ain't no such thing as a
free lunch."
(-: So there is such a thing as a free lunch in the libertarian (aka
classical liberal) state after all. Guess who makes that possible?
The state. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:bh01@clutx.BITNET>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:53:36 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: SDI
My biggest objections to SDI are:
o Our president has promised that it will protect the civilian
population. Most experts agree that such a thing is impossible.
o Our president has also promised that SDI will be non-nuclear.
This is unlikely because the weapon that inspired the whole kit
and kaboodle is the X-ray laser, powered by a nuclear bomb.
In other words, he's a damned liar.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 6 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 38
Today's Topics:
South Africa &
Property Taxes &
Road Subsidies &
Civil Rights March &
Education &
Centrism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 23 Feb 87 00:06:52-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Response to Willy Lim.
To: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
> (I have also read
> reports that the SACP (South African Communist Party) have
> plans to recruit more whites in SA.)
They already have white membership in the SACP.
I said "to recruit more whites" and not "to start to recruit whites."
Get the difference? White membership (and domination) in the SACP has
been known for quite a while. Note too that communism was not
invented by blacks.
Lithuanian born Joe Slovo (SACP) is the top man of the militant
wing of the ANC (he operates from London, Lusaka, and Odessa) and
travels on British papers.
It would be a significant point if we provide the ANC arms and they
picked Slovo as the top military man. We wouldn't allow that. So why
would you expect the Soviets to allow anybody less committed to
communism be in charge of the guns that they supplied and which we
still refuse to supply?
Ok, here's one thing I know. At this moment insurgent SWAPO forces
from Angola last no longer than about 7 days (on average) before
the local black people turn them in to the authorities (SADF).
Two points. Firstly, you are talking about Namibia and not SA. Hence
your point is irrelevant with respect to the ANC. Secondly, the
hunting down of SWAPO guerrillas are done by black soldiers (under the
command of SADF officers). These black soldiers are recruited because
of their great tracking and fighting skill as well as their ability to
survive for long periods in the wild. According to a SADF officer in
charge of recruiting and training the black soldiers, the blacks are
better in that kind of warfare than city folks. Of course your point
would have been valid if you said something like "at this moment
insurgent ANC forces infiltrating from the north last no longer than
about 7 days (on average) before the local black people turn them in
to the authorities (SADF)." I would be interested in any evidence you
have to show this lack of support for the ANC inside SA.
You mean the shootings that occur when the local black people call
the police in to stop the necklace murders and other criminal
activity.
No I mean shootings like those in Sharpesville (sp??). Recent reports
say that the police would rather watch the necklacing at a distance
than to maintain "law and order". SA laws are racist and to be law
abiding there is to be racist. Under the current emergency laws, most
of several thousand people in prison are not petty criminals but
rather political prisoners.
The police are looked up to by a good deal of people regardless of
race.
Can you quantify "a good deal of people" especially with respect to
blacks? 10%, 20%, 100%, or what?
So much for Mr. Mandela.
I would be interested in the references with regard to Mandela's
statements. Why should we put lots of weights to those statements and
no weights to his involvement in the drafting of the freedom charter?
No wonder the ANC hates black police chiefs and mayors. They don't
want law and order. What the ANC wants is total ANC control of all
their fellow citizens. If it is greater individual freedom that
the ANC offers, why do they carry on a campaign of terror against
their fellow black citizens?
So you think that the ANC's adoption of the freedom charter is a
fraud? Under what conditions would you consider the adoption of the
freedom charter not a fraud?
Pure BS, our major press is censored. We live with suppression
here.
Hey fellow Americans, according to this fellow, we are living with
suppression here. Is there any country in this world that is free,
John? Is our adoption of the Bill of Rights a fraud too? Is our
constitution just for show? What would suggest we have in place of
them?
I wonder what you really know about the press in SA??
I know enough to know that your claim that there is wide differences
in opinion being expressed in the South African press is nonsense.
They can't quote Oliver Tambo, we can. South Africans can listen to
the opinion of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement but not Tambo's. Why
is Terreblanche's opinion more worthy than Tambo's?
SA will most likely get a new constitution in the next couple of
years.
For the sake of democracy and free-enterprise, I sure hope so. I also
hope that new constitution is a just one. Note that P.W. Botha was
one of the first leading white politicians to say something about
giving some power to the blacks. Desmond Tutu had openly admired him
for saying that at that time. He has yet to show enough results that
will convince black South Africans that he is sincere (or that he can
overcome any resistance to the reforms from within the Afrikaner
dominated government.) Now with the election coming, he is saying
that whites should give power to the blacks. I sure hope that he has
something to show after the elections. If P.W. Botha can be given
that much benefit of the doubt (with respect to his intentions) why
can't Nelson Mandela or Oliver Tambo be given some benefit of the
doubt too?
As an aside, Botha once asked if SA were to release Mandela would the
Soviet Union release Scharansky and other prominent Soviet dissidents.
Now that many of these Soviet dissidents have been released, perhaps
we should ask if SA would release Mandela.
If they do this the rest of Africa will be looking at them very
carefully and wondering about their own plunge towards socialism
and economic disaster.
You seem to imply that the rest of Africa is socialist. You mean to
say that there are no democratically elected and/or free-enterprise
states in the rest of Africa? Why does SA have this special privilege
of showing the rest of Africa how to do something good? Are there no
good things that SA (or us) can learn from the rest of Africa?
Anyone interested in a report on South Africa by a knowledgable,
experienced American should get a copy of the videotape by Donald
McAlvany entitled *South Africa: The Accelerating Onslaught*.
And they should also read the Eminent Persons' Report on SA.
Willie
P.S. Are you having problems sending direct email to me? If so,
perhaps you can send me email via RUTGERS (is that ok Charles?).
Sorry that this reply took 42 days, you would have got a quicker
response if you can send email directly to me.
[ Sure, but sometimes that's pretty slow too! :-]
------------------------------
Return-path: < marks@ads.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 15:22:51 pst
From: marks@ads.ARPA (Phil Marks)
Subject: Property Ownership
jon@gaia.UUCP (Jonathan Corbet) writes:
> > If I buy a car, is it okay for me to have a mechanic inspect it
> > first? If I buy a house, can a contractor look it over?
>
> This, in my mind, implies that you are treating people the same way
> you treat cars and houses -- as property. A car has no privacy to
> be invaded. When you buy a house, you have done just that: *bought*
> it.
Actually...in Amerika...one does not *BUY* a house, he merely
*RENTS* it from the government. The rent payments are called property
taxes. If you do not believe this try the following experiment. Stop
paying your rent (taxes) and see how long it takes the government to
evict you and reclaim *THEIR* house. The same is true for *YOUR* car.
Philip Marks
------------------------------
From: paul@dual.UUCP (Baker)
Subject: Re: Road-users paying for it
Date: 26 Feb 87 16:30:38 GMT
elg@seismo.CSS.GOV@killer.UUCP writes:
>
> And subsidising or
> providing public utilities in areas where otherwise they would be
> unprofitable -- e.g. rural areas had no electricity until the Fed.
> Govt. set up rural electrical co-op fund, one way Ma Bell was
> allowed to keep her monopoly for so long, was by using city dwellers
> to subsidise rural phone co.'s, etc. Basically, you CAN say that
> these are necessary for the protection of those unfortunate enough
> to be in a place where utilities are not commercially economical.
>
This is all very well except that by subsidizing rural roads,
electricity, USPS, etc to rural areas, you encourage more people to
move to rural areas who would not move otherwise. This increases the
amount of subsidy required. This is possibly still acceptable if you
think that the nation as a whole benefits from moving people to the
rural areas. With the current interest in retaining unspoilt rural
areas, this seems unlikely.
> From a personal point of view, one of the more depressing things
about travelling in rural areas in the U.S. are the houses every few
miles surrounded by an acre or so of junk - everything the owner has
thrown out for the past thirty years or so I suppose. For all the
"rural ambience" of these dwellings, the owner might as well live in
Pittsburgh.
> And to a rural dweller, the automobile is the most important
> part of his life. Without an automobile, someone living in Castor,
> Louisiana (pop. 500), would starve to death -- walking 20 miles to
> the nearest store isn't very feasible, especially for the old,
> and 500 people won't support much of a store.
But, as implied above, would these people be living there if it
wasn't for the subsidized roads, electricity, phone etc.? As
an aside, I would have thought that one store could survive
with a captive market of 500 people. 10% profit from 500
people spending $10.00 a week would give $500.00 a week - no
way to make a fortune, but probably enough to live on.
> * Airwick * (Deadens one to the stench of auto exhaust?)
Paul Wilcox-Baker
Telex ITT 470844
Tel [415] 549 3854 Ext 36
------------------------------
From: rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb)
Subject: Re: March Through Forsyth County, Georgia
Date: 3 Feb 87 17:15:16 GMT
The original Brotherhood march was initiated by a white
martial arts instructor who felt that the absensce of black
and/or other minority faces in the community needed to be
addressed. There was no specific agrieved party: no person
refused service, no specific violation of the law. Unlike
the civil rights demonstrations of the 60's there was no
clear legal objective, but only the that ol' devil "racism".
Unfortunately, this was classic "promote thyself" troublemaking
for the so-called Black leaders. Even Mayor Andrew Young
(who marched) allowed how he felt the motives were mixed.
Surely the leaders of the March know that while laws can be
passed to make you respect me before the law, there is no
legislative process that can soften your heart toward me
(and the other way). So after the $500 K was spent on the
March, the tolerant are still tolerant and the bigots are
still bigotted. I submit nothing was accomplished save the
promotion of a few aging civil rights leaders and a serious
waste of our tax $$.
--
____ _______ _____ _______ ------- Bob Brown
/ __ \ |__ __| / _ \ |__ __| -====------ AT&T Technologies
| (__) | | | \ \ \_\ | | -======------ ihnp4!akgud!rjb
| __ | | | / \ __ | | --====------- Norcross, GA
| | | | | | | (\ / / | | ----------- cornet 583-3784
|_| |_| |_| \_____/ |_| ------- (404) 447-3784
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 14 Feb 87 03:34:04-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Education
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
We need to understand the causes for [government incompetence
and overpayment] better before we know what the cure is.
Not true. If you had a deadly disease for which there was a
cure that worked, would you refuse to take the cure until you were
sure that there was no way to go on living WITH the disease, and
until you were certain of exactly what had caused the disease in
the first place?
You are assuming that libertarianism is a cure that worked. You have
to show this first. You'll also have to show that the US, one of the
richest and freest nation on earth (i.e. one of the healthiest
economically and politically), is suffering from some deadly
economic/political disease.
Sounds simple. You need to change the government which means
you have to convince enough people. That's hard.
True. But if it IS the one right way we had better get started,
instead of saying this other way is wrong - but quick and easy -
so lets do it wrong.
You have to convince enough people that your way is the right way
first. It would be a lot easier to convince people that
libertarianism is the way to go if you can point to a real life
example somewhere. You can't expect rational individuals to buy a
product based on just words and idealism.
(-: The last product offered promises that the state will take care of
everybody, the new product promises that the free market will take
care of everybody. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 14 Feb 87 03:48:02-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Middle of the road
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
If it's any consolation, other people are forbidden from
stealing from you in a free society. Regardless of how many of
them there are or how noble their motives or how great their need
for the wealth that you produced.
In a libertarian society, it might very be that they are stealing from
you by saying, not necessarily truthfully, that they don't like
certain government programs and hence won't pay for it but would
gladly use (and perhaps abuse) it. And of course you might want to
voluntarily pay for certain programs in the hope that you might be
able exert some, not necessarily righteous and noble, influence or get
some thing extra in return (e.g. get the cop to give a better
service).
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 39
Today's Topics:
South Africa &
Road Subsidies &
Economic Regulation &
Economic Unbalance and Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 27 Feb 87 02:11:39-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: South Africa
I am surprised at John Smith's statement that the violence of the
South African government is only directed at perpetrators of necklace
murders, but I won't argue about the degree of violation of human
rights by the South African government in this message because I don't
have facts and references handy right now. I just want to respond to
the question of how the South African government *should* respond to
insurgents and murderers. There are plenty of standard international
agreements about human rights. These international standards allow
governments to fight against external invasion, to resist armed
rebellion, and to punish crime, with various reasonable restrictions.
South Africa should follow these norms. The extent to which they (or
any other government) do so can be measured by reading reports by
Amnesty International or similar human rights groups. They should
also dismantle the apartheid system, because it is unjust.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
From: paul@dual.UUCP (Baker)
Subject: Re: Road-users paying for it
Date: 26 Feb 87 16:30:38 GMT
elg@seismo.CSS.GOV@killer.UUCP writes:
>
> And subsidising or
> providing public utilities in areas where otherwise they would be
> unprofitable -- e.g. rural areas had no electricity until the Fed.
> Govt. set up rural electrical co-op fund, one way Ma Bell was
> allowed to keep her monopoly for so long, was by using city
> dwellers to subsidise rural phone co.'s, etc. Basically, you CAN
> say that these are necessary for the protection of those
> unfortunate enough to be in a place where utilities are not
> commercially economical.
>
This is all very well except that by subsidizing rural roads,
electricity, USPS, etc to rural areas, you encourage more people to
move to rural areas who would not move otherwise. This increases the
amount of subsidy required. This is possibly still acceptable if you
think that the nation as a whole benefits from moving people to the
rural areas. With the current interest in retaining unspoilt rural
areas, this seems unlikely.
> From a personal point of view, one of the more depressing things
about travelling in rural areas in the U.S. are the houses every few
miles surrounded by an acre or so of junk - everything the owner has
thrown out for the past thirty years or so I suppose. For all the
"rural ambience" of these dwellings, the owner might as well live in
Pittsburgh.
> And to a rural dweller, the automobile is the most important
> part of his life. Without an automobile, someone living in Castor,
> Louisiana (pop. 500), would starve to death -- walking 20 miles to
> the nearest store isn't very feasible, especially for the old,
> and 500 people won't support much of a store.
But, as implied above, would these people be living there if it
wasn't for the subsidized roads, electricity, phone etc.? As
an aside, I would have thought that one store could survive
with a captive market of 500 people. 10% profit from 500
people spending $10.00 a week would give $500.00 a week - no
way to make a fortune, but probably enough to live on.
> * Airwick * (Deadens one to the stench of auto exhaust?)
Paul Wilcox-Baker
Telex ITT 470844
Tel [415] 549 3854 Ext 36
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:12:37 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Regulation
Cc: wlim@@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Poli-sci musings
Willie,
I haven't submitted to poli-sci in a while (such postings
require a lot of time to do properly), but I just had to respond to
some of your recent postings personally.
Firstly, you claim that because a free economy has never
existed, the facts do not support the libertarian contention that a
100% free economy is the best economic system. The facts *may* not
not support this, but you cannot conclude this a priori. This would
only follow only if a free economy had been attempted and had failed
miserably, something you cannot show. If I say "performing experiment
X will poduce results Y", you cannot correctly reply that "the facts
do not support that conclusion" unless and until experiment X has been
performed.
Your thinking seems to be that if a free economy was really
the best thing going, countries would have adopted it by now. But
this ignores the fact that people are emotional, insecure, envious,
and sometimes just plain ignorant. People do not adopt economic
systems through a rational discussion of the alternatives (alas).
Economic systems emerge from profound sociological forces that have
next do nothing to do with reasoning. Besides, if your reasoning was
correct, we would indeed be living in (or at heading toward) the "best
of all possible worlds" (Voltaire, "Candide") as people and ideas
around the world compete with each other. It's a bogus line of
thought, something I'm shocked to find from such a normally careful
reasoner!
Secondly, your comments about regulations are somewhat flawed.
You talk about the necessity for regulation to make the economy free,
and then show some regulations made with just that purpose in mind.
You cite this as evidence to support your conclusion that regulations
are necessary, but you cannot do this. The mere existence of
regulations intended to keep the economy free only shows that other
people think like you do, not that they are right. The essential
question, of course, is whether or not such regulations work.
We agree that the "perfect" free market is an abstraction, not
achievable in the real world. What you should understand is that
"perfect" regulation (regulation without adverse consequences) is also
an abstraction; central banks can create too much money, OSHA's can
set standards that are too low, EPA's can be lobbied by chemical
companies, and so forth. Furthermore, there is no way to distinguish
"good" regulation from "bad" regulation: if you permit political power
to intrude in the marketplace, then it becomes cost effective for
people to attempt to use that power to their own advantage. "good"
and "bad" no longer enter in to the picture. So the question you
should be asking yourself is not whether or not some kind of
regulations are needed to make the economy free (a difficult concept
for me, restricting freedom to enhance freedom), but whether the
actual, practical benefits of a society with constitutionally
protected economic liberties are better then the actual, practical
benefits of one without them.
I'm also astonished that you accept the gospel of regulation
so quickly. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence (one
way or the other) on the need for a central bank, for example. A
self-admitted pragmatist like yourself should be wary of the line of
conventional economic thought that you espouse for the simple reason
that most of the governmental agencies that it claims are necessary
were in place long before it emerged as an aspect of classical
economics.
I took the time to write this because most people with a brain
out there who aren't libertarians believe as you do; that some sort of
regulation is necessary to curb the abuses of the marketplace. I
point out that:
1) Regulatory agencies were in place long before the material
for Econ 1 was developed.
2) Regulation is *never* perfect. While "market failure" can
happen, "regulatory failure" is much more likely.
3) Permitting the political marketplace to make economic
decisions makes it cost-effective for people to attempt to use
political power to their own advantage. This makes most of us worse
off, which leads us to demand more regulation to curb the abuses of
the marketplace, which makes it more cost-effective for people to use
political power ...
In short, I think people out there who believe as you do
should question their assumptions very carefully, keeping in mind the
self-interested nature of human beings and the imperfect nature of the
world. Seems to me that we're much better off in a world in which the
use of force and fraud are banned, and the basic principles of
economic interchange are protected.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 18 Feb 87 23:46:22-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: "haves" versus "have-nots"?
To: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
In Poli-Sci V7 #6 Willy lim...
It's Willie Lim, if you don't mind.
....gives the following argument:
> ...The "haves" decided to protect their
> interests---join the police/army, contribute to law and order
> type of things. Meanwhile outside elements (communists,
> racists, etc.) started exploiting the "have-nots" and supply
> them arms. Many of the "have-nots" volunteer to join the
> revolutionary army. More economic chaos, more "have-nots",
> larger revolutionary army, less "haves", less contribution for
> maintaining law and order. The cycle repeats. Get the picture?
I have serious doubts about the above argument. Is this the picture
that is supported by the evidence of history?
First thing first. I used scenario for understanding how a
libertarian system can be made unstable and whether emergency power
(with the proper controls to check its abuse, of course) is needed to
preserve the system. Secondly there hasn't been any historical
evidence that the libertarian system is inherently stable since such a
system does not exist yet (and hence the need for the scenario).
Thirdly, if your point is about the "have-nots" being
"trouble-makers", look at the insurgency in the Philippines. Also
look at South Africa. We will just have to wait and see whether these
two situations will develop into all out revolutions. I hope not.
For revolutions, you can go back to the French, Haitian (long before
Duvalier, when the slaves rebelled against the French) and Bolshevik
revolutions.
I ask: If revolutions are really the revolt of the "have-nots"
against the "haves" why is it that the "money" seems always to be
on the side of the "have-nots"?
Hmm, if money is on the side of the "have-nots", they are no longer
the "have-nots". You probably mean state money which, of course, is
another matter.
Or don't you think that it costs money to groom and train all the
political, religious, broadcasting, journalistic, and professorial
prosti[t]utes that it takes to preach revolution? Poverty pimping
is big business indeed!
What has "poverty pimping" (or for that matter "defense pimping") got
to do with revolution? In a revolution the "pimps" would be viewed as
belonging to the "haves." And the "pimps" being as evil as you say,
would fight to protect the wealth. They too would feel the wrath of
the "have-nots."
(-: I wonder (0) what Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Jesse Helms would
feel about the term political prostitutes, (1) what Jerry Falwell and
Pat Robertson would feel about the term religious prostitutes, (2)
what Pat Buchanan and George Will would feel about the term
brocasting, journalistic prostitutes, and (3) what Jeane Kirkpatrick
(Georgetown U.), Milton Friedman (U. of Chicago) and Arthur Laffer
(USC) would feel about the term professorial prostitutes. :-)
As economist Walter Williams points out for example in 1983 we (FED
GOV) spent $36,000 per year per family of four in poverty. The
poor obviously weren't getting anywhere near that amount. Who was?
Williams says that the poverty pimps got most of it.
(-: Trickle-down economics at work? :-)
You are assuming that the "have-nots" want handouts. I don't. I do
think that they would appreciate some help in getting themselves out
of their predicatment.
He covers similar ideas in his book The State Against the Blacks.
Why do you imply that the blacks are the "have-nots" or that whites
are the "haves"? If you are talking about the US, based on average
income there is another (non-white, non-black) group that is richer
than both whites and blacks. If you are talking about the richest
people in the world based on per capita GNP, it is a toss up
/
between the Japanese, us (les amercains) and perhaps, the citizens of
Brunei. Poverty and wealth are color-blind.
It seems to me that preaching against the "haves" is aimed at
suggesting expropriation of property as the "solution" (really as a
way to bring on revolution by the disintegration of law and order).
This is the second time you have not understood what you read. I am
going to say it again, just in case you didn't get it from the
previous paragraphs. The piece I wrote to Keith Lynch was aimed at
pointing out that a libertarian system (like any system) can be
unstable under the right (or wrong) conditions. I was trying to find
out if there is any (perhaps non-libertarian) mechanism for a
libertarian system to stabilized itself. Perhaps you are into
preaching for (or against) something (e.g. everybody will be better
off if we make the rich better off first or everybody will be better
off if we make the poor better off first or a good communist is a dead
communist or whatever). (If you do, please send in your own
contribution and let it stand on its own merits. It would be a lot
better than hiding it in a reply.)
Perhaps you have been seeing too much red (e.g. wealth expropriation
as the only solution for the "have-nots") and have not kept track of
developments in other parts of the world. If not, then you should be
aware of the successful land reform programs undertaken by Taiwan,
Malaysia and Thailand over the last two decades. These countries have
now developed into staunchly anti-communist and prosperous countries
(i.e. they ain't no communist slave states.) E.g. Malaysia had
graduated out of our foreign (economic) aid programs and Thailand is
expected to graduate soon. A similar type of land reform program is
being developed for the Philippines. We'll have to wait and see how
that will turn out. For a not too successful case, look at El
Salvador.
If one really cared about the "have-nots" isn't it better to give
away one's own property to them rather than bring on a revolution
that will enslave everyone?
(-: Here is a better suggestion, if you would give up all your wealth
and show those "have-nots" how you can get from being a "have-not" to
become a "have" in a short time, you would become a hero (saint) of
free enterprise and a great inspiration to the "have-nots". :-)
By the way, why just property? What about time and effort? Of
course, if there is enough people donating their wealth to the poor
(or if there is enough donation to take care of the problem), we
wouldn't have to worry about the "have-nots" causing trouble. Would
we? Remember that there are no laws against donating one's wealth to
the "have-nots", so the voluntary donation strategy has had been given
ample time to prove itself.
It is also not always the case that a revolution will lead to a slave
state, e.g. the American, French and the (non-violent) Filipino
revolutions. Also a revolution will not happen in a democratic
government (i.e. if there are open and fair elections). When there is
sufficient numbers of the "have-nots" to start a revolution, they
would have voted in sufficient numbers for there to be enough
representation in the government to take care of their interests. It
would be silly then for them to revolt against a government elected by
them. It is only when there is no constitutional way of changing the
government that revolution is so appealing to some people.
(-: Just out of curiosity, in the days of the US revolution would you
have advocated against the US revolution? Would you be like George
Will (a conservative commentator) who said that he would move to
Canada as he would find the pro-revolution people too radical for him?
It would be unfortunate for the free and capitalist world if your
anti-revolution argument had won out. We probably would not have the
Bill of Rights (the British have yet to have one) and an example of a
very successful free enterprise system (the US) to show the world. :-)
Willie
P.S. Can you please CC me your messages (i.e. those replies to my
messages) you plan to send to Poli-Sci? (-: In that way you won't
have to wait 38 days for a reply from me. :-)
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 8 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Political Spectrums &
Computer Simulationed Economies &
Libertianism &
Sources of Wealth &
Education &
Apartheid Protest Info &
Drug Testing &
Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 09:38:49 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The political spectrum
In Poli-Sci volume 7 number 29, Keith Lynch and Willie Lim argued
whether libertarianism is any kind of mixture or middle of the road
position between what we call "liberalism" and "conservatism"
nowadays. (Remember though that today's "conservatives" are better
described as "radicals".) In a recent Reason magazine, a writer
proposed a two-dimensional political spectrum:
---------------------------------
high | Democrats Libertarians |
| |
Amount of | |
Individual Liberty | Communists & |
| Fascists Republicans |
low |_______________________________|
low high
Amount of Economic Liberty
I suggest this is a more worthwhile classification. There are obvious
exceptions, of course, such as the fact that Democrats are in favor of
the restrictions on freedom represented by gun control laws, but they
just show that nearly everyone is really a hypocrite. (Someone
pointed out recently that the same people in the Reagan Administration
who are strict constructionists on the Constitution, such as Ed Meese,
suddenly become willing to play fast and loose with legal
interpretations when handed the 1972 ABM treaty.)
Steve Walton
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 3 Mar 87 20:54:48-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Computer simulations
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I would need more than a computer's say-so before I would conclude
that a free market would become unstable. People put far too much
trust in computers.
Some people do but most people don't. Computers are just tools. They
are useful for debugging purposes i.e. to make sure that there are no
major bugs in the system before it is implemented. You seem to be
advocating that the libertarian system should be implemented without
taking any effort in debugging it. (-: Is it bug free? If so, wow.
Do you happen to have a correctness proof? :-)
I agree that it would be good to implement a true free market, if
only on a small scale. Unfortunately, it would be illegal.
I disagree re "a computer simulation", especially since you follow
it with "in this real world and not some absurd hypothetical
world".
(-: You can't implement an experiment. You can't simulate it. What
do you want us to do? Adopt libertarianism just based on your words?
You seem to be saying: just vote go for libertarianism, never mind you
can't test it or simulate it or touch it, etc. It is so good that you
don't need to check it out first. That would sound too good to be
true to many people. :-)
You will have to tell me how to write such a simulation.
The onus is on you (and libertarians in general) to show that
libertarianism will work. You can't cop out of that. All you have
done is to find excuses for not doing a simulation. You don't even
advocate an attempt at such a simulation. I do believe that we can
learn a lot (may be not about libertarianism but perhaps about
simulating large systems) from such an attempt.
Willie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 23:24:03 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Libertianism????"
To: ASPDMM%UOFT01.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
1) You will get a faster response if you CC your messages to me.
The list usuually has a severe backlog.
2) You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps if
you read my postings, and perhaps if you read Ayn Rand before
criticizing, you wouldn't sound quite such a fool.
3) Ayn Rand was not "the greatest Libertarian of them all". She
despised Libertarians, and never used that word to describe
herself or her followers. (At least she could spell it.)
4) I have no idea what you mean, that she "eventually abandoned the
cause of a Libertarian revolution". She never advocated a
Libertarian revolution or any other kind of revolution. She
recommended education and non-cooperation. She definitely did NOT
advocate ANY kind of violence except in self defense.
5) Had you read my posting, you would have known I didn't say that
hundreds of resumes are needed to get a job BECAUSE of government
red tape. I was simply pointing out that government red tape makes
it WORSE not BETTER for job hunters.
6) If you "have read the notes on this service for about a year now"
and my posting is "the most preposterous thing [you] have seen
here" then you are obviously paying as little attention to other
people's messages as to mine.
7) Your argument that "our world would not function without
government" (not that you provide any evidence) would only be
germane if I was an anarchist. I'm not. Government has a role.
Its role is to PROTECT individual rights, not to VIOLATE them.
THIS is what you should be arguing against, if you are to argue
against me.
8) It doesn't matter that you "don't see any way to accommodate 4 and
a half BILLION Libertarians on the same planet without the Absolute
Freedom of each citizen trampling that of another" since you need
only accommodate your own self. You will not be called upon to run
everyone else's lives for them.
9) The one freedom that an individual does NOT have is the freedom to
violate another person's freedom, so your comment is pointless
anyway.
10) The world population is believed to be somewhat more than 5
billion.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:bh01@clutx.BITNET>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 08:39:42 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Wealth
In V7 #30, Wealth is either the product of labor or the creation of
investment capital. How about a third alternative: wealth comes from
mining of resources like trees, minerals, sand, coal, oil, etc? Such
wealth is unrecoverable, unlike labor or capital.
-russ
GEnie: BH01
BITNET:BH01@CLUTX
uucp: decvax!sii!trixie!gould!clutx!bh01
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 21 Feb 87 22:18:29-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Education
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Parents have to do their job at home to supplement what is
being taught in school.
Of course. Which has nothing to do with the issue.
I find this statement rather surprising especially when you advocate
letting the individual be responsible for his/her actions. Parents
are individuals too. If they don't do their job at home as parents
they can't blame the school (public or private). Until you can
clearly delineate where the parent's responsibility stops and the
school's responsibility starts, you can't tell if it is the school or
the parent that fails. Blaming the government is the easiest thing.
However, that can lead to an attitude problem. Everytime something
fails, instead of objectively looking for the causes, you blame
somebody else (e.g. the government).
With public schools, if you object to one, all you can do is try
to convince other parents to argue the bureaucrats into changing
it. And you have to pay for it whether you make any use of it or
not. Even if you send your children to a private school. Even if
you don't HAVE any children.
So you don't see the "neighborhood effects" of education as Milton
Friedman did in his book "Capitalism and Freedom." You do realise
that some people would rather work perhaps in an illegal industry than
to go to school if they (or their parents) have to pay for it. This
may be because they being rational individuals see fulfilling the
immediate needs (like eating and housing) as more important than doing
something that has a high entry cost i.e. education. If they choose
the crime industry, their individual actions have negative
externalities. If sufficient numbers of them go into the crime
industry, you end up paying more for the police, the courts and the
jails. The public school system (or something like a voucher based
system) may actually lower the entry cost and thus reduce the negative
externalities.
If you live in a society where the people can't afford to send their
kids to (private) school, you end up with a largely uneducated
population. Whether such a population can be effective participants
in the democratic process is unclear. They might end up being victims
of shallow and uncritical thinking, easily swayed by emotional
rhetoric, very susceptible to cheating by clever people and of course,
being apathetic.
Furthermore you seem to think that if there is no public school,
people will effortlessly start their own. Look at Haiti, they don't
have a public school (too poor to have one). Some groups (suspected
to be misguided elements of the rich) are trying to close down private
schools run by church groups. Mind you that this is after Duvalier
had left the country and the coercion (including death threats and
killing of teachers) is done mainly without the aid of the government.
There is clearly a motivation (perhaps economic and political) for
some ill-informed wealth people to deny education to the people (their
laborers). Do you expect such motivations to be not-existent in your
libertarian society? Given that the wealthy would also be paying for
your police and courts system, it would be difficult to expect your
government officials (as rational individuals and good businesspersons
i.e. serve the paying customer better) not to be on the side of the
wealthy (despite what the law says).
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:ins_ajal@jhunix.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 20:54:07 EST
From: ins_ajal%JHUNIX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Request for Apartheid Protest Info
I am looking for information on protests, divestment news, etc. at
various institutions to compile a representative summary of the
anti-Apartheid movement on college campuses for the student
publication of the Johns Hopkins University. Any info would be greatly
appreciated (of course with your appropriate by-line as a special
correspondent to the paper).
Thanks in advance,
Jay Lechtman, Features Editor
{!ihnp4!whuxcc, !seismo!umcp-cs, !allegra!hopkins}!jhunix!ins_ajal
ins_ajal@jhunix.BITNET
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Friday, 27 February 1987 09:29:40 EST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: drug testing
One thing that someone pointed out to me is that pre-employment drug
testing only detects drug addicts, not casual drug users. Since all
the big companies test now, you'd be insane to take any drugs while
looking for a job. Even though I don't use drugs, I've also been
careful about poppy seed bagels and anything else I thought had the
remote chance of causing a false alarm. What pre-employment drug
tests really do is prove that you can go without drugs for 3-6 months,
and therefore you must not be an addict. And it's the addicts that
could cause the company some problems.
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 6 Mar 87 00:36:28-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: snake oil salesmen
The government does not have to pay for snake oil. Insurance
companies don't have to cover snake oil. Doctors don't have to
prescribe snake oil. If the FDA (it could probably also be privately
done) keeps a list of drugs which meet its standards, doctors will
probably prescribe those drugs and insurance companies cover them,
even if they are legally allowed to do otherwise. Those people who
don't care that their medical treatments are orthodox and have the
money to pay for what insurance doesn't cover are already trying
psychic healing, organic foods, megavitamins, and various other
treatments which probably would not meet FDA approval. So making
drugs illegal until they have been thoroughly tested may not make that
much difference in how much "snake oil" gets sold to terminally ill
patients. Probably without those laws more people would take
laetrile, but also more would take AZT, which seems to be useful.
Also, even a libertarian society would have laws against fraud, and
people who made false claims about a drug could be tried under those
laws. I would be more concerned about the possibility of an increase
in problems like the thalidomide disaster than about how terminally
ill people spend their money (what are they saving it for?).
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic.arpa
-------
[ That sounds just a trifle callous to me - I would imagine a
terminally ill person, if treatment was impossible, would give the
money to their wives, children, or other individually-determined
worthy recipient. In any event, it is likely that in a libertarian
society that there will be dozens, not one 'FDA', each competing with
the other - and so likely giving different recommendations. Drug
fraud will be hard to prove, and the snake oil salesman a reality.
-CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 9 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 41
Today's Topics:
'Public Opinion' &
Libertarian Economics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < don@mimsy.umd.edu>
From: don@mimsy.UUCP (Don Hopkins)
Subject: White House Public Opinion Number: (202) 456-7639
Date: 7 Mar 87 18:30:48 GMT
[Read this, and give (202) 456-7639 a call and tell 'em what *you*
think! OFTEN! -Don]
White House Call-in: A Ritual for Loyalists?
Support-Reagan Memo Goes Astray at USDA
By Ward Sinclair and David Hoffman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Washington Post, Friday March 6, 1987, pp. A21
The scene has become ritual on the White House stage: President
Reagan makes a major address to the nation, the next day his press
secretary solemnly ticks off statistics showing an astonishing number
of supportive phone calls from John Q. Public.
It happened again yesterday as Marlin Fitzwater began his morning
news briefing with the revelation that Reagan's Wednesday speech on
the Iran-contra matter drew 3,645 positive and only 247 negative
calls.
"A very encouraging 93.5 percent positive," Fitzwater said.
Well, now. Let's take a look at that.
In light of what happened at the Agriculture Department and in other
redoubts of loyal Republicanism, the notion that Reagan's
heart-to-heart evoked such an outpouring of spontaneous huzzahs takes
on a somewhat different hue.
An advisory of uncertain origin circulated among GOP political
groups and activists on the eve of Reagan's talk saying "calls in
support of the president should be made directly after his address.
The White House Comment Line is 456-7639."
The memo, typed on plain paper bearing no letterhead, also suggested
that further supportive calls be made the morning after the speech to
the House intelligence and foreign affairs panels, their Senate
counterparts and the special committees investigating the Iran-contra
deception. Appropriate phone numbers were listed.
Reagan loyalists at the Agriculture Department took it a bit
further. A support-the-president exhortation meant for political
appointees apparently fell into the hands of an offended civil servant
and set off a minor furor.
The sequence began Wednesday when Diane McIntyre, political aide to
Secretary Richard E. Lyng, told an assistant to send out a reminder of
the speech with a note that anyone who wanted to "critique" the
address could call a special White House number.
On down the line, a secretary in the office of George Dunlap,
assistant secretary for natural resources and environment, entered
into the spirit of things. She typed up the message, adding "SUPPORT
THE PRESIDENT" in capital letters, and dropped it in boxes for
political types in the Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Forest
Service. But somehow it turned up in at least one pair of civil
service hands.
"How it got beyond there is beyond me," McIntrye said.
Dunlop issued a statement denying that he had ordered the memo sent
and saying that it had been prepared and inadvertently distributed
because of "a mistake in judgment." McIntyre said the secretary --
also a political appointee -- had been "talked to" and told to curb
the exuberance.
McIntyre said she routinely "advises" political appointees in
advance of major presidential statements but the reaction to this
week's advisory had been "blown totally out of proportion." She added:
"In some respects, it's interesting to see how little response there
was." Polling employees, she discovered that very few had volunteered
reactions to the speech.
At the White House, someone asked Fitzwater about reports from USDA
that employees were being told to call with supportive statements.
"No," Fitzwater said, "that would be wrong."
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 24 Feb 87 02:20:03-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: poli-sci musings
To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Barry,
Welcome back. I do like (though not necessarily agree with) your
points. And even though some of them are a little polemic, I don't
mind them since that (being polemic) is hard to avoid and that they
come from a friendly e-mail pal. However I have to raise issues with
your points.
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
The facts *may* not not support this, but you cannot conclude this
a priori. This would only follow only if a free economy had been
attempted and had failed miserably, something you cannot show.
The question is not that of failing miserably but rather why some
non-libertarian systems are doing so well (or well enough). Until you
have a libertarian system you can't show that it will do better (or
worse) than what we've got. But we can try to learn from those
systems that are closest to the libertarian system and compare their
performance with that of prosperous non-libertarian systems.
Would you consider Hong Kong (yes I know it is not a country) the most
libertarian place on earth? If so why does its per capital GNP is
below that of more statist countries like Japan and Singapore? There
is also statist South Korea which is expected to overtake Singapore
(and of course Hong Kong) as the second richest country in Asia, one
of these days. (South Korea is expected to overtake some European
countries by the turn of the century assuming that South Korea and
those European countries continue to grow at their current rates.)
Your thinking seems to be that if a free economy was really the
best thing going, countries would have adopted it by now. But
this ignores the fact that people are emotional, insecure,
envious, and sometimes just plain ignorant.
You seem to be saying that people are not rational---that would be
fatal for the model of free market that economists (and libertarians)
have been using. Why would you assume that people are perfect enough
to make a success out of a libertarian system? If these imperfections
can screw up all the systems that have come along, it is likely that
they will screw up the libertarian system too. Even if you assume the
conditions for a libertarian free market are met, there are still
problems. See "Free Market Economics, a critical appraisal" by Andrew
Schotter, St. Martin's Press, New York, for more details. Schotter
presented immanent criticisms that are developed by accepting the
assumptions of the libertarian free market as axioms and follow them
to their natural conclusions.
People do not adopt economic systems through a rational discussion
of the alternatives (alas). Economic systems emerge from profound
sociological forces that have next do nothing to do with
reasoning.
One of these forces might very well be that people have to get burned
first before they know something is a bad idea and thus would try
something else (e.g. libertarianism). All this may take a few hundred
years. Isn't that how the free market (in this case the free market
of economic systems) work? Are you proposing that we just buy the
libertarian product without doing any tests, simulations or
experiments first? Would you buy a product based solely on the
promises of the salespersons?
Economic systems get adopted through the free market of economic
systems i.e. people will keep tinkering with it until it become
obvious to them that they have to correct whatever attitude problem
they have with respect to government, the free market, welfare, etc.
I also see a contradiction here i.e. we must accept the outcome of
the competition of the free market of goods (i.e. the libertarian free
market) but not the competition of the free market of ideas (and
economic systems). This reminded me of what Milton Friedman said in
his book "Capitalism and Freedom"---there is an "inevitable tendency
for everyone to be in favor of a free market for everyone else, while
regarding himself of special treatment." In your case, you seem to be
saying use the free market to judge and test any system but the
libertarian system. Or put it in another way, don't let the free
market of economic systems decide that libertarianism is good, just
adopt it, it is good period.
Besides, if your reasoning was correct, we would indeed be living
in (or at heading toward) the "best of all possible worlds"
(Voltaire, "Candide") as people and ideas around the world compete
with each other.
Are we heading towards global economic doom? Aren't we better off now
than a few hundred or thousand years ago? In the US and countries
like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, people are more
prosperous now than they were 30 to 50 years ago.
It's a bogus line of thought, something I'm shocked to find from
such a normally careful reasoner!
On the contrary, it is a reasonable line of thought. Why would you
assume that libertarianism is such a perfect system? After all it
(like Marxism) is thought up by imperfect human beings too. A careful
reasoner would look at how Marxism develop into its current losing
state and ask if the same can happen to libertarianism. Not asking
such a question is careless reasoning.
Secondly, your comments about regulations are somewhat flawed. You
talk about the necessity for regulation to make the economy free,
and then show some regulations made with just that purpose in mind.
Well, as flawed as Milton Friedman who does not rule out the role of
government when it is necessary to correct for the rigidities and
imperfections of the market. (This does not mean I totally agree with
Milton Friedman but rather I do notice the pragmatism in his work.)
You cite this as evidence to support your conclusion that
regulations are necessary, but you cannot do this. The mere
existence of regulations intended to keep the economy free only
shows that other people think like you do, not that they are right.
Are you saying that only you (or libertarians) are right? That other
people are always wrong? You seem to be saying: don't listen to the
other people their thinking is flawed but yours is not. (-: Are you
libertarians, gods? :-)
What you should understand is that "perfect" regulation (regulation
without adverse consequences) is also an abstraction;
I do not believe in perfect regulation just as I do not believe in a
perfect free market. I believe in our world being a huge feed-back
system. You can try anything you want (from the individual to the
state level). If it is a bad idea, it will eventually come back and
hit you. If you are lucky, you can still recover from it if not,
tough (you can't ask for a second chance from nature). I (and so do
others) have always asked libertarians to try out their product
somewhere (say a small country like Barbados or Iceland) first for all
to see. In all sincerity, I would like to see a libertarian society
somewhere just so we can tell if it is a good or bad idea. Karl Marx
got his ideas tried and we in the free world found out what a lose
they are. For libertarianism, all we got is just a lot of
advertising. Also, I would speculate that a successful libertarian
state would be more statist than you expect just as a Marxist state
has to be less statist than expected to have any kind of economic
progress (but the libertarian state would probably have less of an
adjustment to make than a Marxist state).
Also, how are the people to know that libertarianism is just not
another con job like Marxism? (That is not say that I think that
libertarianism is a fraud. On the contrary, I like its ideals just as
I like the ideals of the perfect welfare or defense system. But can
it work?)
I'm also astonished that you accept the gospel of regulation so
quickly.
I don't accept the gospel of regulation but rather the inevitability
of government, however small its role (which everybody, except for
anarchists, would agree). I would like to see as little government
intervention in the economy as possible. But I can't adopt the
attitude of making the government the scapegoat when it is not clear
if we the people or the government or whatever is to blame. Why is it
not clear, you ask. Japan is the richest nation in the world (see the
Economist, late 1986), they have lots of regulation, they don't have a
free trade policy and they have pork barrel politics too. If they can
be so rich, there must be other factors that come into play.
Furthermore, I'm suprised that you chose not to mention the statism in
Singapore while pointing to its economic successes (at least its trade
policy). Since they have lots of regulation and still are economic
successes, what would you propose that we conclude from this?
Certainly we can't conclude that government regulations are always bad
or that government can't develop and implement good regulations.
In short, I think people out there who believe as you do should
question their assumptions very carefully, keeping in mind the
self-interested nature of human beings and the imperfect nature of
the world.
I think libertarians should question their assumptions carefully too.
They should look at the role of government in those countries with
economic successes and ask why it works. Otherwise there is a great
danger for all of us to fall into the same trap as Karl Marx did when
he blamed it all on capitalism and then proposed Marxism as the
solution. That is, in your case blame the government and propose
libertarianism as the solution, never mind what the empirical data out
there say. Just because I question the attitude of blindly blaming
the government does not mean that I am for government intervention.
My argument has always been that we need a government, however small,
and hence we better figure out how we can make it work i.e. perform
its legitimate functions competently. If it turns out that the
legitimate function include a (good) regulation/law of some type, then
we better make sure that the government is "designed" right for that
task.
Seems to me that we're much better off in a world in which the use
of force and fraud are banned, and the basic principles of
economic interchange are protected.
You are assuming that the world is static. That is, the basic
principles of economic are sacred and can never change as we evolved.
Something that is legal now may actually turn out to be
anti-individualistic latter as we develop a better understanding of
ourselves and the world. Take a look at slavery, slave trading was
once considered a legitimate trade (i.e. when we had a pretty
primitive understanding of individualism.) Arguing for the protection
of the basic principles of economic interchange then and for the
acceptance that these principles can never change would mean accepting
slavery till this day since we cannot get our government to enforce
anti-slavery laws (as government cannot alter the "basic principles of
economic interchange.")
In the case of fraud, the real reason for the laws is that we don't
have perfect flow of complete information. For if we do and assuming
that we all are rational beings (i.e. won't voluntarily let ourselves
be cheated), fraud can never happen. Hence laws against fraud would
be unnecessary. You have already accepted the fact that the ideal
free market is an abstraction. Now by accepting laws against fraud,
you have accepted the fact that government is needed in at least one
instance to minimize the bad effects of an imperfection in the real
market. If so, is that the only one we have to deal with? How many
more imperfections are there? (My apologies for repeating this point.
You'll read about it in one of my replies to my e-mail pal, Keith.)
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 10 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 42
Today's Topics:
Drug Testing &
Racism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA>
Date: Wed Mar 11 17:47:30 1987
From: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Testing for "health" and drugs
Cc: testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa
[]
[Michael C. Berch:]
I am against drug testing as a policy matter, and if I were
an employer I would not use them. Nevertheless, I cannot
understand the difference between a prospective employee's
right to inquire into the financial health of the company,
etc., and the prospective employer's right to inquire into
the health of the applicant, including drug use, alcoholism,
or heavy smoking.
[Joe Testa:]
There is a difference because a company's financial "health" is
not the same as the health of a person's body! An individual has
the right to the privacy of their own body -- i can think of no
more *fundamental* right.
I agree. And implicit in that right is the power to waive it in order
to perform a contract. An employer's job offer is an offer to
contract; the employer is certainly entitled to request a waiver as a
condition of employment. (This has nothing to do with people who have
an executory employment contract; that's another issue.) I can
decline, and seek employment with an employer who does not have the
requirement.
However, a corporation is an artificial entity -- a legally
constituted association of individuals -- with no such inherent
right. Of course, it should have the right to privacy of
records, to a great extent, but financial records are nothing
like a human body. [I say "to a great extent" meaning that
fiscal records should be private up to the point where it is
necessary to verify compliance with laws concerning the
interactions between people (however few or many those laws might
be).]
The reason I gave the analogy of financial records is that personal
health of an employee and financial health of an employee are similar
in that they both give an indication as to how long the employment
relationship might last and what problems might be encountered.
Corporations can "die" (go bankrupt) or get "sick" (causing, say,
layoffs) due to "diseases" like undercapitalization or market
shrinkage.
If the company refuses to provide financial data (and is not otherwise
required to, e.g., a publicly-traded firm), the prospective employee
can decide not to take the risk of being quickly laid off. Similarly,
the employer should be able to decline to take the risk of an employee
not "paying off" their employment start-up costs because they have a
health problem -- whatever the cause.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa
UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
------------------------------
Date: Tue 24 Feb 87 12:52:44-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Do you deny that blacks on the average do worse in school than
whites?
Depends on what you mean by average. If by average you mean taking
into account background factors, like whether a black do worse than a
white of identical background (say, from a family of 5 generations of
college graduates), then I say we don't have the data. However if you
by average you mean average over the whole race then I would question
if that is an accurate measure. As I have said before, whites and
blacks from low income families have similar drop out rates. Thus if
most of the blacks are from the low income group, you are probably
going to get the same performance as whites if the same percentage of
whites are from the low income group. Furthermore whites, like
Asian-Americans, are not homogeneous in terms of background, different
ethnic group gives different emphasis to education.
Do you deny that courts have forbidden employers and colleges from
hiring/admitting people based on written tests on the grounds that
the tests "discriminate" against blacks?
Hmm, SAT scores are still used by colleges. Some Asian-American and
Hispanic groups are complaining about the use of verbal scores to weed
out those not proficient in English putting less weight on the other
scores. Also employers like the police department still use written
tests for promotion. There is a case going on in Boston about this
white police captain and a gang of police officers stealing and
selling exam papers for these tests. The chief witness (who was
granted some kind of immunity from prosecution) said that he actually
lowered some of the scores of black candidates at the request of some
other white officers. So never mind what the courts said, there are
individuals actively skewing the results to their advantage.
Or do you simply assert that it borders on racism to notice these
facts?
No, I would say (just as Joe said earlier) that it would be racist if
one were to attribute poor academic performance solely to race rather
than to income level. You would notice that even in a homogeneous
society like Japan, it is the middle-class kids tend to do better than
lower-class kids. If you were a Harvard graduate, your kid would have
a better shot at going to Harvard (if he/she chooses to do so) as you
would have provided the right advice and support e.g. what to do and
not to do. That is, your experience at Harvard would be available to
your kid. You can advise him/her on what is expected of him/her, what
courses to take in high school, what extra-currilla activities would
be judged very important by the admission officers, what kind of
attitude/habit to develop in studying and problem solving, etc. If
your kid has the benefit of all these and still does only a little
better than a kid whose parents are high-school drop-outs, then the
latter has achieved a lot compared to your kid.
I have described no solutions??
No, many of your so-called solutions (like charity or persuasion by
friends and neighbors) have been given ample time to show results and
haven't. We all know about loving one's neighbor as one would love
oneself for a very long time, yet somehow it is not widely practised.
It took government action after much sacrifice by civil rights workers
to get rid of segregation in the South. Despite all this, the land of
blacks driven out of Forsyth County, Georgia, is still not returned to
the rightful owner. I also find it very hard to distinguish solutions
being proposed for soley selfish reasons (to the point of ignoring and
abusing another individual's rights) and those proposed for free
market reasons. It is very easy for someone whose rights are not
denied to tell somebody else to wait for the invisible hand of the
free market to correct any injustice (e.g. racism is
counter-productive and hence the racist would eventually get punished
by the free market). Would you expect minorities to be better off now
without affirmative action? Furthermore if these minorities are not
up to standard, the free market would have reacted by now (e.g. you
would not see employers going out of their way to keep women
employees).
Perhaps you mean I have described no solutions that require
government coercion, which seems to be the only kind of solution
that you will accept.
I would not have accepted such type of solution if there are better
solutions just like you would prefer the government not to be involve
in the policing and national defence if you can help it. Why accept
the fact that the government have to protect you from somebody wanting
to kill you and not accept the fact that the government should also
protect you from being discriminated against? When should government
stop protecting individual rights?
So? This would contradict what I said only if either:
1) Blacks families have the same economic distribution as white
families, or
2) I had said that blacks on the average did worse in school for
genetic reasons.
As Joe said before, to say that blacks did worse in school simply
because they are blacks and ignore the effects of income distribution
is wrong. That is mentioning 1) would be very important as that is
the cause of the problem. By not mentioning it, one couldn't tell if
you mean that whites under similar conditions would do better.
Given that family income is correlated with race, and academic
performance is correlated with family income, then academic
performance is correlated with race. What's your point?
My point is that the correlation between family income and race is
irrelevant in judging academic performance. To use it to correlate
academic performance with race is racist.
What racist attitudes? I could understand your accusation if I
had asserted that blacks were genetically less able to do well in
school.
You just attributed poor academic performance to race by ignoring the
correlation between academic performance and income. The link to
genetics is implied as you only stress the race and not the income
factor.
Even if I did, that still woudn't make me a racist. Is it racist
to claim that blacks are genetically prone to darker skin than
whites? Is the lack of racism simply the refusal to see any
differences?
It would be racist if you claim that an individual of one color does
better than another of a different color in academics. Lack of racism
is the absence of judging the behavior of an individual by his/her
color rather than by his/her actions i.e. to not to be racist is not
to attribute differences in behavior of any individual solely to
his/her color.
Racism is the belief that a different set of laws and rights
should apply to members of different races.
No as I said earlier, racism is judging an individual's behavior by
his/her race. It doesn't matter what the laws say. They may be the
most reasonable (or unreasonable), their existence either promotes or
discourages racism.
The United States was racist before the 1870s and has been racist
since the 1960s, which is ironic since individual's racism has
decreased in the period (1950s-1970s) when government's racism has
increased.
The US has been racist after 1870s and before 1960s. For the 60s
(until recently), government discouragement of racism has increased.
That is their right. Malcom X told fellow blacks that they should
spend money only in black businesses, and work only for black
owned companies. Was he a racist? Some wealthy people have
donated large amounts of money to found all-black universities.
Were they racist?
They are racist if they judge the behavior of an individual by the
color of his/her race and act according to that judgement.
Right. But you keep arguing that we should not make a free
market. And this isn't the first time you have argued that its
current non-existance is a good reason never to make it.
I never said never to make it. I said fix the current market first
i.e. take care of the inequalities (like ability to participate in the
free market) first then have the free market. Doing it your way is
not going to give you a free market but an evolution of the current
market.
No black alive today was a slave in this country. No white alive
today was a slaveholder in this country. So who exactly is to
redress whom, and for what?
But most blacks (i.e. except for immigrant blacks) are descendent of
slaves and they were (and still are to some extent) to racist
houndings by whites e.g. the exclusion of blacks from certain
counties, the denial of equal justice to blacks, the denial of equal
economic opportunities to blacks, etc. Incompetent whites who had
benefited from the protectionist effects of racism would have been
weeded out the freer market. You would also have a significant number
of highly educated, wealthy and competent blacks in society. Their
political beliefs would cover a wide spectrum like any other groups
e.g. the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Asians, Jews, etc.
If injustices of our ancestors should be compensated for in the
present, where do you draw the line? Should we give Texas and
California back to Mexico? Should we give the whole continent
back to the Indians? My distant ancestors were British. So am I
responsible for the Norman conquest? For the sack of Rome?
That would depend on the victims involved. If their descendants want
to pursue they just like the Armenians are trying to do it now.
Regarding the Indians, any claims should be settled by the courts
since there are no laws preventing anybody from seeking redress.
Anybody can file a suit.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 11 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 43
Today's Topics:
Libertarianism and Property (3 msgs) &
Racism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 87 18:38:29 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: zoning and libertarians: a real world example
Cc: bh01%clutx.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Russell Nelson recently posted a message regarding libertarians and
zoning, describing a situation that existed between him and his
neighbor not to his liking. He then asks what a libertarian would do
in similar circumstances. Since I am a libertarian in similar
circumstances, I thought it appropriate to reply.
Russell writes:
> [A house next door] has apparently been vacant for twice the four
> years that we have lived here. The chimney is falling down, the
> paint is peeling, and the grass is so overgrown that it comes up
> to my waist. There is no electrical power, no phone lines; a tree
> brought them down five years ago.
In fact, the house next door to mine has peeling paint, a backyard
completely overgrown with weeds, a decrepit fence, and a roof that
is falling apart, shedding shingles on my driveway on windy days.
> The house looks like crap ...
so does this one ...
> My wealth is being stolen by my neighbor.
This is completely and utterly false, although most people in similar
circumstances share this view. Having an asset of yours decline in
value is not the same as having wealth stolen from you, although both
leave you worse off financially.
Suppose you buy stock in company A, and a month later competing
company B announces a new product better and cheaper to that of
company A. Your stock declines in value. Has wealth been stolen
from you?
Suppose your neighbor were to fix up his house, but then prominently
displayed the following sign on his front lawn:
FAN THE FLAMES OF REVOLUTION AROUND THE WORLD!
SUPPORT THE COMMUNIST WORKERS' PARTY!
Suppose further that he flew a hammer and sickle flag from a flagpole
out front. This might lower your property values considerably. Has
your neighbor stolen from you? Should he somehow be impeded from
expressing his views? I think not.
The point is that in any society with private property, people
exercising their freedom of choice in disposing of what they own will
inevitably affect the economic well being of others. To call that
stealing is complete and utter nonsense.
> My house has a decidedly lower value because of the (non-)efforts
> of my neighbor.
My situation, exactly. It does not follow from this that my neighbor
should be forced to fix up her house to make my house worth more. She
is a free human being, who may treat her property in any way she
wishes. And of course, she may not have the resources to improve her
home, although I doubt this to be the case.
> Would I, were I a Libertarian:
> o Burn the house down (the inside, I am told, is as bad as the
> outside)?
Of course not. The wrongness of destruction of property is
something everyone can agree on. My guess is that this suggestion was
in jest.
> o Get together a neighborhood work crew and trim the shrubs, paint
> the house, etc?
I have thought of this, but at this point I wish to employ my
efforts toward other goals that are more important to me. This may
change once I get my degree, if my wife and I decide not to move.
> o Jump up and down and yell and scream about having the existing
> laws enforced?
I do not think there are any such laws here in Oakland, and if
there were I wouldn't think of demanding that they be enforced. Nor
would I turn in a draft registration evader, a drug user, an insider
trader, or a Berkeley landlord who charged more than the legal rent.
> o Grin and bear it?
This is in fact what I do.
It never ceases to amaze me how often libertarians are
referred to as "self-centered". It is precisely because I know that I
am not the only person in the world, that the improvement of my
financial well-being is not of paramount importance to a just society,
and that other people have different goals than I do that I do not
unequivocally support laws that benefit me. A sense of tolerance and
an understanding of how free societies work demands that I do just
that.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:bh01@clutx.BITNET>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 15:40:19 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: zoning and libertarians: a real world example
Cc: fagin%ji.berkeley@berkeley.edu
Barry Fagin writes that disposing of private property inevitably
affects others.
I think that Barry's example is slightly different from mine because
the house next to me is vacant. I was not totally joking when I
proposed burning the house down. There is sufficient spacing between
houses that no danger to any neighbors would result. Believe me, I
have planned this very well in my fantasies... But seriously, the
only practical options are to grin and bear it, fix it up myself, or
wait for the old buzzard to die.
Back to poli-sci... I think that this culture, that is, North
American, has generally agreed that a neighborhood should generally
have houses of equal worth. Since libertarianism denies this, I
expect that libertarianism is and shall remain, a theoretical concept
only. Perhaps we should move the main topic of this list away from
libertarianism to something a little bit more practical.
Then again, perhaps we're staying away from emotion-arousing
discussions to reduce the traffic in this newsgroup. I would rather
discuss political systems that have a ghosts chance of being adopted,
even if it means more flames. I'll be thinking about it, after
checking the halogen cannister to be sure that it's full. :-)
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 11:24:32 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reply to Robert H.
Cc: bh01%clutx.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Robert H. writes:
> Back to poli-sci... I think that this culture, that is, North
> American, has generally agreed that a neighborhood should generally
> have houses of equal worth. Since libertarianism denies this...
I certainly do *not* deny it! I understand that for the most part
most people in most cities in most states feel that houses in a
neighborhood should have approximately equal value. This is a fact of
life in America that we are both obviously aware of. I simply said
that I believe that decision to be unjust, and gave my reasons why.
The idea of criticising certain aspects of American life as unjust
even though most people think otherwise can't be all that foreign to
people out there. Consider a slight rephrasing and time change of the
original quote:
"I think that this culture, that is, the Old South, has generally
agreed that the ownership of slaves is acceptable. Since abolitionism
denies this, I expect that abolitionism is and shall remain, a
theoretical concept only..."
I think you would agree that there are fundamental principles that no
society can justly betray. We simply disagree on what they are, and
at what point we stop accepting the situation as a fact of life and
start complaining that a situation is unjust.
> ... I expect that libertarianism is
> and shall remain, a theoretical concept only. Perhaps we should
> move the main topic of this list away from libertarianism to
> something a little bit more practical.
Alas, I've been saying for months that libertarianism is quite
practical. This touches on something that's been bothering me for a
while. I'll post on it shortly.
--Barry
------------------------------
Date: Tue 3 Mar 87 11:09:21-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I am sure that some of my ancestors were slaves. Should I be
compensated? I am sure that some of my ancestors were criminals.
Should I be punished?
The problem with racism in American is not so much a problem between
slaves and slavemasters but rather one of lingering discrimination as
a result of slavery. That is, much of the racism existing today has
its roots in the days of the slaves.
But many blacks in the United States are NOT descended from
slaves. Why should they be compensated? And even more whites in
the United States are NOT descended from slaveholders. Why should
they be penalized?
Most of the blacks in the US are descended from slaves. The question
of compensation arises because of the lingering discrimination that
dates back to the slave days. If after the freeing of the slaves, the
free market were indeed allowed to operate there would not be much
discrimination today. Many of the competent blacks would have
replaced the incompetent non-blacks in our economy. Non-blacks would
have less protection under racism i.e. they would experience the same
reduction in opportunities as that due to any program that attempts to
emulate the free market. Non-blacks would be only wrongly penalized
if they were told to give their jobs right now so that blacks can have
them. That is very different from making *new* economic opportunities
fairer.
Or is it not ancestry, but race that is important? Am I then
guilty of everything any white person has ever done? And is each
black person guilty of everything any black person has ever done?
No person is guilty of anything another person has done except when
that person perpetuates a violation of basic human rights by either
actively engaging in discriminatory acts or passively reaping the
protectionist benefits of a racist market.
If you think so, then it is YOU who are racist, not I.
I do not attribute a person's behavior solely to the person's color or
sex nor act based on such prejudices.
Do you believe that any government action which does not result in
"collapse of the economy, unemployment among [some groups], loss
of wealth, loss of businesses" is ok? Regardless of what it does
to INDIVIDUALS? Is it ok to take any amount of money from any
individual just so long as he doesn't go out of business or
starve?
I do believe it is ok for the government to take actions to correct
for imperfections in the market just as we have accepted the
government's role in enforcing contracts that are voluntarily entered
or preventing an individual from murdering another individual.
I am bothered by your statement "due to 'inferior' people being
unfairly favored" which you attribute to the generic opponent of
affirmative action. Are you saying that only people who believe
that Malays are inferior oppose affirmative action?
Nope. What I am saying is that people who benefit from the
protectionist effects of the racist market tend to oppose anything
that will free the market. That is they misconstrued the free market
as one where they are free to make themselves the sole beneficiaries
by locking out certain, perhaps more competent, individuals through
actions that violate the rights of those individuals.
Are you saying that it is ok to "unfairly favor" any group so long
as it is NOT inferior?
It is not ok to do such things. But it is ok to take corrective steps
to change a racist market into a free market.
This is self correcting in a free market. Those who persistently
make irrational economic decisions go out of business.
It is self correcting in a *free* market and it may not necessarily be
self correcting in a racist market. Those who persistently adopt
racist attitudes in making economic decisions may not get punished by
the racist market before they die of natural causes. That is, while
they are still alive, most of them don't even get punished (by the
racist market) for violating the basic rights of others.
And how are we to have a color-blind market when we have NON-color-
blind laws, i.e. affirmative action?
Any correction for injustice have to include punishing the criminals.
In the case of a murder, you would say that it is ok to put the
murderer in jail or be executed i.e. be denied his/her right to live
as a free person. All corrective actions are discriminatory---they
are tailored to punish the criminals. In the case of racism or
sexism, the "criminals" are hard to identify (and most of them are
already dead). So the best that can be done is to make sure that new
economic opportunities emulate those that would be produced by a free
market. Since in a free market no group has a monopoly of all the
economic benefits or all the economic misfortunes, the racial
composition of the opportunities available in a free market would
approach the racial composition of the population. To continue to
insist that the existing racist market should be allowed to generate
those opportunities is to continue to insist on the violation of basic
human rights and to allow racists to continue to reap the benefits of
a racist market; hence perpetuating the racist market.
There is no minimum - or maximum - amount of competence or
ambition an individual might have, and there is no minimum - or
maximum - amount that he might earn or accomplish.
By accepting the fact that individuals below a certain age (e.g.
children) or the handicapped cannot be effective participants in
certain economic contracts that adults can engage in is to accept the
fact that there is a minimum amount of competence or ambition that an
individual must have to effectively compete in the free market.
And even if it WAS true, you are begging the question as to
whether a free market or coercion is best at eliminating said
discrimination.
Why are you calling a racist market a free market? Coercion in this
case is as justified as in the case where coercion is used to stop
individuals from committing murder or fraud.
Agreed, but it isn't for "us" to fix. Each individual has to fix
it in himself.
We are at a point where we don't have a clear understanding that
discrimination is a violation of basic human rights just as sometime
ago we didn't understand that slavery is inconsistent with the
sovereignty of the individual. To say that each individual should fix
it by himself/herself is as ridiculous as saying that each individual
should fix other violations of individual rights (e.g. murder, fraud,
slavery) by himself/herself.
We mustn't establish a free society until we have abolished the
lack of freedom? How's that again?
No, we can't establish a free society until we have abolished and
corrected for the obvious violation of individual rights. To expect
the racist market to become a free market overnight without correcting
for the racism is not to understand what a free market is. Get it,
Keith?
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 14 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 44
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Economics &
Argument Styles &
Bill of Rights &
Talk on Rights &
Libertarianism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:bh01@clutx.BITNET>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 08:45:23 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Reply to Barry S. Fagin
1) I'm Russ N., not Robert H.
2) I think you're right - libertarianism *might* be practical. My
point, which I stated quite badly (if at all), is that
libertarianism will not be adopted as mainstream political thought
for many years. The Quakers took generations to reach a consensus
amongst themselves that slavery was wrong. Similarly, I feel that
a libertarian America is generations away.
3) I'm ripe for a change in the political system in America. The
current Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal views are too
close together to encompass my ideals. So please continue trying to
convince me that libertarianism is good.
4) As an aside, has anyone heard of the "Pournelle axes"? I saw it
mentioned in a book by him (not SF), but I can't locate the book
again. Can anyone give me a reference to it? The axes (the word
LOOKS mis-spelled) were, as I recall, "Government has the best
interests of its citizens at heart", and "Big government is better".
Rather than the losing left/right scale that many people use now, you
have many more degrees of freedom to describe your political position.
Quite useful.
-russ
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 11:34:14 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: The two styles of argument on polisci
There seem to be two different styles of argument prevalent among
polisci readers; the one used by "philosophers", and the one used by
"pragmatists". I think an unawareness of these differing viewpoints
hinders communication, so I thought I'd try to sort things out.
The "philosophical" view (typified by Keith Lynch and myself) involves
constantly asking whether something is *right* or *wrong*. We state
some principles as fundamental, argue why they are fundamental, and
then show what follows as a consequence of these principles. The fact
that present day American society is a long way from our vision of
justice, or that the principles it is actually based on are
contradictory, is strictly secondary. We first want to know what is
right, and then we can discuss what relevance our conclusion may have
to American society.
The second view is much more concrete and pragmatic. It doubts
whether fundamental principles exist, and even if they do they seem to
be of little relevance. Situations are examined on a case by case
basis, and if the results seem contradictory that's just the way life
is. Furthermore, it is concerned with immediate practicality; if
conclusions are obtained which are drastically different from the
present state of affairs, then they're dispensed with as being "purely
theoretical concepts" (witness Robert H.'s reply to my comments about
the injustice of mandating equal value housing on a block).
Arguing philosophically to pragmatists does not appear to be
productive; pragmatists don't bother to refute philosophical arguments
not because they're incapable of it, but because they simply just
don't care. Similarly, pragmatists have a hard time communicating
with philosophers, because philosophers tend to keep shifting the
subject to a more abstract plane, ignoring the practical issues the
pragmatists want to discuss.
These two viewpoints are worlds apart; their exponents are after very
different things. Debates between the two degenerate rapidly. For
example, Keith Lynch and Willie Lim have been arguing vehemently for
the past few months. Clearly Keith is interested in pointing on what
is just and unjust, while Willie is constantly replying that such
conclusions are of little or no relevance without more pragmatic
concerns. Keith seems to believe in pure reason first, then applying
it to the real world, while Willie seems to think the opposite.
When we argue, I think it would help to make clear whether you are
arguing intellectually (e.g. trying to show that such-and-such is
unjust) or pragmatically (e.g. such-and-such is not feasible). These
two are entirely different things.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: void where prohibited by law
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 23:34:50 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > Hey fellow Americans, according to this fellow, we are living with
> > suppression here. Is there any country in this world that is free,
> > John? Is our adoption of the Bill of Rights a fraud too? Is our
> > constitution just for show? What would suggest we have in place of
> > them?
And he's right. The poster highest on my list of posters to get is one
of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, with the words "void where
prohibited by law" stamped on it in red.
Dig out a copy of the bill of rights; see how many have been violated
by local, state or federal governments. Better yet, I'll list them for
you:
I, II, IV, V and X (in part). Whether VI and VIII have been violated
is a matter of opinion. IX doesn't grant any rights, it merely says
that others than those listed exist. III probably hasn't been
violated. I wouldn't be at all surprised if VII had, but don't know of
any instances.
As for what to replace the Constitution/Bill of Rights with, I'd be
happy with a government that stuck to the originals.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 20:23:02 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: "Individual Rights" - Talk by John Ridpath
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 09:14:23 -0400
From: Mark Reinhold < mbr@THEORY.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Individual Rights:
From Ancient Greece to Ayn Rand
Professor John Ridpath
York University
This lecture will focus on the concept of Man's natural and
inalienable right to life, liberty and property: its meaning,
its importance, its culmination in Thomas Jefferson's
Declaration of Independence, its demise after 1776, and its
rediscovery and full philosophical justification in the work
of Ayn Rand.
Thursday, 16 April at 8:00 p.m.
Harvard University
Harvard Hall 202
Free and Open to the Public
A presentation of the Harvard Objectivist Club,
funded in part by The Ayn Rand Institute
and the Harvard-Radcliffe Undergraduate Council.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 14:44:57 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Forwarded message
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 15:03:19 PST
Subject: Political positions of the 1984 Libertarian Party...
From: "William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Keith,
I love your best of xxx series, thank you for forewarding them to me.
While reading them I have seen (I think) you mention, several times,
that you didn't see any difference between R.Reagan sans drug war and
the Libertarian Party political positions.
There are more differences than there are similarities!!! Reagan
talks "less government" and so do the Libertarians, but that is the
end of the similarities. I have enclosed some of the Libertarian
Party Political Platform, that the 1984 canditates ran on. There is
proably not one plank that R.R. would support, even in lip service,
let alone in actual political action.
I have paraphrased it to keep it short (100+ lines, short?) but I
think I have kept the meaning correct.
Editorial on :-< >
The term Libertarian really is an unbrella term for many different
groups, ploitics, and philosophies. The central theme of these groups
is that individuals matter, freedom is best. Some arrive at this from
a "moral" direction (Objectivists), others from a "greatest good"
point (Classical liberals), and some from a "efficency" direction.
Throughout history there have been many movements that have adopted
the basic tennants, with other/different additions and deletions.
The goal for modern Libertarians is not to fight about who is "really"
for freedom or who's movement is "best" at answering the questions of
critics; A lot of different groups, believe in "more" freedom, and
some believe in a lot more freedom..... What we have to worry about
currently is how do we reverse the statist trends in this country (and
the world? < -- a big argument here... :-). In the American revolution
many different groups supported the revolution in some form, and few
supported it totally. It wouldn't have happened, if the Virginia
farmers (Jefferson) and the New York businessmen (Hamilton) had
pressed their agendas, over the others before or during the revolution
(there was plenty of time after the fighting was done)
Editorial off :-)
I don't have access to net.politics, if you could foreward this to the
net in an approiate place in a conversation, I would be very greatful.
(could you send me the net address of the moderator of
net.politics???)
1) Military Policy: Recognize the need for defense of U.S.
a) Withdrawl of ALL Americal troops from overseeas (e.g. NATO,
Korea...)
b) Drop all interventionist treaties/policies (Monroe Doctrin,
NATO, SETO)
c) International negotiations toward general and complete
disarmament provided all precautions are taken to protect
the lives and rights of the American people.
2) Victimless Crimes: (oxymoron)
Repeal All Laws:
a) that prohibit the production, sale, possession, or use of
drugs, and laws that require prescriptions for vitimans, drugs,
and such.
b) that restrict sale or use of alcohol (e.g. minimum age) and
laws that make bartenders, or hosts responsible for their
guests.
c) that allow stopping of cars for investigation of alcohol/drug
without probable cause.
d) that regarding consensual sexual relations, including
prostitution, solicitation, homosexuallity.
e) that regulating, or prohibiting sale of all sexaully explicit
material, independent of any "socially redeeming value" or
"community standards".
f) that regulate or prohibit gambiling.
g) that interfere with the right to commit suicide.
3) Foreign Aid:
a) Eliminate tax supported military, economic, technical and
scientific aid to foreign governments, or other organizations.
b) Abolish government underwriting of arms sales.
c) Eliminate government agencies that make American taxpayers
guarantors of Export-related loans, such as: Export-import
Bank, Commodity Credit Corporation.
d) Remove U.S. participation in international commodity cartels
(that prop-up prices, and restrict production).
e) Remove all restrictions on INDIVIDUALS and FIRMS from
contributing or selling any goods or services to foreign
countries or organizations.
4) Taxation: oppose
a) recognize the right of any individual to challange the payment
of taxes on moral, religious, leagl or constitutional grounds.
b) oppose all personal and corporate income taxes, including
capital gains.
c) Repeal 16th ammendment (income tax) and oppose any new taxes or
rate increases in current taxes.
d) Support eventual repeal of all taxes.
f) Declaration of ammensisty for all individuals convicted/accused
of tax evasion.
g) as interium measure, all criminal sanctions for tax-evsion
should be dropped.
h) oppose the involuntary servitutde of making employers tax
collectors for fed/state/local government.
5) Women's rights:
a) repeal all sex related laws such as "protective" labor laws or
marriage laws that deny full rights to men and women.
b) oppose all laws that limit free choice/property rights or widen
tyranny through "reverse discrimination".
c) Support womans personal choice vis-a-vie termination of her own
pregnancy.
d) Oppose all laws that seek to limit (c) by REGUIRING "waiting
periods", consent of woman's father/mother or the prospective
father, "counseling" or indoctrination on "medical risks" prior
to the decision.
e) No tax funding of abortions.
f) No state-mandated abortions.
6) Children's rights: Children are people too.
a) Oppose all powers that allow children to be seized and made
wards of the state.
b) Oppose all child labor laws and compulsary education laws that
infringe on their right to work or learn as they choose.
c) Oppose all legally created sanctioned aginst (or in favor of)
children the same as all other artifically created sub-category
of human beings (e.g. no laws that ban adults only
appartments).
d) Removal of all laws that adults wouldn't be subject to, also
(e.g. smoking, drinking, curfew, "stubborn child",
"persons-in-need of supervision").
e) Remove all "children codes", that abridge the due-process
rights of children.
f) Abolish juvinille court system, children should be held fully
responsible for their actions.
g) If parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to care for
their children, they should be allowed to seek out someone that
will care for them. Children have the right to seek out other
guardians that will put a higher value on their lives.
THEREFORE: oppose any law that inhibits these processes (e.g.
banning private adoption services, or laws that force a child
to live with parents they dosen't want to live with).
h) Children should have the right to assert maturity, by assuming
the the administration and protection of their own rights,
ending dependance upon their parents or guardians and assuming
responsibility.
7) The Economy: Government intervention sucks.
a) Drastic reduction of government spending, and taxes.
b) End to deficit budgets.
c) Halt to inflationary monetary policies.
d) End all government interference to free trade.
e) Remove all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits,
production and interest rates.
8) Education:
a) Complete seperation between state and education: government
ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and
colleges should be ended.
b) as in interim measure to encourage the growth of private
schools, support tax credits for tuition and other expenses for
an individual's education and elimination of all taxes on
private profit and non-profit schools.
c) Repeal of all compulsary education laws.
d) until the government school system is elimated, support repeal
of corporal punishiment, and forced bussing. Support immediate
reduction of tax support for public schools, and removal of the
burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the
education of children (i.e. people without children in school).
9) Pollution: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of
individual rights.
a) Support development of an objective legal system defining
property rights to air and water, and modifications to such
tort laws as tresspass, and nuisance to cover air, water,
noise, and radation polloution.
b) Oppose all legsitative proposals to limit strict liability for
persons and corporations that pollute. Responsible managers and
empolyees of companies should be held to strict liability for
pollution damage.
c) Abolition of E.P.A and oppose "Superfund" taxes, that make all
chemical users pay for the abuses of a few (a subsidy of
irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones).
d) oppose all government mandating of smoking/non-smoking in
private businesses.
10) Health care: Who's life is it, anyway?
a) Eliminate all laws restricting the right of a person from
seeking alternative forms of health care.
b) Eliminate: state "liscence" laws, Medicare, any state mandated
health insurance system, subsidy of malpractice insurance with
public money.
c) deregulate the health insurance industry, scientific research.
d) As in interim measure, tax credits for any group providing
medical care to the poor, and private medical research grants.
(bill)
lcc.bill@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 17 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 45
Today's Topics:
Richest countries in the year 2006]
Liberty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 7 Apr 87 12:13:14-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Richest countries in the year 2006]
I read the following predictions in the Economist (3/28/87, page 74).
By the year 2006, Japan is predicted to be the richest country,
followed by West Germany and then Singapore and then the US (the US
and Singapore more or less tie for 3rd place). After the US are:
France > Italy > Canada > Taiwan > Britain > South Korea (where >
means richer than).
In 1966, South Korea's per capita GDP was 28% that of Portugal and 41%
that of Turkey. In 1986, South Korea ($2K) became richer than Turkey
($1K) and was gaining on Portugal ($2.5K). In 1986, the approx. per
capita GDP for some of the other countries were: US ($17K), Japan
($16K), W. Germany ($15K), Britain ($10K), Singapore ($6K), Taiwan
($3.4K).
Singapore (as statist as it is now) is predicted to overtake Britain
in about 10 years and the US around 2005. Japan will overtake the US
in 2 years (if that has not already happened) and W. Germany will
overtake the US in about 10 years. Italy will overtake Britain in
about 5 years (some people think that this has already happened) and
Canada by the year 2000.
Most of these figures are obtained from reading the chart which is a
plot of per capita GDP in $ (log scale) versus time (linear scale).
Hence they are estimates.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 23:21:42 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!clutx.bitnet!bh01
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 09:31:52 EST
From: Russell Nelson < bh01%CLUTX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
The stuff in quotes is from an editorial in the LA Times last
January by Robert Gillette, which I quoted to Poli-Sci:
"The Red Army crushed both Germany and Japan [in World War
II], only to have the United States drop its atomic bombs on an
already-defeated Japan."
"For Soviet fourth-graders, World War II began not in September,
1939, when Germany (and its then-ally, the Soviet Union) attacked
Poland, but in June, 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Do you consider this accurate? Remember that this is not some
isolated anti-American hate book, but the official,
government-produced history text used in all elementary schools in the
Soviet Union.
> The atomic bombing [of Japan] was a crime of the
> capitalists of the U.S.A. against humanity, which the people of
> the world will never forget.'"
More properly, we dropped the bomb to frighten the soviets.
More properly, we dropped the bomb to force the Japanese into
unconditional surrender. I don't wish to debate whether this was a
correct decision. The main point, in context, was that the Soviets
paint a picture of a supine Japan (due to Soviet military might) which
was barbarically bombed by a US which had not contributed to the war
effort against Japan otherwise. I doubt that the Americans (or the
Japanese!) at Guadlcanal, the Phillipines, Okinawa, or Guam would
agree.
Need I remind you of our very own president's remarks about the
"Evil Empire"? And haven't we indeed oppressed the people in
Central America all throughout this century, and even as I write
this? Any why were we in Vietnam, anyway? There was certainly no
economic reason for it. And don't forget Ronnie's off-the-cuff
remarks about having just pressed the button that will annhilate
the Soviet Union?
I haven't forgotten any of this. Have you read "Harvest of Shame?"
It describes Lenin's forced collectivization of Soviet farms, and
makes it quite clear that it was undertaken not for the sake of
Communist ideology, but to deliberately starve to death those most
likely to oppose Red rule in the former Russian empire, namely
land-owning farmers. He succeeded--several millions of people died in
areas where the local Party officials were getting fat.
I don't want to sound like a Soviet apologist.
You do.
Some of the things
that they have done to their own people are beyond apology, but we
mustn't revile the Soviet Union for pointing out our flaws. Even
as they exaggerate our flaws, we exaggerate theirs.
It is not an exaggeration, but plain fact, that the Soviet government
has murdered between 10 and 30 million of its own citizens in the last
69 years in order to stay in power. I should hope we agree that such
behavior is "beyond apology." We continue to try as war criminals
people who carried out such acts in Nazi Germany. And before you bring
it up--yes, I know about the campaigns which were carried out against
the American Native population in the nineteenth century. I can also
go to the library and read about it without having to justify why to
an officer of the CIA.
I find criticism of the United States by a government such as the
Soviet oneto be equivalent to Charles Manson telling me I shouldn't
spank my son because violence doesn't do any good. Even if he's
correct, he has forfeited his right to say so.
-Steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 14:40:41 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Liberty
To: lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
> From: "William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
> I love your best of xxx series, thank you for forewarding them to
me.
You're welcome. Would you like me to forward my best of 1986?
Who or what is "liberty" that you CCd your message to?
> While reading them I have seen (I think) you mention, several
> times, that you didn't see any difference between R.Reagan sans
> drug war and the Libertarian Party political positions.
Perhaps a slight exaggeration on my part.
Mainly, I want to know what the purpose of the Libertarian party is.
Do they expect to get many votes? My impression is that there is a
conflict between the purists, who want to maintain a consistent moral
stand, and the compromisers, who want to moderate that stand to
attract more votes. And that as a result of this conflict, they
currently have neither a consistent moral position or a "moderate"
enough position that they will get enough votes to accomplish much of
anything.
From my perspective, there is no point in being "moderate". What use
is winning an office if you aren't going to do anything with it? Nor
is there any use in being "extreme" if it means you aren't going to
win office. The conclusion is that it is too early for a political
party devoted to liberty, and will remain too early until a much
larger proportion of the population becomes pro-liberty.
There are several marks against the Libertarian party:
1) As with any third party, the general perception that it has no
chance becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why throw away your
vote on someone who certainly won't win? Actually, since the
Democrats and Republicans track the mainstream by absorbing the
platforms of all sufficiently popular third parties, this is
fallacious. Your vote won't count in this election, but will count
double or triple in the next. But on the other hand, if there is
one really bad candidate, it is certainly best for his opponents to
concentrate their votes on one opponent rather than risk the bad
candidate being elected with a non-majority vote. 1860 is the
classic example (I guess you can tell I'm a Southerner).
2) There is a perception that Libertarians are on the lunatic fringe.
(We Objectivist are helping to make them look more moderate :-).)
There is a perception that they will ruin the country. This is
ironic considering it is actually the Democrats and Republicans
who are wrecking the place, what with increasing taxation,
government spending, and federal debt. The Republicans aren't
conservatives at all. They are slow liberals. And liberals are
just slow socialists.
3) There is the perception that Libertarians are cruel and heartless
because they oppose social security and welfare. This is a very
curious blind spot in the general public, that they consider it
noble to give away other people's wealth. Ayn Rand has analyzed
this "Robin Hood" syndrome, though I think her name for it does
a disservice to Robin Hood, who was really more of a tax dissenter
than a socialist, e.g. the inequalities he rectified were due to
taxation of the poor, not to differing productivity. In Britain
at the time, like in Britain and the US today, government "social
spending" went mostly UP the economic ladder, not down.
> There are more differences than there are similarities!!! Reagan
> talks "less government" and so do the Libertarians, but that is the
> end of the similarities.
He talks a good line. Or did, before the war on drugs and the recent
scandals. But government spending, including social spending, has
gone way up during his administration, as it has gone up during all
recent administrations, of either party. But you already know all
this.
> I have enclosed some of the Libertarian Party
> Political Platform, that the 1984 canditates ran on.
Thanks. Why is there nothing about social security and welfare? What
about gun control?
> The term Libertarian really is an unbrella term for many different
> groups, ploitics, and philosophies. The central theme of these
> groups is that individuals matter, freedom is best. Some arrive at
> this from a "moral" direction (Objectivists), ...
Most Objectivists reject the label "libertarian". I myself don't
mind, mostly because I identified myself as a libertarian until a few
months ago.
> What we have to worry about
> currently is how do we reverse the statist trends in this country...
Agreed. I don't see how even non-Libertarians can disagree with this.
Anyone who advocates even higher taxes today should have his head
examined.
> I don't have access to net.politics, if you could foreward this to
> the net in an approiate place in a conversation, I would be very
> greatful.
Will do.
> (could you send me the net address of the moderator of
> net.politics???)
On the ARPA side it is called Poli-Sci, and can be addressed as
Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU. It is moderated by Charles McGrew. Send to
Poli-Sci-Request@RED.RUTES.EDU to be added to the list. I am not sure
how it maps into net.politics or into net.politics.theory.
The list has problems. For the past few months, it has usually run up
to three months behind. Currently it is coming out less than once a
week, and is about two months behind. Since the end of January I have
only sent two or three messages to the list.
> c) International negotiations toward general and complete
> disarmament provided all precautions are taken to protect
> the lives and rights of the American people.
Nuclear disarmament or total disarmament? In either case, how do we
verify compliance?
> 2) Victimless Crimes: (oxymoron)
> Repeal All Laws:
Agreed.
What about drunk driving?
> e) Remove all restrictions on INDIVIDUALS and FIRMS from
> contributing or selling any goods or services to foreign
> countries or organizations.
Does this include Iran and the Soviet Union? What about during
wartime? What about sensitive technologies? What about nuclear
weapons?
> a) recognize the right of any individual to challange the
> payment of taxes on moral, religious, leagl or constitutional
> grounds.
Agreed. But who is to judge the validity of these grounds? What if
the non-taxpayer refuses to give any grounds?
> 5) Women's rights:
Agreed. I was surprised to see the feminists come out AGAINST women's
rights by supporting Whitehead in the recent "Baby M" case. What's
equally surprising is that they think they are SUPPORTING women's
rights by taking the that stand.
> c) Support womans personal choice vis-a-vie termination of her
> own pregnancy.
I know that not all libertarians feel this way. Are you familiar with
"Libertarians for life"?
> a) Oppose all powers that allow children to be seized and
> made wards of the state.
What if they are being severely abused by their parents?
> d) Removal of all laws that adults wouldn't be subject to,
> also (e.g. smoking, drinking, curfew, "stubborn child",
> "persons-in-need of supervision").
I have a problem with this. Small children are not fully rational
beings. Unlike L. Neil Smith, I do not think it is reasonable for six
year olds to carry loaded revolvers. I don't think that a young child
is usually able to make a rational choce regarding the use of cocaine,
heroin, etc. Do you really think it is ok for drug pushers to peddle
their wares at elementary schools?
As long as parents are required to support their children, children
should be required to obey their parents. Or do you think that
parents should not be required to support their children?
> f) Abolish juvinille court system, children should be held fully
> responsible for their actions.
This may make sense for teenagers, but what about the four year old
who gets ahold of daddy's revolver and kills daddy, not realizing that
death is real and permanent? Should he be sentenced to life in
prison?
> g) If parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to care for
> their children, they should be allowed to seek out someone
> that will care for them.
What if they can't find anyone? Who is going to adopt an unruly,
retarded, deformed, black male 15 year old, for instance?
> inhibits these processes (e.g. banning private adoption
> services, or laws that force a child to live with parents
> they dosen't want to live with).
What if a seven year old wants to run away from home? The parents
can't legally stop her?
> h) Children should have the right to assert maturity, by
> assuming the the administration and protection of their own
> rights, ending dependance upon their parents or guardians
> and assuming responsibility.
Agreed, for teenagers at least. But this opens a whole can of worms.
If a child has no job, can he assert that he is independant? If not,
what if his parents simply won't LET him get a job?
> a) Drastic reduction of government spending, and taxes.
Reduction of taxes? I thought they were to be abolished. Making tax
evasion no longer a crime is the same as abolishing taxes.
> c) Halt to inflationary monetary policies.
Gold standard?
How about NO monetary policy - i.e. government no longer mints any
currency (except perhaps for collectors, to raise revenues), but
allows private moneys to circulate.
> d) oppose all government mandating of smoking/non-smoking in
> private businesses.
Why? While smoking is, and should remain, a protected activity among
consenting adults (even though it causes untold disease and suffering
and more deaths of Americans each two months than AIDS, the Vietnam
war, the Korean war, and airplane crashes have in all of history),
since it is known to harm and kill nonsmokers (what the tobacco lobby
calls "passive smoking" - would they call murder/rape "passive sex"?)
I think that smoking in public and around children should be just as
illegal as should mass murder in a place of business whose manager
happened not to have passed a work rule against murdering one's
coworkers.
It amazes me that so many NON-libertarians and NON-objectivists
support even private smoking, seeing as how it is orders of magnitudes
more deadly than cocaine, more addictive that heroin, destroys more
lives than all other drugs, including alcohol, put together, and kills
more non-smokers every year than drunk drivers and gun owners kill
non-drunk drivers and non-gun owners every year. (It should be very
clear that the reason why the Democrats are pushing gun control so
heavily has nothing to do with public safety).
Don't forget that Democrats and Republicans are having non-smokers
heavily subsidize smoker's vile habit, via taxpayer subsidies for
medical care, rules about employer provided health insurance that
forbids different rates for non-smokers, rules about upholstery that
make chairs and sofas more expensive, more uncomfortable, and
carcinogenic, simply to keep careless smokers from setting fire to
themselves, and direct taxpayer subsidies to tobacco farmers. Not to
mention talk about employer "discrimination" against smokers - strange
how they never think to ask whether this means an employer has no
business asking an employee not to snort cocaine in front of his
coworkers.
Thanks for your thghfutl message. Please feel fre to forward this and
any other mail from me anywhere. I am CCing this message to Poli-Sci.
Have you read "Libertarianism: a Perversion of Liberty" by Peter
Schwartz? Do you know if any Libertarian has written a rebuttal?
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 17 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 46
Today's Topics:
Junkyards &
Facility in English &
Racism (3 msgs) &
Drug Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, 8 April 1987 09:08:13 AST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: junkyards
Please don't call Pittsburgh a junkyard. It wasn't voted American's
Most Livable City by accident.
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Saturday, 11 April 1987 12:43:19 AST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Facility in English
The ability to speak, read, and write English is very important for
success in school. I know this from personal experience. Students
with low TOEFL (Test Of English as a Foreign Language) scores do
poorly in school. It doesn't matter how bright you are if you can't
communicate. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to weight English
proficiency more heavily than anything else.
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: wlim@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Racism
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 02:11:41 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Lack of racism is the absence of judging the behavior of an
> individual by his/her color rather than by his/her actions i.e. to
> not to ber acist is not to attribute differences in behavior of
> any individual solely to his/her color.
With which I couldn't agree more. However, you also say:
> No, I would say (just as Joe said earlier) that it would be racist if
> one were to attribute poor academic performance solely to race rather
> than to income level.
Which I don't agree with. If you're talking about individuals, and
everything but race is known to be equal, then what else can the
difference be attributed to. If you're talking about racial averages,
then the second doesn't follow from the first. The first is the act
of an individual in judging another individual, and either happens or
doesn't. The second is a belief held by an individual, which is
either true or false, and that truth can be tested.
> 1) Blacks families have the same economic distribution as white
> families, or
> 2) I had said that blacks on the average did worse in school for
> genetic reasons.
>
> As Joe said before, to say that blacks did worse in school simply
> because they are blacks and ignore the effects of income distribution
> is wrong. That is mentioning 1) would be very important as that is
> the cause of the problem. By not mentioning it, one couldn't tell if
> you mean that whites under similar conditions would do better.
You've just claimed that the cause of the disparity in academic
performance between blacks & whites is due to differences in income.
Those differences exist, and they do cause differences in academic
performance. Do you have proof that, with the same environment, blacks
and whites (as a group) have the same average academic performance?
No, correct that - do you have proof that, given the same financial
situation, that blacks and whites (as a group) have the same average
academic performance? After all, the second is what you claimed.
Since you also say:
> Depends on what you mean by average. If by average you mean taking
> into account background factors, like whether a black do worse than a
> white of identical background (say, from a family of 5 generations of
> college graduates), then I say we don't have the data.
I tend to doubt that you have such proof.
In which case, it may be true that blacks and whites (as a group) have
different average academic performances even if everything else is
made equal. Since there are certain abilities that almost certainly
have differ depending on race, I find it slightly ludicrous to pick on
a beleive in this specific one and label it racist.
On the other hand, it's equally ludicrous to judge individuals based
on any racial average, no matter how valid and poor that average is.
Individuals are almost never average.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 12 Apr 87 02:36:07-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
If you're talking about individuals, and everything but race is
known to be equal, then what else can the difference be attributed
to.
One needs to prove that the premise is true first before the
conclusion can be made.
The first is the act of an individual in judging another
individual, and either happens or doesn't. The second is a belief
held by an individual, which is either true or false, and that
truth can be tested.
Ah, but acts are influenced by beliefs. You don't need all the
individuals to act on their racist beliefs to get a racist market.
All it needs is just enough individuals acting on their racist
beliefs. It is even worse when individuals become selective in their
beliefs and don't bother to test their validity.
Here is a real life case (see one of the March 1987 issues of the
Economist). Singapore (approx. 70% of its population is of Chinese
origin, 10% Indian origin and 20% Malay origin) does not have Malay
fighter pilots. Why? It is believed by the Singaporean military
brass that Malay fighter pilots would have divided loyalty especially
when it comes to fighting a war against neighboring Malaysia (55%
Malay) and Indonesia (overwhelmingly Malay). Of course the official
reason does not use race but religion. It so happens over 90% of all
persons of Malay origin in that region are Muslims and very few
non-Malays are Muslims. Such a belief of divided loyalty being a
problem with Muslims/Malays is racist. (The belief that certain
groups have divided loyalty is also held by some people in the US.)
Hence a Malay who has the potential of becoming Singapore's most loyal
and highly competent fighter pilot is never given a chance to prove
himself/herself. If you have complete information in the market, that
individual who happens to be a Malay would have become a fighter pilot
replacing some other not so competent pilot of whatever race. The
problem can become worse over time in that that racist belief can
become replaced by another more racist belief e.g. that members of a
certain race or religion or ethnic group just don't make good fighter
pilots (or
coaches/managers/quarterbacks/mayors/professors/writers/etc).
... do you have proof that, given the same financial situation,
that blacks and whites (as a group) have the same average academic
performance?
If by academic performance you also include drop-out rates, there was
a study reported in the press sometime last year. I think the study
was done in Chicago.
> Depends on what you mean by average. If by average you mean
> taking into account background factors, like whether a black
> do worse than a white of identical background (say, from a
> family of 5 generations of college graduates), then I say we
> don't have the data.
I tend to doubt that you have such proof.
Please read the last 8 words of the last sentence you quoted
carefully.
In which case, it may be true that blacks and whites (as a group)
have different average academic performances even if everything
else is made equal.
Proof please. Note that you said "if everything else is made equal",
so you'll have to prove that that is true first.
Since there are certain abilities that almost certainly have
differ depending on race, I find it slightly ludicrous to pick on
a beleive in this specific one and label it racist.
Prove one. Would you label as racist the belief that members of a
certain race or religion or ethnic group tend to have divided loyalty
(i.e. they don't have the ability to be totally loyal to their
country)? By your reasoning you would say that a race X is
academically superior if their children (from ordinary non-wealthy
families) can be taught to read at the age of 4. Or race X performs
academically than race Y if it has a higher percentage of high school
graduates over the age of 25. Right? (Read the P.S. of this
message.)
There have been a number of reports relating income to academic
performance. The recent government report comparing the Japanese
school system with our system noted that children of well-to-do
Japanese families have a better chance of going to college (i.e. doing
well in their compulsory college entrance exams). It is also known at
MIT that most of its students have parents who are professional e.g.
doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. In a student newspaper, the
director of admissions for MIT while pointing out the relationship
between academic performance and income (and refering to a study)
said:
"Among black college bound seniors, median SAT totals are 131
points higher for students whose parents earned at least $50,000
versus students from families earning between $18,000 and $23,999.
Unfortunately, over 70 percent of black students come from
families with incomes below $23,999, compared to only 30 percent
of white students."
Willie
(-: A watch with windows and a mouse and color graphics would be even
better. :-)
P.S.
(1) There was an NBC news report a few nights ago about an old school
teacher in a not too well funded one-room school in Pauley Island (off
the coast of a South-Eastern state of the US). They showed 5 year
olds reading and noted that those kids have been reading for a year.
The teacher and students were all black.
(2) In an article in the Boston Globe ("Study: Media in Boston
reinforce racism by news coverage decisions" by Ross Gelbspan; sorry I
forgot the exact date, perhaps Jan 87), it was reported that in the
city Boston there is a higher percentage of black high school
graduates over the age of 25 than white graduates. The data was not
further broken down into ethnic groups.
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
> > > Depends on what you mean by average. If by average you mean
> > > taking into account background factors, like whether a black
> > > do worse than a white of identical background (say, from a
> > > family of 5 generations of college graduates), then I say we
> > > don't have the data
> > I tend to doubt that you have such proof.
> > Please read the last 8 words of the last sentence you quoted
> > carefully.
Uh, I read those last 8 words as saying that you do _not_ have proof
that race is not correlated with academic performance. I'm going to
operate on the assumption that no such proof exists. I don't know that
anyone has proven the falsity of that statement, either. As a
practical matter, I don't care; racial averages don't affect my
dealings with individuals, and I deal with individuals, not races.
> > In which case, it may be true that blacks and whites (as a
> > group) have different average academic performances even if
> > everything else is made equal.
> > Proof please.
You dropped the context, which repeated the assumption that there was
no proof that race is not correlated with academic performance. If you
put that back in, and reword the statment in terms of that assumption,
then the statement reads:
"If there is no proof that race is not correlated with
academic performance, then it may be true that race is
correlated with academic performance."
Key words: "it may be true that." Assuming that it is true is falling
into the fallacy that absence of proof constitutes proof of absence.
Which reminds me, you seem to do that, going from "there is no proof
that race is correlated with academic performance" to "race is not
correlated with academic performance."
> > Since there are certain abilities that almost certainly have
> > differ depending on race, I find it slightly ludicrous to pick
> > on a beleive in this specific one and label it racist.
> > Prove one.
Only if you're willing to fund the research. I'd start by looking at
the ability to avoid sickle-cell anemia. There are others, but that
one should be enough.
> > Would you label as racist the belief that members of a
> > certain race or religion or ethnic group tend to have divided
> > loyalty
Generally, no. If, on the other hand, you assumed that members of a
race HAD divided loyalty, then I would label that racist. The first is
a statement of fact, which can be shown to be true or false. The
latter is a case of prejudging individuals of a group - an act.
< mike
> > (-: A watch with windows and a mouse and color graphics would be
> > even better. :-)
I've got greyscale, not color. No mouse, and I really need one, as I
want to rearrange the windows :-).
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Thu 9 Apr 87 21:12:36-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: snake oil
I am not sure that in a libertarian society there would be dozens of
'FDA's', at least not dozens which would be indistinguishable to
doctors or insurance companies. People in most professions do not
have to worry about dozens of professional associations or dozens of
top quality professional magazines. They have no trouble remembering
which publications are most prestigious for their purposes. One could
also be semi-libertarian by keeping one FDA and supporting it with
user's fees. (Actually, I have no objection to keeping the FDA. I
might fiddle with regulations to make it slightly easier for a drug
like AZT to get approved, but I'm not unhappy with it in general and,
not being libertarian, have no reason to support abolishing it in
principle. But I am not convinced that moving in a libertarian
direction is as impractical as Charles makes it out to be, so I am
arguing the other side.)
As for the possible heirs, is it callous to allow someone to take a
long shot at saving his or her life rather than insisting that he or
she save his or her money for another worthy recipient? Unless that
person is a spouse or minor child who needs the money to survive, I
can't see where their rights should take precedence. I would expect
that in most cases the spouse would be involved in the decision (does
anyone know what legal rights spouses have if one wants to pay a large
amount of money from community property for medical treatment the
other thinks is useless?), and that most terminally ill patients
wouldn't have minor children. The question is whether the protection
to those people outweighs the cost of possibly keeping useful
medicines from terminally ill people. If a drug has some chance of
saving a man, but hasn't yet been tested enough for safety and
effectiveness, his wife and children might well consider the money
worthwhile, and not complain about the callous neglect of their
economic welfare.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
[ I don't insist that anyone save their money, for instance if this
hypothetical person wanted to go to Atlantic City and gamble his/her
money away, I don't find anything wrong with that. It seems
a bit strange to differentiate between terminally ill folks with
minor children or not. Fraud is fraud. I'd prefer to be able to
have 'cures' tested, to try stop the fraud from occuring. Aren't we
really arguing over truth in advertising here? - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 21 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 47
Today's Topics:
The Constitution (3 msgs) &
Drug Tests &
Racism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 14 Apr 87 12:49:08-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Our constitution is a fraud????
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > Hey fellow Americans, according to this fellow, we are living
> > with suppression here. Is there any country in this world
> > that is free, John? Is our adoption of the Bill of Rights a
> > fraud too? Is our constitution just for show? What would
> > suggest we have in place of them?
And he's right.
(-: Do know you of any freer country, Mike? By the way are you a
pragmatist or a philosopher? :-)
Willie
(-: Does your watch have Emacs and Common Lisp too? If so, one can
hack and keep track of the productivity at the same time. :-)
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 08:59:09 PDT
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
To: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: poli-sci%oscar@Sun.COM
Subject: Meese (plural of mouse?)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 09:38:49 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The political spectrum
(Someone
pointed out recently that the same people in the Reagan
Administration who are strict constructionists on the
Constitution, such as Ed Meese, suddenly become willing to
play fast and loose with legal interpretations when handed the
1972 ABM treaty.)
Steve Walton
Since when is Ed Meese a strict constructionist?
Will Doherty
UUCP: ...sun!oscar!wild
ARPA: "oscar!wild"@sun.com
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 11:15:45 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!seismo!sun!oscar!wild
Subject: Meese (plural of mouse?)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 08:59:09 PDT
From: seismo!sun!oscar!wild (Will Doherty)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 09:38:49 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
... the same people in the Reagan Administration
who are strict constructionists on the Constitution, such
as Ed Meese, suddenly become willing to play fast and loose
with legal interpretations when handed the 1972 ABM treaty.)
Steve Walton
Since when is Ed Meese a strict constructionist?
Will Doherty
Perhaps I should have said, "self-styled strict constructionist" or
"disciple of original intent;" in other words, he twists the ABM
treaty in the same kind of way he accuses liberal judges of twisting
the Constitution, to mean something which on its face it doesn't say
and which the persons who wrote the document did not intend. At least
the Wall Street Journal is consistent--they advocate abrogation of the
ABM Treaty.
Steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Thu 9 Apr 87 21:26:18-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: drug tests catching only addicts
Ever hear of people being laid off on short notice? If I smoke pot
twice a month, and I get two weeks notice the day after I smoked
some pot, then I will test dirty through six months of unemployment
even if I quit right away.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 12 Apr 87 14:39:02-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
I'd start by looking at the ability to avoid sickle-cell anemia.
There are others, but that one should be enough.
I knew you were going to say that. You could also mention
susceptibility to skin cancer or that blacks have dark skin. I was
referring to abilities that affect their rationality as economic
agents in the free market.
I'm going to operate on the assumption that no such proof exists.
I don't know that anyone has proven the falsity of that statement,
either. As a practical matter, I don't care; racial averages
don't affect my dealings with individuals, and I deal with
individuals, not races.
It would be hard to prove the truth or falsity of the correlation
between race and academic performance in the US given that everything
else but race have to be held constant (and equal). But in treating
people as individuals rather than as members of certain race, I would
argue that you have already made the assumption that there is no
correlation between race and academic performance. (See the last two
paragraphs of this message.)
"If there is no proof that race is not correlated with
academic performance, then it may be true that race is
correlated with academic performance."
Key words: "it may be true that." Assuming that it is true is
falling into the fallacy that absence of proof constitutes proof
of absence.
Again, my point is that in treating people as individuals you have
already made such an assumption and have deemed such a proof as
irrelevant (hence its truth or falsity is irrelevant).
Generally, no. If, on the other hand, you assumed that members of
a race HAD divided loyalty, then I would label that racist. The
first is a statement of fact, which can be shown to be true or
false. The latter is a case of prejudging individuals of a group -
an act.
No, an assumption can be held in proving something by contradiction.
That is one can assume that something is true and later show that it
is false. Hence holding an assumption does not necessarily mean
belief in that assumption. However beliefs tend to affect economic
actions. In a world of complete information, beliefs tend to be true
and hence actions tend not be based on race but rather on more
rational economic considerations. To say that a racist act i.e.
holding a racist belief, is ok is to say that the free market is
racist. The free market is not racist.
You can't treat a person as an individual and not make the assumption
that his/her academic performance is uncorrelated with race. If you
do, then it implies that there exists a certain race (or religious or
ethnic group) X that is better in academic performance. Which means
that members of X are better at learning, thinking, and problem
solving. Since these are very fundamental characteristics of an
individual, then that assumption implies that members of X are better
as individuals than members of the other races. Which means that
members of Y (not equal to X) can never become better individuals
simply because they are not members of X. (One can be pedantic about
all this and start asking for proofs for each step in the chain of
implications.)
An interesting experiment to perform is to see if the skin color of
blacks and whites can be reversed through environmental conditions
over a long period of time, like tens of thousands of years. If so
then one wonders what race has got to do with being an individual.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
> > I knew you were going to say that. You could also mention
> > susceptibility to skin cancer or that blacks have dark skin. I was
> > referring to abilities that affect their rationality as economic
> > agents in the free market.
But I never mentioned the market (free or otherwise). In any case, I
can repeat one of my earlier questions: If you can accept that there
_are_ genetic differences between races, and that belief in some of
them is not racism, why is belief in certain others racism?
> > You can't treat a person as an individual and not make the
> > assumption that his/her academic performance is uncorrelated with
> > race. If you do, then it implies that there exists a certain race
> > (or religious or ethnic group) X that is better in academic
> > performance. Which means that members of X are better at learning,
> > thinking, and problem solving. Since these are very fundamental
> > characteristics of an individual, then that assumption implies
> > that members of X are better as individuals than members of the
> > other races. Which means that members of Y (not equal to X) can
> > never become better individuals simply because they are not
> > members of X.
This is gibberish, from top to bottom. All because you started from a
false premise.
> > (One can be pedantic about all this and start asking for proofs for
> > each step in the chain of implications.)
Nope, I'm not going to be pedantic. I'm going to disprove most of the
steps in the chain.
> > If you [assume that race is correlated with academic performance],
> > then it implies that there exists a certain race (or religious or
> > ethnic group) X that is better in academic performance.
You forgot an _important_ point: that there are _lots_ of other
factors involved in this. If the correlation is perfect, then in all
cases, if all other factors are equal, then members of race X will do
better than members of race Y [I'm not going to be explicit about it,
but race could be religion or ethnic group. Read it in if you wish.]
In a real case, the correlation will not be perfect, so what you get
is a probability that the individual of race X will do better than an
individual of race Y if all other things are equal. Given zero
information about the two individuals, plus the knowledge that race X
does better on the average than race Y, then you would expect the
individual of race X to do better than the individual of race Y. An
experiment checking this would show greater than 50% of members of
race X doing better than their opposite number. If there were no
correlation, then an experiment would show almost (not perfectly - but
with statistically expected deviations) exactly 50% of the members of
race X doing better than members of race Y.
> > Which means that members of X are better at learning, thinking, and
> > problem solving.
Once again, you need to distinguish that we're talking about averages
and statistical behavior. Any given member of X may or may not be
better at < fill in the blank> than any given member of Y. Given a
correlation, you expect a member of X to be better than a member of Y.
But you won't _know_ that this member of X is better than that member
of Y until you check.
> > Since these are very fundamental characteristics of an individual,
> > then that assumption implies that members of X are better as
> > individuals than members of the other races.
No, it means that the average member of X are better than the average
member of Y, _not_ that the members of X are all better than the
members of Y.
> > Which means that members of Y (not equal to X) can never become
> > better individuals simply because they are not members of X.
Even if you assume that all members of X are better than all members
of Y, then it doesn't follow that no member of Y can improve. It does
imply that no member of Y can become better than any member of X, but
this isn't the same thing.
Of course, you also made the assumption that "poorer academic
performance" means "worse at learning, thinking and problem solving,"
and that this means "worse as an individual." I'm not willing to
accept either of these, either.
> > You can't treat a person as an individual and not make the
> > assumption that his/her academic performance is uncorrelated
> > with race.
False, because a correlation of race to academic performance is a
statistical statement about the races in question. It doesn't say
anything about how any individual member of the race will perform.
Besides which, people don't seem to have any problem holding
contradictory beliefs, so even if your logic was impeccable, I _could_
do what you say I can't.
> > An interesting experiment to perform is to see if the skin color of
> > blacks and whites can be reversed through environmental conditions
> > over a long period of time, like tens of thousands of years.
No, it wouldn't be interresting. That some blacks are capable of
passing for whites should indicate the result of the experiment. This
is only to be expected, as skin color is genetically transmitted, and
dog breeders have been breeding dogs to modify genetically transmitted
characteristics for millenia.
Of course, you can select for _any_ thing you want, and increase or
decrease it if it's something that's genetically transmitted, or
affected by something genetically transmitted. Physical
characteristics are easy. As far as I know, nobody knows if mental
characteristics qualify (but dogs are bred for intelligence, so...)
It should also be obvious that any such experiment on people is
inhuman.
> > If so then one wonders what race has got to do with being an
> > individual.
Nothing, of course. That's the point. That's also why it's not racist
to believe that "On the average, a member of race X can A better than
a member of race Y" (or "A is correlated with race"), but it is racist
to believe that "Every member of race X can A better than any member
of race Y." The first is a statistical statement about the race, and
gives you information about large groups of people. The latter is an
act of prejudging every member of some race.
< mike
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 21 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 48
Today's Topics:
Abstract Reasoning &
Money, money, money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 14 Apr 87 12:39:35-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Selective abstract reasoning
To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Barry, most of your message was good except for a few points.
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Clearly Keith is interested in pointing on what is just and
unjust,...
"Philosophers" have no monopoly of what is just and unjust i.e. by
their simply asserting that something is just does not necessarily
mean that that something is just. They may have abstracted away
things that would have weakened their arguments. It is also easy for
"philosophers" to change an assumption or scoot to a higher plane of
abstraction i.e. abstract away even more things. (-: It seems very
difficult to pin them down. :-)
while Willie is constantly replying that such conclusions are of
little or no relevance without more pragmatic concerns.
For such conclusions to be believable they have to be shown to be
achievable (at least in the abstract). E.g. to say that the
government screws *everything* (an abstraction) up while there exist
things (-: hence "everything" is not everything no more :-) that the
government doesn't screw up is stretching it. The situation is
different when you say that individuals have inalienable rights
(abstraction) and as such the state (abstraction) cannot do anything
(abstraction) even if those things (abstraction) improve the
well-being (abstraction) of the individual. I would say that in a
democracy (an abstraction) individuals, being rational beings (another
abstraction), would let their government (yet another abstraction) do
these (abstract) beneficial things. Is that a pragmatic argument?
Moreover if you have said that if we modify the rules of democracy
(sounds more concrete now) such that the people cannot vote for their
government to do blah-blah-blah, then I would have less problem
believing you (though I may still question your model of democracy.)
Keith seems to believe in pure reason first, then applying it to
the real world, while Willie seems to think the opposite.
I would replace "pure reason" with "reasoning in the abstract". I
don't think the opposite, but rather I question the (abstract)
assumptions used in the (abstract) "reasoning." With the "right"
assumptions you can assert anything. (-: E.g. Assuming that
libertarians are gods, then they must be right. But if they are
humans and as humans do err, it is unlikely that libertarianism is
bug-free. :-) Isn't the task of looking for those bugs an exercise in
reasoning?
When we argue, I think it would help to make clear whether you are
arguing intellectually (e.g. trying to show that such-and-such is
unjust) or pragmatically (e.g. such-and-such is not feasible).
I would replace "intellectually" with "philosophically." (-: Who is
or is not a philosopher/pragmatist is an interesting philosophical
question in itself. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 01:24:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Debate
To: rem%imsss@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: lcc.bill@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU,
> No, I don't see that at all. I think we have a semantic problem.
One of us does.
> How would you propose the world run? (Multiple choice: you force-
> run it, somebody else foce-runs it, it just runs on its own with
> no controls on what it does.)
None of the above. I am not an anarchist.
> I tried to identify that last as being yours, but
> now you're arguing about my choice of words "run". Ok, change "run"
> to "function" or "work" or "be-active" or or "control" whatever,
> I don't care.
You are missing the point.
> So if the other people set up a government, and they decide to
> fund their government by taxation, how are you going to stop them?
I wish I knew. But we are arguing about right and wrong, not about
means. First you figure out the desired end, and then figure out what
legitimate means to that end are.
Suppose me and a few friends had a great idea, and we decide to rob
you to get money for our project. How are you going to stop us?
> (Either you try to stop them, in which case you're trying to control
> government yourself,
If you were to stop my gang, would you be trying to control it? I
would say not. You would only be saying YOU choose not to contribute
to our cause. Or at least that you want the CHOICE of whether to
contribute or not, and how much. This does not mean that you are
running my gang, or that you are running the world, or that you are
trying to do either.
> or you don't try to stop them, in which case your
> wish for lack of taxes is rather empty wishing.)
I am not "wishing" at all. I am saying what is right. When enough
people come to agree that it is right, then we can worry about
implementation. But the first step is to see that it is right or to
show why it is not right. You have done neither. You don't even seem
to understand what the proposal is in the first place. Until you do,
it is obvious that you can neither agree nor disagree with it.
> How do you propose to deny them their right to fund their government
> by taxing you the same as they tax everyone else?
See above. By calling it a "right" you are begging the question. Let
me rephrase my question and ask how you propose to deny the "right" of
my gang of robbers to steal from you to support their goals.
> > In Nazi Germany, would you have turned in your neighbor for hiding
> > Jews, since that is what the Germans "as individuals" would want?
> That was an unjust system, singling out people not because they did
> something wrong but just due to illogical opinion.
The same is true of taxation in this country. Unless creating wealth
is doing something wrong. And if it is, a person accused of it
deserves a trial before a jury of his peers before being convicted of
the crime of creating wealth and being fined for it.
> ... This still leaves open the question of
> whether people who work more than others, or people who are
> fortunate to find employers who pay them more for the same work,
> are more deserving of food and other essentials of life than others
Of course they aren't. I don't plan to reward people for "being
fortunate". And I certainly don't plan to reward the "unfortunate"
either. I *DO* plan to purchase goods and services I want. This
means giving things that THEY want to the people who have chose to
provide what *I* want. This isn't a "reward".
> who choose
> not to "work" in the conventional sense or who are not fortunate
> enough to happen upon employers who want their particular talents.
I have nothing against someone who chooses not to work "in the
conventional sense" or otherwise. I don't plan to deny him any
food or shelter or money or anything else. Neither do I plan
to GIVE him MY food, shelther, or money. If I go to the store to
buy something, if they have one I will buy it. If instead they
say "we choose not to work in the conventional sense - but we need
money" I will NOT give them the money I planned to spend on what
I was shopping for.
And a person's success has far more to do with his willingness to
work than with how fortunate he is. If you doubt this, please
explain how so many immigrants manage to be so fortunate.
> (The capitalism/socialism debate we have managed to get into.)
No. In a free society, such as I advocate, individuals are free to
practice capitalism, socialism, or anything else they like. I think
most people will join me in prefering capitalism, but nothing prevents
any people who favor socialism from getting together to form a commune
or a welfare state or whatever they like. People in a free society
can pursue material goods if they like, can pursue a religious
objective such as finding the one true guru, can fly around the world
without refueling, or any other goal they set themselves, so long as
it doesn't involve stealing from people who do not want to cooperate
with them.
In a socialist society people are NOT free to practice capitalism.
Neither are they free to practice socialism except the particular
flavor of it that their government mandates. They cannot form
communes. They cannot pursue religious goals - communist countries
attack religion just as vehemently as they attack capitalism. They
really don't have any freedom, or any real choices, at all.
Our debate is not about capitalism vs. socialism. It is about people
having a choice or not.
> There is no such thing as "right" in regard to questions of policy
Wrong.
> (there is nobody intelligent enough to figure out from basic
> principles, or who knows enough about everybody to figure out from
> information, what is best for everyone).
Damn right! This is relevant to there being one right policy ONLY if
you assume that some individual or organization must run everything
for everyone. The fact that nobody is intelligent enough, etc, is an
excellent reason why there IS known to be a best policy, and that
policy is to let people run their own lives.
> We must try our best to come up with good policy, but we can't be
> perfect, and we always have disagreements based on imperfect
> information rather than one person being provably right and everyone
> else being an idiot.
You admit that a centralized authority cannot come up with a best
policy, all they can do is guess, but you assert that they should
do it anyway, no matter who gets hurt. Your position would make
more sense if one person WAS provably right and everyone else WAS
provably an idiot.
> In matters of physics and other facts of the Universe, there may in
> fact be some things that are "right" in an absolute sense, in which
> case we can label somebody WRONG if they disagree with the facts of
> the Universe, such as the Earth is basically round not flat, ...
Not just physics but every domain of knowledge. Why do you insist
that politics is the single exception?
> Of the ways [of government financing] you presented, the few that
> made any sense at all weren't enough to support a national
> government, or even a state government.
That is true only if you have a bloated view of what governments
should do. The revenue methods I describe would not be enough to
support a massive welfare system, for instance.
> Cross out lotteries and anything else that is immoral (breeds
> non-working greed and illusion and crime etc.),
What is wrong with lotteries? It is immoral for government to run a
lottery, but not immoral for them to just steal the money? What
greed, crime, and illusion do current state lotteries breed? And what
is wrong with greed, anyway?
> and cross out anything that by itself wouldn't support 10% of the
> federal defense budget, and what's left?
Are you speaking of the current defense budget, which maintains a
standing army over half the world's surface, and which procures
expensive toys that don't work while neglecting to maintain the
materiel we do have? I support no peacetime defense budget like
that.
Why do we have to cross out anything which by itself isn't ten
percent? Is this suggested with taxes too? If so, we have to
eliminate all taxes except personal and corporate federal income
taxes. What if I proposed twelve methods, each of which can
provide nine percent of the needed income?
What would be left? The major revenue sources would be fines, an
enforcement "tax" on all contracts (it would be legal not to pay it,
but the contract would not be enforcable in court without it), the
estates of everyone who dies without relatives or a will, lotteries,
and voluntary contributions (telethons rake in millions every year).
Each of these would provide a considerable percentage of the income a
legitimate government needs to maintain the police, the courts, and
domestic military defense. A smaller amount would come from various
sources such as sales of stamps and coins to collectors.
> Note we both agree it's good to encourage people to work by having
> them enjoy the fruits of their labor (the question is whether they
> can enjoy 100% of it, or should be taxed some percentage to pay for
> an umbrella
You are taking a top-down approach. I don't see it as anyone "having"
them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Rather the fruits of their
labor are simply theirs, and nobody has any right to take them away.
> that protects us from Soviet or Mexican attack/invasion
To be forced to pay for this reduces government to a protection
racket. One who refuses to pay should be made to suffer just like one
whose country has been invaded? That is like the mobster who torches
buildings belonging to companies who won't pay the mob protection
money.
> and from periods of economic upset or individual catastrophe).
That is what insurance companies are for. Once again, nobody should
be forced to join such a protection plan. And I don't see why it
should be run by the government anyway.
> On the
> other hand, I think it's wrong to encourage people to spend their
> time in idle make-work stuff that doesn't help the world but just
> gives them a chance of big riches without having to work for it.
> Gambling is wrong (evil).
I don't plan to encourage or discourage anything. If someone produces
something I want, I will trade with them. If they don't, I won't. If
there was a gambling parlor in my neighborhood, I wouldn't go there,
but I wouldn't try to stop anyone else from going there. It is their
money and they can use it as they please. If someone gambles to the
extent that they bankrup themselves, I think that is stupid. But I
will not stop them, and neither will I give them money (welfare).
> Make-work projects that don't do anything useful are
> wrong. Make-work projects that actually help something, like
> cleaning litter from freeways, is an acceptable welfare program.
If you want to clean litter from freeways, or to pay people to do so,
go right ahead. But leave me out of it.
I ride the bus, and I buy products that are shipped on freeways. I
pay for both. The owner of the freeway (which should be privately
owned) should bill the users of the freeway whatever he thinks is a
fair price. This price would then be passed along to me as part of
the bus cost and as part of the goods cost. How much I pay depends on
how much direct or indirect use of the freeway I make. The freeway
owner can then hire people to keep it clean. Only by methods such as
this can costs be fairly allocated. It may be that it is cheaper to
ship goods by railroad or by plane, but that shipping companies find
trucks to be more cost effective simply because the government pays
for the roads. Taxes for roads and other things are higher every
year. This is largely because there is no feedback which would
discourage excess use. I must pay more for freeways next year than
this year, via taxes, even if I reduce my use of freeways. Nobody has
any incentive to economize when it comes to things provided by the
government.
> Was your proposal of lottery to fund government just a
> mistake, or do you really thing encouraging people to gamble
> instead of work is good??
No mistake. And I don't intend to encourage anyone to gamble OR to
work. They can do what they please. If they gamble to excess and
don't work at all, I think they are stupid. But I will not punish
them, or ask government to punish them. Neither will I bail them out.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 24 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 49
Today's Topics:
Racism in the Marketplace (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Mon 13 Apr 87 20:10:36-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Willie Lim's messages on racism
In general, I agree with Willie Lim's arguments about an appropriate
government response to employment discrimination. But I disagree with
his placing "the handicapped" together with children as a group of
people who would be unable to enter into certain economic contracts.
I expect and hope he does not really believe that deaf people, blind
people, paraplegics, etc., should be treated as children and not
considered able to make economic decisions themselves, but I am not
sure exactly what he does mean. That it is OK not to hire people if
they are handicapped? That it is OK not to hire people if their
disability would make them unable to do the job? That people who are
mentally incompetent enough should have conservators appointed for
them? The statement doesn't make sense as it stands, since people who
would be considered handicapped by most people enter into any economic
contract I can think of.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 14 Apr 87 09:51:09-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
But I never mentioned the market (free or otherwise).
Then you have missed the central point in the discussion that I had
with Keith Lynch i.e. when is a market free. I say a racist market is
not free.
In any case, I can repeat one of my earlier questions: If you can
accept that there _are_ genetic differences between races, and
that belief in some of them is not racism, why is belief in
certain others racism?
Here is the definition of racism/racist provided by our on-line
dictionary:
_ "rac.ism \'ra-.siz-*m\ n 1 : a belief that race is the primary
determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : RACIALISM -- rac.ist \-s*st\ n "
The question boils down to whether a belief in race X being superior
over the others is detrimental to the "freeness" of the market. In
everyday life, the word "racist" has been used to imply that harm or
injustice has done to an individual simply due to his/her being a
member of a particular race. It is one thing to say that a math
school M discriminates against academically inferior candidates in
admissions and another to say that school M discriminates against
members (individuals) of race X. The former discriminates based on
individual effort (which is consistent with the free market) but the
latter ignores individual effort.
You forgot an _important_ point: that there are _lots_ of other
factors involved in this.
No I didn't forget the point. I did say that it is not possible to
compare academic performance with *everything* but race being equal.
If race X has an income distribution that is significantly different
from race Y, then your statistical measure of academic performance
will be affected by the difference in income distribution. As such it
would be wrong to claim that everything but race is equal. There is
already indication that academic performance is more closely
correlated with income than with race. Furthermore there is the study
that says that poor whites and blacks have essentially the same
drop-out rates. That says that at the low end of the income spectrum
blacks and whites fail at the same rate. Other things have to be
shown too: (1) poor blacks and whites have the same success rate, (2)
rich blacks and whites have the same success and failure rates. If
(1) and (2) are true then academic performance is not correlated with
race. Actually a better thing to show is that with the same
individual effort blacks and whites have similar academic performance.
Once again, you need to distinguish that we're talking about
averages and statistical behavior. Any given member of X may or
may not be better at < fill in the blank> than any given member of
Y. Given a correlation, you expect a member of X to be better
than a member of Y. But you won't _know_ that this member of X is
better than that member of Y until you check.
But my point is that in the US correlation is skewed by "income
distribution effects." When you take a black and a white individual
at random, you'll more likely end up with comparing between a
middle-class white individual and a low-income black individual
(ignoring the effect of background e.g. both have the same family
income for N generations).
No, it means that the average member of X are better than the
average member of Y, _not_ that the members of X are all better
than the members of Y.
That does not change the point, i.e. there is a race that is more
superior as individuals than others. If that is the case then you
would expect the not-so-lucky races to develop economic/political
systems that favor them. (-: That seems to be a justification for
global separation/apartheid. I hear the slogans now: "When its come
to democracy, no XYZ need apply. Or, Democracy: for UVW only." :-)
Even if you assume that all members of X are better than all
members of Y, then it doesn't follow that no member of Y can
improve. It does imply that no member of Y can become better than
any member of X, but this isn't the same thing.
If a member of Y can become better than any member of X, then it is
not simply because he/she is a member of Y but rather he/she has a
ability (that all individuals have) to improve his/her condition. If
this is the case then there must other reasons why the other members
of Y do not seek to improve themselves to become as good as or better
than members of X. That is individual ability is not dependent on
race.
Of course, you also made the assumption that "poorer academic
performance" means "worse at learning, thinking and problem
solving," and that this means "worse as an individual." I'm not
willing to accept either of these, either.
If you are talking about competence in living as an individual in a
modern economy, then I would say that these qualities are very
important. They affect individual effort.
False, because a correlation of race to academic performance is a
statistical statement about the races in question. It doesn't say
anything about how any individual member of the race will perform.
No, the belief in the statistical statement can statistically lead to
actions by economic agents that will be detrimental to the ability of
other economic agents to participate in the market.
That some blacks are capable of passing for whites should indicate
the result of the experiment.
I don't need such an experiment to tell me such things as I do believe
that race has nothing to do with individual effort and abilities. But
I did suggest it in a tongue-in-the-cheek fashion just to see how
people with supremacist ideology would react. (I know that you don't
hold such an ideology.) There is also a debate going on regarding the
discovery of a gene in an ancient woman (found in archeological dig in
Africa) that is also found in modern women. It would be interesting
to see if it can be proved that all individuals have the same
ancestor, genetically speaking.
This is only to be expected, as skin color is genetically
transmitted, and dog breeders have been breeding dogs to modify
genetically transmitted characteristics for millennia.
(I might also add that dog breeders do cruel things like clipping toes
and tails of puppies (without anesthesia) to make them conform to the
AKC standards for the breed. Obviously they can't do that genetically
yet.)
Of course, you can select for _any_ thing you want, and increase
or decrease it if it's something that's genetically transmitted,
or affected by something genetically transmitted. Physical
characteristics are easy. As far as I know, nobody knows if mental
characteristics qualify (but dogs are bred for intelligence,
so...)
But children of professional parents have an advantage in that their
parents can "prepare" them for professional careers. E.g. parents who
have gone to college can use their own experience in educating their
kids---encouraging the right kind of attitude, sending them to
remedial schools necessary, helping them out with their homework,
buying them the right kind of books, toys, computers, etc. They would
do that for their children irrespective of their race (that is
including adopted children).
It should also be obvious that any such experiment on people is
inhuman.
Of course. Some people had inadvertently started such an experiment
in the cruel days of slavery.
That's also why it's not racist to believe that "On the average, a
member of race X can A better than a member of race Y" (or "A is
correlated with race"), but it is racist to believe that "Every
member of race X can A better than any member of race Y." The
first is a statistical statement about the race, and gives you
information about large groups of people. The latter is an act of
prejudging every member of some race.
Again statistically such a statistical statement can lead to racist
acts in the market i.e. it leads to the second. However a statistical
statement that "on the average, a member of" income group "X can"
perform academically "better than a member of" income group Y", is ok.
In this case you can exchange members of the two groups and still get
the same result (i.e. get N members of Y and change their income to X
and similarly for N members of X). (Income affects individual effort
in the sense that an individual has only so much time in a day and
he/she must allocate his/her time first to the basic needs (like
surviving) and then to the not so basic needs like education.) But in
the case of race, the implication is that if you change the color of
the skin of N members of X to that of Y and vice versa, you'll get the
same result, i.e. that performance has nothing to do with individual
effort but rather only with the color of the skin. I can't accept
such a belief for it says that the color of the skin is more important
than individual effort. I would label it racist as, statistically
speaking, it would lead to racist acts in the market.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
> > Then you have missed the central point in the discussion that I had
> > with Keith Lynch i.e. when is a market free. I say a racist market
> > is not free.
No, I didn't miss it. My initial letter to you was to point out that
your definition of racist is broken. You keep trying to drag the
argument between you and Keith into it.
> > "rac.ism \'ra-.siz-*m\ n 1 : a belief that race is the primary
> > determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
> > differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular
> > race 2 : RACIALISM -- rac.ist \-s*st\ n "
> > The question boils down to whether a belief in race X being
> > superior over the others is detrimental to the "freeness" of
> > the market.
Uh, the definition you quoted (which I have no qualms with) doesn't
say anything about either "freeness" or "market". How did you get from
that definition to your statement?
> > Of course, you also made the assumption that "poorer academic=
> > performance" means "worse at learning, thinking and problem
> > solving," and that this means "worse as an individual." I'm not
> > willing to accept either of these, either.
> > If you are talking about competence in living as an individual in a
> > modern economy, then I would say that these qualities are very
> > important. They affect individual effort.
Uh, which qualities are very important? If you mean "academic
performance," then I can't agree. Our academic systems is skewed so
that those far from the norm in either direction have trouble with it.
That's why there are college dropouts running major companies. If you
mean "learning, thinking and problem solving", then true, they have an
affect. But once again, things are set up so that it takes very little
of any of these to live in our society.
> > No, the belief in the statistical statement can statistically lead
> > to actions by economic agents that will be detrimental to the
> > ability of other economic agents to participate in the market.
Ok, let me rephrase what you've just said, explicitly stating the
assumption and the conclusion (and assuming that you mean this
statement to demonstrate a racist belief):
Assumptions:
There are people who believe that members of race X will, on
the average, do better at some task A than members of race Y.
None of these people are racist (by the definition I use), in
that all of them know that the above "fact" (they think it's a fact)
does not say anything about how an individual will perform. Thus, when
faced with having to choose between individuals, they always test the
involved individuals ability to perform task A. Further, they always
choose the better of the two.
Conclusion:
Those of race Y will suffer for this in the marketplace.
Please prove this.
< mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed 15 Apr 87 10:05:21-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
In other words, people tend to draw racist conclusions from
non-racist facts. That I can't argue with. It doesn't make the
original fact racist, though.
Agreed. "Facts" by themselves need not be racists, it's whether they
result in racist acts. With your assumption no but with my assumption
yes.
My original letter about that specific facet, and only that facet.
I do understand your argument, it is just that I feel that the context
was important. I also have problems with your second assumption. But
if one were to accept that assumption then your conclusion is valid.
I would very much hope that we, as a people, will develop to the point
where your second assumption will be true (on the average). There
already exist people (e.g. you and me) whose behavior fit that
assumption.
I don't have enough of the context of what's going on between you
and Keith to get into that.
No problemo, I was just making the point that a racist market is not a
free market.
(-: Regarding what's going on between Keith and me, nothing that is
rated R or X. :-) I do consider Keith to be a very good e-mail pal.
We have exchanged very friendly private messages. He is by no means a
racist or a mean spirited person.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 25 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 50
Today's Topics:
Government policies &
Wall Street Journal &
Zoning and Libertarians &
Racism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 13:12:21 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Government policies re economics
Coverage of the recent tax "reform" and various trade and
economics-related issues in the media have increased my interest in
just how various countries' governments' policies and practices affect
the economic climate, such as by encouraging or discouraging saving or
spending. I've always thought that the US was one of the worst
countries in this regard, with our policies of taxing the interest on
savings accounts and suchlike investment, and giving tax deductions
for interest payments, thereby discouraging saving and encouraging
spending. However, I guess that supposition was based more on
ignorance of just what other countries' practices were like than on
any real knowledge. I append below an extract from the latest RISKS
Digest, which was posted there as part of a continuing discussion on
bank computers and ATMs. What makes it appropriate to Poli-Sci is the
casual reference to an Australian tax on bank-account deposits.
(!?!?!?!) [That is, the very concept triggers in me a sense of shock
and outrage.]
While I thought the US taxing interest received was bad enough, THIS
tax certainly sounds pretty disgusting and revolting... Since I had
never before heard of such a practice, I thought that mayhap others on
the list would be interested in learning about it. Does anyone know
any more about this sort of thing? For example, is this an anomaly, or
a common thing in the British Commonwealth? Do other nations have such
taxes on bank transactions?
Regards, Will Martin
Extract from RISKS:
> To: RISKS@csl.sri.com
> Subject: Bank Computers (Not ATM's)
> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 14:00:39 +1000
> From: Ken Ross < munnari!mulga.oz!kar@seismo.CSS.GOV>
>
> A little while ago, I went to the bank to withdraw $1200 to buy a
> saxophone. I filled in a withdrawal form and presented it to the
> teller. He punched the data into his terminal, debiting my account
> $1200. He then asked what denomination notes I would like.
> "Unfortunately," he said, "we're out of 50's and 100's."(Here in
> Australia, we have notes with the following denominations: $100,
> 50, 20, 10, 5 and 2. Smaller denominations are in coins.)
>
> I did not want to carry sixty $20 notes around with me, and I
> didn't want a bank cheque either. I asked him to "undo" the
> transaction, and said I'd come back later. The teller assured me
> that the only way that it could be done would be to redeposit the
> $1200 into the same account. So, that is what happened.
>
> In the state of Victoria (where the story takes place) there is a
> state tax of 3 cents in every hundred dollars on deposits. Thus the
> net effect of the whole affair was that I paid 36 cents tax.
>
> I didn't bother pursuing the matter; a postage stamp costs 36 cents.
> However, there is a potential risk here in the definition of when a
> transaction has occurred. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that
> legally a transaction is not complete until both parties involved
> are "satisfied". Hence the withdrawal of the money was not complete
> at the stage when the teller informed me of the unavailability of
> high-denomination notes. As I could reasonably expect to get high-
> denomination notes, I should have been able to abort the transaction
> at this stage.
>
> But, because it had been entered on the computer, the transaction
> had been completed as far as the bank was concerned.
>
> If the computer software had been better designed then there should
> have been a mechanism to abort the transaction right up until the
> customer leaves. I do not think that a feature like this would cause
> any further problems, although I am not familiar with bank
> procedure.
>
> UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!mulga!kar
> CSNET: kar%mulga.oz@australia
> RISKS Moderator's Note:
> [Even though the case is small peanuts (or eucalyptus pods?), it
> illustrates a general problem: the need for a complete
> transaction UNDO that leaves NO adverse side-effects. It is not
> really so much a case of an improper atomic action. On the other
> hand, the bank might take the attitude that TWO transactions
> were required, and therefore it needed to charge for BOTH! PGN]
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 09:56:05 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Wall Street Journal redeems itself
Today, April 15, the Wall Street Journal nearly redeemed itself in my
eyes. The editorial page contained a long guest article by
Christopher Layne, described as "an LA lawyer and adjunct scholar of
the Cato Institute [the libertarian think tank]", who analyzes the
Reagan Doctrine and its relation to the Iran contraversy. I don't
know whether to be more amazed that someone thinks clearly about these
matters or by the WSJ's publication of the article in the same space
which was given to Irving Kristol yesterday.
Layne points out that Iran-contra was not an aberration, nor a
tempest in a teapot fueled by a liberal press, but a scandal waiting
to happen which stemmed from the deepest ideological roots of the
Reagan administration. While, he says, the Reagan Doctrine has never
been specifically defined by the Administration, it is fair to infer
that it is not simply aid to anti-Communist rebels, but a deliberate
attempt to remove countries from the Soviet sphere of influence using
both military and economic pressure, with the ultimate aim being the
collapse of the Soviet state itself. This policy is doomed to both
failure, because it means we must fight every fight, and lack of
support among Americans, because we are anti-interventionist by nature
and cannot support a policy which seems to involve choosing between
two equally heinous bands of thugs (such as in Nicaragua).
The article is must reading. I cannot do it justice in a
short posting.
Steve Walton
------------------------------
Return-path: < osmigo@ngp.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 09:41:53 CDT
From: osmigo@ngp.utexas.edu (Ron Morgan)
Subject: Re: zoning and libertarians: a real world example
[deleted stuff about a neighbor's neglected property pulling down the
value of one's house]
I've seen this kind of situation before. The common procedure is for
the people living on that block to sign a petition declaring the
property something (not sure of the exact term) like an "public
eyesore" or "nuisance." I'm not exactly sure who you go to with this
(the police?), but I've seen it done here in Austin in two cases, one
where a person put an old wrecked car in his front yard, and another
where a person went several months without mowing his rather large
lawn.
Ron Morgan
--
osmigo, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo
gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo
harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 14 Apr 87 22:32:40-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
No, I didn't miss it. My initial letter to you was to point out
that your definition of racist is broken. You keep trying to drag
the argument between you and Keith into it.
Yes you did. The whole point of the discussion between Keith and me
has been on what constitutes a free market and how racist actions
(which in a world of incomplete information is based on racist
beliefs/assumptions/facts) affect it. It is easier to show something
is broken by taking it out of its context.
Uh, the definition you quoted (which I have no qualms with)
doesn't say anything about either "freeness" or "market".
Ah, but you assume that people on the average treat an "assumption"
the way a mathematician (say) treats them i.e. they can be made
without it becoming a belief. I say no. Knowing the "fact" that
academic performance is dependent on race leads to the belief that it
is true (hence racist). If you are arguing in the abstract see the
bottom of this message for a more elegant way to abstract away all
these problems.
How did you get from that definition to your statement?
Again you chose to ignore the context. Why did you chose to ignore
the context?
Uh, which qualities are very important? If you mean "academic
performance," then I can't agree.
Nope, I mean academic performance when "learning, thinking and problem
solving" are taught in the academic environment.
Our academic systems is skewed so that those far from the norm in
either direction have trouble with it.
Does it mean that we can conclude from your assumption ("that those
far from the norm in either direction have trouble with it") that on
the average, academic performance is not a good measure of one's
ability in "learning, thinking and problem solving"?
That's why there are college dropouts running major companies.
How many percentage of the major (Fortune 500, say) companies are run
by these dropouts? Please also explain how you arrive at your
conclusion from that percentage (whatever it is).
But once again, things are set up so that it takes very little of
any of these to live in our society.
Depends on how little is "little" and what you mean by "living in our
society." (-: Sure, you don't need to go to school to be a bum. :-)
Assumptions:
There are people who believe that members of race X will, on
the average, do better at some task A than members of race Y.
None of these people are racist (by the definition I use), in
that all of them know that the above "fact" (they think it's a
fact) does not say anything about how an individual will perform.
Thus, when faced with having to choose between individuals, they
always test the involved individuals ability to perform task A.
Further, they always choose the better of the two.
Note you made two assumptions, the second which you only inserted in
this message (i.e. it was not explicitly stated as an assumption in
your previous messages). I do think your second assumption (that
people on the average would make such an assumption without it
affecting their actions) is unrealistic. But if you insist on arguing
in the abstract then why not use the complete information assumption.
In this case assumption 1 would be irrelevant which is what you have
been trying to show all along. Furthermore, until this additional
assumption was made, you only use the first assumption and leave it to
the reader to make what other assumptions necessary. I made the
assumption that people on the average will use these "facts" to do
racist acts. You'll have to tell me why I should not make this
assumption and use yours (the second one) instead. With my
assumption, you'll reach the conclusion that these racist actions are
detrimental to the operation of the free market.
Willie
(-: Is your watch made in the USA? :-)
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
You've been trying to add context that wasn't there, or ignoring it
yourself, all along. Please forgive me if I assume that that makes it
a valid thing to do in this discussion. But I think we've gotten to
the heart of the disagreement with one statement.
> > I do think your second assumption (that people on the average would
> > make such an assumption without it affecting their actions) is
> > unrealistic.
In other words, people tend to draw racist conclusions from non-racist
facts. That I can't argue with. It doesn't make the original fact
racist, though.
Just to clear up a minor point:
> > Yes you did. The whole point of the discussion between Keith and
> > me has been on what constitutes a free market and how racist
> > actions (which in a world of incomplete information is based on
> > racist beliefs/assumptions/facts) affect it. It is easier to show
> > something is broken by taking it out of its context.
You apparently didn't read what I wrote. I know what you and kieth are
arguing about; part of that argument spread to whether or not certain
types of beliefs were racist. My original letter about that specific
facet, and only that facet. I don't have enough of the context of
what's going on between you and Keith to get into that.
< mike
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 25 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 51
Today's Topics:
Zoning and Libertarians &
Political Values &
Speaking in Tongues &
Racism (2 msgs) &
Objectivist Talk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder)
Date: 18 Apr 87 20:30:52 GMT
To: uw-beaver!mod-politics@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: zoning and libertarians: a real world example
bh01@CLUTX.BITNET (Russell Nelson) writes:
> Back to poli-sci... I think that this culture, that is, North
> American, has generally agreed that a neighborhood should generally
> have houses of equal worth. Since libertarianism denies this, I
> expect that libertarianism is and shall remain, a theoretical
> concept only. Perhaps we should move the main topic of this list
> away from libertarianism to something a little bit more practical.
>
AS far as I know from learning about libertarianism, there is
nothing to prevent you from setting up a neighborhood with a standard
level of value for the houses. In fact, that is the situation on the
street where I live. It is a dead-end street with 11 houses that were
built by one builder. In order for the builder to get a construction
loan, he had to make restrictive covenants that would protect the
values of the properties. This was to protect the bank's interests.
These covenants specify the minimum lot size, minimum home size, and
'esthetic' considerations such as: no car repairs on street, no RV
parked on street, and new construction subject to approval of an
'architectural committee' made up of lot owners. The only involvement
of the State in this process is in recording the covenants in the
county record books. OTherwise it is a matter between the builder and
the bank.
When I bought my house, I assumed responsibility for maintaining
these covenants. One reason for picking my house was knowing that the
neighborhood would be held to a minimum standard. Should the lot
owners want to change the covenants in the future, we can by majority
vote. This covenant process can perform all the functions of zoning,
without the need for major StaTe involvement, and without coercion: I
didn't have to buy that house.
If you bought a property without having assurances that your
neighbors would be required to maintain their properties, it is
unreasonable to expect them to do so now. I see your best alternative
as individually or with your neighbors offering to buy out the
unsightly lot, fixing it up, and then reselling it to someone who will
live there. Done properly, this can even make money for you, if the
property is structurally sound and needs mostly 'cosmetic' fixes:
mowing, painting.
Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
------------------------------
Return-path: < dayton!mecc!meccsd!mvs@RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reply to Barry S. Fagin
Reply-to: dayton!mecc!meccsd!mvs@RUTGERS.EDU (Michael V. Stein)
Date: 18 Apr 87 00:53:46 CST (Sat)
From: mvs@meccsd.mecc.com (Michael V. Stein)
bh01@CLUTX.BITNET (Russell Nelson) writes:
> 4) As an aside, has anyone heard of the "Pournelle axes"? I saw it
> mentioned in a book by him (not SF), but I can't locate the book
> again. Can anyone give me a reference to it? The axes (the word
> LOOKS mis-spelled) were, as I recall, "Government has the best
> interests of its citizens at heart", and "Big government is better".
> Rather than the losing left/right scale that many people use now, you
> have many more degrees of freedom to describe your political
> position. Quite useful.
Pournelle mentioned this in the spring 1980 edition of "Destinies."
(Volume 2, #2) Essentially the focus of his dissertation in political
science had to due with the fact that political ideology is too
complex of a function to mapped in one dimension. Thus mapping
political ideology as just being "left" or "right" is about as
realistic as plotting a mathematical function on a number line -
different values map to the same point. Once this is recognized then
the question remains as to what the variables should be. Pournelle
chose two variables, "Attitude towards the State" and "Attitude toward
planned social progress".
The first one is pretty easy - how do you feel about the government?
Different ideologies consider it something to be worshiped, others
consider it a positive good, others a necessary evil and still others
consider it a vile evil monster. The second variable presumes that
society has "problems" and that these "problems" can be "solved."
(Each ideology will define the "problems" and the possible solutions
differently.) Pournelle also has said another way to look at this
variable is to call it "rationalism." Different ideologies have varied
widely in how rational they are. Certain ideologies such as communism
hold that man and society is perfectible and a utopia can be created.
Other ideologies such as radical anarchism hold that if we just
destroy all of the State, man will truly be free and have no more
problems.
Whether or not Pournelle's variables are the best to use is a matter
of debate. But, they do allow all major political ideologies to be
mapped to a unique point. They are also much less self-serving then
the two variables of "Political freedom" and "Economic freedom" that
libertarian writers sometimes use. At the *very* least, I wish people
would stop pretending that terms like "left wing" and "right wing" are
meaningful..
---
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services
UUCP ihnp4!meccts!mvs
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 18 Apr 87 14:50:23-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: TOEFL
To: Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
The ability to speak, read, and write English is very important
for success in school. I know this from personal experience.
Students with low TOEFL (Test Of English as a Foreign Language)
scores do poorly in school.
You mean "success in school" in the US. TOEFL is a rather simple test
of proficiency in English. It is a requirement of foreign students
from foreign countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal,
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea etc). People who don't pass it would have
problems in US schools.
It doesn't matter how bright you are if you can't communicate.
If you are talking about TOEFL sure. However if you are talking about
SAT or GRE verbal scores, then it's not clear. Things would be a lot
clearer if we know the verbal scores of Einstein, Kissinger, von
Braun, Wang, and other well-known Americans who were brought up in
non-English speaking countries.
Thus it is perfectly legitimate to weight English proficiency more
heavily than anything else.
Assuming of course that the standard or cut-off score (SAT/GRE) is
consistent with past years. If it is the case that the verbal scores
suddenly become important and that in the past, students (from the
"general" population, say) have been admitted with lower verbal
scores, then one would have to take a closer look. Also if the
applicants have known (or have been told) about the cut-off scores
beforehand, then it is just tough if they don't make it.
Consider the hypothetical case where verbal scores are used simply for
rejecting applicants so that there is not too many of "them" (who
happen to be US citizens too). That is, if these applicants have been
from the right group of US citizens they would have been admitted. I
would have a lot less difficulty understanding such a practice if it
has been shown that the math (say) performance of one group of people,
X, has been high because that group has used unfair and discriminatory
tactics (over say a period of time e.g. 200 years) in keeping down the
math score of the other groups, say, Y. That is if those
discriminatory practices had not occurred, then Y would do as well as
X in math. In this case, I can see one making the case of raising the
verbal score standards so that members of group Y (who happen to
higher verbal scores) can "catch up" with members of group X (who
happen to have lower verbal scores). That is very different from the
case where members of X do well in math simply because they work hard
at it (i.e. members of Y would have done just as well if they have put
in the same effort).
I am not saying that this is happening but rather I am asking the
question of when is it "perfectly legitimate to weigh English
proficiency more heavily than anything else" and when is it not.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 17:33:34 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
> > Agreed. "Facts" by themselves need not be racists, it's whether
> > they result in racist acts. With your assumption no but with my
> > assumption yes.
No, I don't make any assumption. I agree completely that there are
people who draw racists conclusions, and then take racist action based
on those conclusions, from non-racists facts.
This activity on the part of these people does _not_ make the original
facts racist. Facts are like any other tool; they aren't good, bad, or
racist. They just are. With the addendum that facts can be true or
false.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 16 Apr 87 11:00:00-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Mike, here is what has transpired in our discussion.
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Or do you simply assert that it borders on racism to
notice these facts?
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
No, I would say (just as Joe said earlier) that it would be
racist if one were to attribute poor academic performance
solely to race rather than to income level.
Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Which I don't agree with. If you're talking about individuals, and
everything but race is known to be equal, then what else can the
difference be attributed to.
My reply to Keith said that I do not assert that it borders on racism
to notice these facts (which you have been asserting that I did). But
my reply did say that to attribute poor academic performance solely to
race rather than to income level (knowing that the income distribution
among blacks and whites are not equal). Now here is the meaning of
the word "attribute":
at.trib.ute \*-'trib-y*t\ vt 1 : to explain by way of cause 2 a : to
regard as a characteristic of a person or thing b : to reckon as
made or originated in an indicated fashion c : CLASSIFY, DESIGNATE
-- SYN see ASCRIBE -- at.trib.ut.er n
Either meaning 1 or 2(a) will do. So it's more than an assertion,
it's an act or a belief. That is, to say (i.e. "to state an opinion
or belief" and by "opinion" I mean a "belief stronger than impression
and less strong than positive knowledge"): (1) that a person's race is
the cause of a person's academic performance, or (2) that poor
academic performance is a characteristic of person's race (rather than
his/her individual ability which includes his/her ability to fetch a
reasonable income) is racist.
As an aside, you make the additional assumption that "everything but
race is known to be equal" which I didn't make in my reply to Keith.
We know for certain that income distribution is not equal among blacks
and whites (in the US). Why then should I accept your assumption that
"everything but race is known to be equal"? Wouldn't attributiing
academic performance solely to race (knowing for certain that income
distribution is not the same among blacks and whites), racist?
No, I don't make any assumption.
As shown above you made at least one.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 20:19:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Another Boston area Objectivist talk
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 16:46:22 -0400
From: Mark Reinhold < mbr@THEORY.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:"An Essay on Toleration" - Talk by Roger Donway
To: bboard@mc
An Essay on Toleration:
The loss of our freedom of speech
Roger Donway
Journalist and Author
Monday, April 27 at 8:00 p.m.
Harvard University
Littauer M-16
Free and Open to the Public
A presentation of the Harvard Objectivist Club,
funded in part by the Harvard-Radcliffe Undergraduate Council.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 29 Apr 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 52
Today's Topics:
Pollution and the EPA (3 msgs) &
Soviet view of History &
Racism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Tue 21 Apr 87 17:46:24-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Libertaria
To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu
Thanks, Keith, for forwarding the very interesting listing of the
Libertarian Party platform from 1984. While there all sorts of items
i can agree or disagree with, the following one (actually two on the
same subject) sticks out as a shining example of why i for one am not
confident that a libertarian society can work as advertsed.
"William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU> says the Libertarian
platform includes:
>
> 9) Pollution: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of
> individual rights.
Good so far.
> a) Support development of an objective legal system defining
> property rights to air and water, and modifications to such
> tort laws as tresspass, and nuisance to cover air, water,
> noise, and radation polloution.
Yes . . . but now we get:
> c) Abolition of E.P.A ...
Anti-government-agency paranoia strikes again. How do you propose to
catch the perpetrators of those who violate other's rights to a safe
environment, or better yet prevent such abuses? Particularly when
pollution is often not obvious at the time of the offense to the
victims of pollution, but might be to the EPA. If a chemical company
were to dump all sorts of toxic wastes outside my window, i probably
wouldn't realize it at all -- until a few years later when i
"mysteriously" showed the symptoms of exposure to the stuff. Thus, i
would not know who to sue, or even that anyone was at fault for my
condition. By this time, the people who ruined my life are long gone
. . . and even IF they could be found, i really don't see any way that
they can compensate me for their destruction of my body . . . i happen
to value it more than any possible financial compensation.
But even more important is the issue of prevention. If a company (or
individual) is constrained in their "freedom" to manipulate the
environment, and is subject to *supervision* to monitor compliance
with laws designed to protect the rights of others, it is more likely
that they will operate in a manner which respects those rights.
Without such "incentive", i would bet that many companies would take
the easy way out and avoid the regulations -- "aaah, no one will ever
know!" -- plenty of companies do it NOW, it would be even WORSE if no
one was watching!
Of course, you might suggest having private companies monitor
compliance of others with environmental laws. The problem with this
is that they will not have the authority to demand access to whatever
evidence they require to assess the actions of a potential offender.
And now diverging from that topic a bit -- Keith Lynch writes:
> Most Objectivists reject the label "libertarian". I myself don't
> mind, mostly because I identified myself as a libertarian until a
> few months ago.
>
I'm curious -- would you be willing to explain why you changed your
mind?
>
> Don't forget that Democrats and Republicans are having non-smokers
> heavily subsidize smoker's vile habit, via . . . rules about
> upholstery that make chairs and sofas more expensive, more
> uncomfortable, and carcinogenic, simply to keep careless smokers
> from setting fire to themselves
>
...and to others, too. Am i correct in recalling that one of the
major incentives of such laws was to reduce the number of instances
where people not only set fire to themselves, but also to everyone
else in the hotel or apartment building? A law to protect the
property and safety of *others*?
> ... and direct taxpayer subsidies to tobacco farmers.
I agree with you 100% on that one. It is one of the stupidest
policies i can think of. (mentioned just so you don't think that we
are incapable of agreeing on anything! :-) )
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 17:41:10 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA
Cc: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, liberty
Subject: pollution....
The argument is not that you shouldn't be protected from pollution (if
you consider that an infringement of your rights) - it is that the EPA
(as currently formulated) is nothing but a boondoggle that "mandates"
solutions, that are ineffectual, unjust, immoral (what more can I say
:-) .
It is my contention that there is no such thing as a "solution" to any
problem, given peoples individual nature. The best we can hope to
achieve is a "trade-off" of goods and bads (or goods). There are many
ways to manage these tradeoffs. One way is with some government
agency. There are many ways to manage a government agency: vote or
bribe (or another agency :-)
A "Market" is a social construct - a process that allows various
parties (individuals or groups) to tradeoff with each other
voluntarily (sp?).
What can be traded?
Anything the parties want to trade.
What will they trade for?
Anything they think is worth trading for.
Pollution is usually a "bad".
Pollution is usually the by product of a "good" (production/
consumption of something).
Whatever you consider it, it is a natural by product of human
endevors.
How do we eliminate it? We can't.
How do we allocate it in some (parato) optimal way? Markets work
best.
There is a wonderful new book by Prof. Thomas Sowell, called:
*A_Conflict_of_Visions: Idealogical_Origins_of_Political_Struggles*
This work examins the underlying assumptions many people make when
they argue about some political point. It is not a book that "takes
sides". It highlights two broad visions of Man and his
nature/abilities. It shows what assumptions these visions of Man are
based on and explains the logic that leads from these assumptions to
conclusions about the world - conclusions that have been driving the
major political conflicts of the past 3 centuries.
One vision believs that Man's INTENTIONS are not good enough. That
Man is tragically flawed and (even) though that there is a great
difference in abilities, Man is not nearly knowledgable enough to
achieve a "correct" solution given all that such a thing would
involve. Therefore this group thinks that the best we can do, is
invent a process (like a market) or an institution (like
culture/tradition or the concept of "law") and let individuals make
only the decisions that they are the most qualified to make, ones
concerning their own actions.
This groups asks is the process/insitiution correct (was the race
fair)?
Loosely, this is the concept behind the American Revolution (freedom
from those who thought they knew better for us), of Edmund Burke, A.
Hamiltion, F.A. Hayak, M. Friedman, O.W. Holmes.
Our constitution is an attempt to create "a process" that will
restrain the flaws of Man.
----
On the other side, is the belief that INTENTIONS are what count. This
vision assumes the belief that Man has the knowledge and ability to
make what they INTEND, come to pass; That surogate decision makers
(companies, governments, majorty vote, dictators, even
majoindividuals...) are capable of "finding solutions". This vision
sees the difference between the smartest/most-moral people and the
least, and says "If only those (smart/moral) people were in control,
we could solve the problems of the world."
This vision of man asks: were the results correct? (was the race
outcome correct?)
Loosely, this is the vision behind the French Revolution - The Age of
Reason, of Wm. Goodwin, Wm. Condrecet, L. Tribe, J.K. Galbraith.
A constitution is a useless hinderence if the correct people are
making the decisions!
--------
(bill)
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 21:24:27 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Philosophy
To: lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
Cc: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
I haven't read that book, but I don't agree that man is tragically
flawed, or with most of what you quote the book as saying.
This may just be a difference in terminology, but I don't agree that
there is any "we" who "let" the free market exist. It exists of
itself and nobody has the right to wipe it out. It is also very hard
to wipe out. Consider the black market in virtually everything in
socialist countries, and the market in illegal drugs in the US. (The
latter is a good showcase of the failure of pure anarchy - there is
much murder and mayhem amongst the drug subculture precisely because
they cannot go to the police when they have been defrauded or robbed.
In this sense I am an advocate of MORE government, i.e. the police
should protect the rights of pushers just as much as of bankers and
lawyers.)
I don't agree that people should be allowed to run their own lives
BECAUSE they are best qualified. They should be allowed to run their
own lives because nobody has the right to deny them this right, even
if someone comes along who is provably better qualified to run someone
else's life.
I completely agree about the EPA. I know an engineer who used to work
there before he quit in disgust. He has told me all about the some of
the amazing boondoggles. Apparently they believe (or did at that
time, this was the Carter administration) in micromanaging all
chemical corporations. They also mandated things they KNEW were
impossible, and thus they knew that everyone was cheating. This way
they could close down whoever they pleased, whoever was noncooperative
in their personal informal perspective.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < rochester!kodak!uucp@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: rochester!kodak!ray%rochester.ARPA@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 22 Apr 87 18:28:21 GMT
> > The atomic bombing [of Japan] was a crime of the
> > capitalists of the U.S.A. against humanity, which the people of
> > the world will never forget.'"
> More properly, we dropped the bomb to frighten the soviets.
>
One of the reasons for dropping the bomb as taught in political
science here at the U of R was to prevent Russia from occupying Japan.
It was reasoned that since Russia was no longer fighting Germany, they
would claim victory over Japan and attempt to occupy it. If Japan
could be made to surrender before Russia got to it we could occupy it
first. Had it not happened this way, Japan could very well have ended
up like East Germany and the other oppresed satelites.
ray
[ Another reason, of course, was the expected high US casualties of
the an invasion of the home islands. While this reason is often
poo-pooed by those emphasizing racist elements (which were present),
the heavy casualties of the invasion of Iwo Jima (and then Okinawa)
made a deep impression on the decision-makers. There were thoughts in
the direction of poison gas, too. While peace feelers were put out by
the Japanese, the bitter-end camp was very strong in Japan and it
isn't clear that anything short of anhilliation weapons would bring
the Japanese to surrender. Dresden was partially intended as an
example to the Soviets on a conventional scale. An argument against
the scare-the-soviets theory is that the soviets had nowhere near the
naval or amphibious resources to mount an invasion of Japan against
opposition ahead of the US. Their land invasion of Manchuria was more
of a problem, but a-bombing the home islands couldn't deter that.
- CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 17:05:38 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
> > No, I don't make any assumption.
> > As shown above you made at least one.
But only because you took this completely out of context.
We seem to have a communications problem. Let me try to get this
straight.
> > (1) that a person's race is
> > the cause of a person's academic performance, or (2) that poor
> > academic performance is a characteristic of person's race (rather
> > than his/her individual ability which includes his/her ability to
> > fetch a reasonable income) is racist.
1) is racist. No further discussion. But two isn't clear. Do you
consider the statement
I believe that academic performance is correlated with race -
i.e., that given two large groups from near-identical
backgrounds, then one of the two races will have a worse
academic performance.
to be a racist statement?
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 16 Apr 87 21:50:28-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Racism
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
But only because you took this completely out of context.
Aha, so context is important.
Do you consider the statement
I believe that academic performance is correlated with race -
i.e., that given two large groups from near-identical
backgrounds, then one of the two races will have a worse
academic performance.
to be a racist statement?
Within your context no, but within my context yes. In my context, the
condition "given two large groups from near-identical backgrounds"
(e.g. difference in income distribution) is not met. (Even if your
conditions are met, I am not convinced that your conclusion will
automatically follow, but that is beside the point.) But if you know
that the condition is not met, then I would wonder why you make such a
statement. Furthermore if you also know that academic performance is
correlated with income and that there is a significant difference in
income distribution between the races, then I would have to wonder
even more why you place more importance on race than on income. One
would then tend to make the assumption that you think that race is an
important cause (at least more important than income) of a person's
academic performance. In this sense the statement is racist.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 3 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 53
Today's Topics:
Pollution and regulation &
Racism and Education (3 msgs) &
The Ollie Follies &
Real and Taught History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Thu 23 Apr 87 00:50:12-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Pollution & regulation
To: lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA
"William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes;
> The argument is not that you shouldn't be protected from pollution
> (if you consider that an infringement of your rights) - it is that
> the EPA (as currently formulated) is nothing but a boondoggle
> that "mandates" solutions, that are ineffectual, unjust, immoral
> (what more can I say :-) .
Then why not fix the EPA? Fire the inept managers, and hire better
ones. Or fix the EPA's structure. Just wishing the EPA away
certainly cannot reduce pollution any more than wishing away the
pollution itself will.
> It is my contention that there is no such thing as a "solution" to
> any problem, given peoples individual nature. The best we can hope
> to achieve is a "trade-off" of goods and bads (or goods).
I never said that there was a perfect "solution" to *eliminate* the
problem of pollution, just an way to greatly contain its frequency.
Given your logic: "given peoples' nature, there is no such thing as a
'solution' to the problem of murder." Well, if laws reduce the
chances that i will be murdered by 90%, i think that is a good start.
> Pollution is usually a "bad".
^^^^^^^ Can you give an example of when it is a "good"?
Just one will do.
> Pollution is usually the by product of a "good" (production/
> consumption of something).
Maybe, but i'll agree just for the sake of the discussion.
> Whatever you consider it, it is a natural by product of human
> endevors. How do we eliminate it? We can't.
With this attitude, no wonder you want to do away with environmental
regulation. Most human endeavors can be performed in a number of
ways; normally they are done in the cheapest way possible. This would
be particularly true in your desired free market. But since pollution
control is frequently expensive, or processes which cause less
pollution are more expensive than processes which produce much
pollution, your free market would *encourage* polluting the
environment in the interest of maximizing profits! And with no one
watching, they could get away with it!
> A constitution is a useless hinderence if the correct people are
> making the decisions!
If the "correct" people (whoever that might be???) are making
decisions, a well-constructed constitution will be of no hinderance at
all -- their decisions will be the same whether or not the
constitution is in place.
And then Keith Lynch writes:
> . . . In this sense I am an advocate of MORE government. . .
I really don't have any particular response to this . . . i just
wanted to see this atypical Keith Lynch statement in print two days in
a row. :-) (Yes, i realize that i have taken it out of context.)
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Tue 21 Apr 87 22:45:07-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: What is racism?
To: wlim@xx.lcs.mit.edu, mwm@violet.berkeley.edu%berkeley.edu
I think Mike Meyer and Willie Lim are arguing in circles about "what
is racism" -- maybe this will help focus on the question at hand.
You're getting carried away over what evidence exists -- well, let's
hypothesize all three possibilities.
< < begin speculation> >
1. There is statistical "evidence" that, given equal economic
opportunities, blacks and whites, on the average, have equal academic
performance.
Is the statement "Blacks tend to be inherently less intelligent than
whites" racist?
I hope we can agree that the answer is "yes".
2. There is statistical "evidence" that, given equal economic
opportunities, blacks have inferior academic performance than whites,
on the average.
Is the statement "blacks tend to be inherently less intelligent than
whites" racist?
I would guess not, just a reflection of reality.
3. There is NO statistical evidence comparing the academic
performance of blacks and whites under similar economic conditions.
Is the statement "blacks tend to be inherently less intelligent than
whites" racist?
Since this statement is not based on any facts, it must be based on
some other prejudice; it is asserted as a fact, without evidence, thus
it must be racist.
< < end speculation> >
Unless anyone is willing to part with actual proof one way or the
other, i think that one must proceed under the conditions of #3 for a
coherent discussion. (Not that i intend to malign the discussion thus
far -- it has been entertaining.)
But i'm still left with a question: Mike Meyer writes:
> Since there are certain abilities that almost certainly
> have [to] differ depending on race,
Why??
> On the other hand, it's equally ludicrous to judge individuals based
> on any racial average, no matter how valid and poor that average is.
> Individuals are almost never average.
Agreed.
~joe testa~
p.s. hope i didn't miss anything and repeat what's already been said
... if Charles hadn't been HOARDING :-) these Digests, it'd be a
little easier to, ummm, digest . . . now, Charles, isn't 126K in one
day a bit much? :-)
[ Yes, I can admit it now, I save messages until radioactive decay
makes them DOE-legal to send out! :-]
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 22 Apr 87 12:56:14-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: What is racism?
To: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
Cc: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
3. There is NO statistical evidence comparing the academic
performance of blacks and whites under similar economic
conditions.
Is the statement "blacks tend to be inherently less
intelligent than whites" racist?
Since this statement is not based on any facts, it must be
based on some other prejudice; it is asserted as a fact,
without evidence, thus it must be racist.
Agreed and very well said. One's belief in individualism would be
severely tested if this turns out to be true, (assuming of course that
academic performance here measures individual intellectual ability).
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 00:44:19 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Equal education?
To: "MWM@violet.berkeley.edu"@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Ok, apparently everyone is agreed that there is no evidence that
blacks do worse than whites in school or in life, all else being
equal, i.e. there is no evidence for racial difference in innate
intelligence.
MWM and I also believe that there is no reason to treat a black
person differently even if there WAS a racial difference. I am
not sure whether WLIM believes this.
The null hypothesis seems to be that achievement in the classroom is
or ought to be at least somewhat important, and that it strongly
correlates primarily with the financial background of the parents.
This is probably because a child with lots of books in the house and
parents who read and are seen to be successful because of things
related to reading, is going to be motivated to read, and in reading
is going to learn a lot of things on his own. Also, sadly, simply
being able to read at all puts him significantly ahead of the
"average" student, clear through high school. The child with no books
at home is likely going to see books as something alien and
irrelevant. (Check into how reading as a major activity is portrayed
on TV.) The child of a welfare family will probably have a similar
view about productive work.
So what can be done about it? How can a school turn these kids
around, with no support from the home? Is there a way?
One way would be to extend mandatory bussing to homes as well as
schools. Force parents to exchange their children. This might do
it, if anyone would put up with it. I hope you all find this as
unacceptable a solution as I do.
What really is so terrible about students not doing equally well?
I think there IS something terrible if a student really tries to
learn but is forbidden from learning, or from entering his chosen
profession. But I don't think that a person who chooses to ignore
the world of learning has any right to be somehow force-fed knowledge.
What is the view of utopia here? Every student making the same score
on every exam? Is that realistic? Exams COULD be written to greatly
narrow the range of scores, but I doubt that would be very
constructive. Or is the idea to have as much variance as now, but to
have it distributed evenly among the races and/or social classes? If
the latter, please explain why this is desirable. Also please note
that if we keep the same average score, for every extra point made by
a formerly deprived student, a point must be lost by a formerly
advantaged student. Why would that be a net gain?
Will every student go to college? This seems to be the idea behind
the current media blitz by the UNCF. But what good would that be?
Wouldn't a college degree be then as pointless as a high school
diploma is now? Don't most students in Japan already learn more by
12th grade than most college graduates in the US? Don't we still need
people for scut work? Not everyone can be an engineer or a
programmer. Perhaps someday when all routine and boring work is done
by robots, but that's still a long way away.
Is it really any more constructive to tell blacks that every one of
them can be a doctor or an engineer than it was to tell them that
every one of them can be a pro basketball player or a jazz musician?
Of course this is not a problem for me, because I don't tell things to
races, only to individuals. And I ignore the individual's race. Any
individual of any race CAN be a doctor or an engineer, but
realistically this is only if that individual want to badly enough and
is willing to work harder and study longer than most of his
classmates. It really isn't all that difficult for any individual (if
only because so many of his classmates are so lazy) unless he is lead
to believe he must somehow uplift his whole race, not just himself
personally. This is not only difficult, it is impossible. It is the
source of broken dreams and unearned guilt.
The best way to help the poor is to not be poor.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < stine@ICST-SE>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 11:04:57 edt
From: stine@ICST-SE (Shaun Stine)
Being a Washington D.C. area resident, I can't avoid hearing even
minute details about the investigation on the Iran-Contra stuff. You
know, old Ollie and Adm. Poindexter won't testify because they _know_
they'd be in serious trouble if they did. It appears the only way
we'll ever find out what happened is if we grant immunity to them.
That little fact got me to thinking: is that _really_ our only
recourse? It seems to me that we have at least 1 other option - we
could somehow turn this investigation into a criminal proceeding, and
make them testify to keep themselves _out_ of jail. Or, better yet,
since this is being run by Congress (or can be run by them again
easily), just nail them with a contempt of Congress charge and let
them sit in a cell for a while.
Now, before somebody accuses me of being a law-and-order cowboy, let
me tell you, I'm not looking for a police state either - Ed Meese is
not my favorite guy. But I do know my ideas may just happen to fly in
the face of the Bill of Rights. Ok. Fine. My next question is - So
what? Let's not be so naive as to assume that this would be the first
time that _that's_ happened. You know as well as I do that if it were
you or me on that stand (assuming that a 21 year old college student
is a resonably average Joe), we would get slapped with a fine or a
contempt charge. So it seems the only way to divert millions of
dollars illegally is to be a marine Colonel on the President's staff!
Once again, the big stakes players are above the law. Tell me my
suggestions aren't justice in action - well, look at the current
situation and tell me _that's_ fair.
Admittedly, maybe my young, impressionable self thinks that the
world should be perfect, and I'm just spouting off becausemy idealism
has been shattered. But, I doubt it. I'm a cynic. It just seems to
me that something could and should be done here - if for no other
reason, than to get this situation out of the way (that is without
just sweeping it under the carpet).
Anyway, that's my opinion. If someone could appraise me on the
legal aspects of what I suggest - could it be done - let me know - I'd
appreciate it. Thanks.
--Shaun D. Stine
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu>
From: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu (Kirk Augustin)
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 23 Apr 87 23:53:52 GMT
Although you are correct when you said that the USSR book
incorrectly stated that they defeated Japan, you do not seem to
acknowlege that the USSR did defeat Germany almost single handedly.
The general ignorance of US citizens is appalling and although we
criticise the lack of freedom of information in the USSR, I find that
their knowledge of history to be much more accurate than ours. If the
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so necessary, then why
not a longer time span between them, a military target instead of a
totally civilian population center, or any kind of attempt to make
them fully aware of the consequences. These bombs had nothing to do
with ending a war or saving lives, there were an experiment in
destruction just as the firestorm in Dresden was. It is not difficult
to find thousands of similar incidents so I won't go on, but imagen
for a moment how the citizens of the USSR feel. They never received
any sympathy before the revolution, then when freedom is attained the
entire world suddenly turns on their government and wants to destroy
it. No sane person could condem communism for anything other than
being to idealistic to actually implement, but that is exactly what
most US poliiticians have done. With the irrational way the world
treated the USSR it is not hard to understand why they reacted harshly
to internal factionalism. Their very survival was at stake. What is
our excuse? The last real threat to us happened in 1812. And why is
it that US school books don't mention that the USSR lost 13 million
soldiers and 17 million civilians in WWII? We are hardly in a
position to point fingers.
[ I'd argue that bombing Hiroshima was not 'experimental' - we knew
exactly what it would do, we'd tested one at Los Alamos. Dresden
wasn't experimental either - British experiences at Hamburg, Duisburg
and several other cities had showed the effects of firestorms; in fact
by Dresden the technique was fairly well defined. Dresden was
*intended* to be firestormed.
I'm not sure I would equate 'overthrowing the czar' with 'attaining
freedom'. Russian histories of the Great Patriotic Wars include the
Finnish war, but completely misrepresent the causes (which were
essentially Stalin's paranoia about the German-Finnish alliance) and
indeed the course of that war; also they leave out the absorption of
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think the difference between Western
and Soviet histories of the war is that an interested party can find
out more accurate history (than is taught in high-school) simply by
going to a public library in the West.
As to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that's a long one, and (well,
some of) it goes back to USAAF strategy of attacking cities rather
than industrial targets since Japanese industry was scattered and
small (and so impossible to destroy or even damage significantly), and
that the people who had to be convinced were the Japanese civilian
leaders, not the military. As it was, it took a personal appeal from
the Emperor to get the 'war faction' of the cabinet to go along with
the surrender. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 3 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 54
Today's Topics:
Economic Competence &
Social Visions &
Equal education (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 25 Apr 87 09:18:24-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Handicapped and economic competence
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
But I disagree with his placing "the handicapped" together with
children as a group of people who would be unable to enter into
certain economic contracts.
I was referring to the mentally incompetent. Please excuse the
sloppiness.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 17:52:03 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
To: liberty,kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Quote regarding morals and social visions.
"At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human
nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history. To
human nature (of the sort conceived), in a universe (of the
kind imagined), after a history (so understood), the rules
of the code apply."
-Walter Lippman, _Public_Opinion_
(New York: "The Free Press", 1965)
From:
_A_Conflict_of_Visions:_Ideological_Origins_of_Political_Struggles_
by Thomas Sowell
(bill)
Great, very readable book! Lots of references!
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 27 Apr 87 12:20:53-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
MWM and I also believe that there is no reason to treat a black
person differently even if there WAS a racial difference.
Sorry I must have missed it. I couldn't recall MWM (or myself) saying
anything explicit about this one way or the other.
I am not sure whether WLIM believes this.
I don't believe in treating anybody differently just because there
exist a racial difference. (For example I strongly believe that all
immigrants, i.e. people of whatever race who come here on their own
free will, are not entitled to any special privileges.) But that
doesn't mean that "criminals" (of whatever race) shouldn't be punished
and "victims" (of whatever race) be compensated.
One way would be to extend mandatory bussing to homes as well as
schools. Force parents to exchange their children. This might do
it, if anyone would put up with it. I hope you all find this as
unacceptable a solution as I do.
Agreed. Bussing or children swapping (why suggest such a ludicrious
thing) has nothing to do with it.
What really is so terrible about students not doing equally well?
You missed the point. The point is not that we want students to do
equally well but rather that students are not prevented from doing
well through discriminatory actions.
I think there IS something terrible if a student really tries to
learn but is forbidden from learning, or from entering his chosen
profession.
Agreed. But many years ago, members of some groups were prevented
from getting an education. Now we wonder why they are not doing well
in learning.
But I don't think that a person who chooses to ignore the world of
learning has any right to be somehow force-fed knowledge.
Agreed. Also, it is impossible to force feed knowledge. You can
always day dream through life.
What is the view of utopia here? Every student making the same
score on every exam? Is that realistic? Exams COULD be written
to greatly narrow the range of scores, but I doubt that would be
very constructive.
Agreed. Just make sure that students who don't do well did so because
they didn't work hard enough and not because their parents were
unjustly denied economic and educational opportunities through the
discriminatory acts of the others and hence couldn't provide the
minimum amount of parental support/coaching for their education.
Or is the idea to have as much variance as now, but to have it
distributed evenly among the races and/or social classes?
No. In utopia, the variance will reflect differences in individual
effort rather than the effects of past discriminatory actions.
Also please note that if we keep the same average score, for every
extra point made by a formerly deprived student, a point must be
lost by a formerly advantaged student. Why would that be a net
gain?
In an evolving society, the average score should be going up, assuming
of course that the score is an acurate measure. The point is not to
artificially change the score but rather to help the victim of past
discriminatory acts catch up through things like remedial classes
(i.e. these victims must do more and not less work).
Don't most students in Japan already learn more by 12th grade than
most college graduates in the US?
That doesn't mean that college education is bad but rather our school
system is sick. As the high school standard rises, so should the
college standard.
Don't we still need people for scut work? Not everyone can be an
engineer or a programmer. Perhaps someday when all routine and
boring work is done by robots, but that's still a long way away.
Exacly what is scut work changes as society evolves. For example you
might need to know more to do the scut work because of modern
technology.
Perhaps someday when all routine and boring work is done by
robots, but that's still a long way away.
It might be an even longer way away if we don't start fixing our
school system. Historically we have moved to more and more knowledge
intensive economic systems. Perhaps you see us peaking.
Of course this is not a problem for me, because I don't tell
things to races, only to individuals.
Don't forget that you are treated as an individual by the world (at
least in the US). It is very different if you are prejudged as
inferior, stupid, lazy, have an attitude problem, tend to blame the
world, always give excuses for not working hard, must have problems
since you can't get yourself out of your predicament, etc. Perhaps
you can't imagine what it is like not to be treated as an individual.
Well just imagine what's it like when you constantly have to meet
minimum standards of intelligent human behavior set by others. E.g.
they question your intelligence everytime you say or do something and
it is always not as good as somebody else, never mind if there is some
of them who perform worse that you. You'll be surprised that were you
to live under these conditions, you'll behave very much like one of
them (the so called non-individuals). (There were some real life
simulations done in the class environment to show the effect of
discrimination e.g. splitting the class into brown and blue eyes and
having one group "dump" on the other group.)
It really isn't all that difficult for any individual (if only
because so many of his classmates are so lazy) unless he is lead
to believe he must somehow uplift his whole race, not just himself
personally. This is not only difficult, it is impossible. It is
the source of broken dreams and unearned guilt.
It's not impossible, many groups (e.g. the Afrikaners) have done it
using very tricky means (which I disagree with) e.g. elect the right
politicians (or get into power somehow) and once in power hire as much
of your group as possible into the government. That will instantly
move them into a higher income group. Their children will do better
and you get the "group uplifting" process started. After a few
generations that group not only catch up with the others, they become
the "superior/dominant" one. At one time the Afrikaners were thought
of as lazy, drunks, good-for-nothing, prone to crime, now (about 50
years later) you hear of Afrikaner intelletuals, Afrikaner
businessmen/industrialists, Afrikaner politicians, Afrikaner liberals,
Afrikaner conservatives, the great Afrikaner military machine, etc. I
wouldn't be surprised if some people have attributed many of the
things (past and present) purely to genes.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 22:03:15 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Agreed. But many years ago, members of some groups were prevented
> from getting an education. Now we wonder why they are not doing
> well in learning.
But the people not doigng well in learning are not the people who were
forcibly prevented from getting an education, but their grandchildren
or great grandchildren.
> Agreed. Just make sure that students who don't do well did so
> because they didn't work hard enough and not because their parents
> were unjustly denied economic and educational opportunities through
> the discriminatory acts of the others and hence couldn't provide
> the minimum amount of parental support/coaching for their education.
One of the main points of my message was (implicitly) that lack of
coaching from parents is a fairly minor issue. A student can make it
on his own. The fact that so many don't has more to do with attitude,
i.e. belief that hard work and studying is uncool or irrelevant. This
attitude tends to be correlated with one's parents accomplishments for
obvious reasons. The important thing is that there is nothing
inevitable about it. A determined student can do well, even if his
parents don't even know how to read or add.
> No. In utopia, the variance will reflect differences in individual
> effort rather than the effects of past discriminatory actions.
But these would probably remain correlated for a long time, for the
reasons I mentioned.
> In an evolving society, the average score should be going up,
> assuming of course that the score is an acurate measure. The point
> is not to artificially change the score but rather to help the
> victim of past discriminatory acts catch up through things like
> remedial classes (i.e. these victims must do more and not less
> work).
Who pays for these classes? If the taxes are distributed evenly, but
the classes are reserved for black students, that is hardy fair to
white parents. If the taxes are levied only on blacks, then the tax
rate is higher for blacks. That hardly seems fair either. If the
remedial classes are equally available for white and black students
then the racial disparity will perpetuate itself. And if it is set up
as I would suggest - the parents pay directly if they want an
education for their child, since there are no taxes - the imbalance
would tend to perpetuate itself, which you presumably find
unacceptable.
The only consistent and moral solution is to recognize that each
student must take responsibility for his own education. If he fails
to do so when he is a kid, he can do so later - it is never too late
to learn. This means that this racial disparity will last a while
longer. This is unfortunate, but is it really any more unfortunate
than the same disparity spread evenly across the races? What I mean
is, it would be tragic if 20% of the students, all of them black, were
to flunk, but it would be equally tragic if 20% of the students evenly
distributed among the races were to flunk.
> That doesn't mean that college education is bad but rather our
> school system is sick. As the high school standard rises, so
> should the college standard.
My point was that it is unrealistic to say that everyone should go to
college, and is terribly counterproductive to tell people that they
are worthless losers if they did NOT go to college (speaking as one
who did not go to college - Radio ad, speaking of college: "A mind is
a terrible thing to waste" - Me: "Speak for yourself, bozo").
> Don't forget that you are treated as an individual by the world (at
> least in the US).
It is indeed a frightening thought that had I been born elsewhere or
elsewhen, I might have been brainwashed out of the idea of being an
individual, like in Ayn Rand's haunting short story _Anthem_, set in a
future world in which the words "I" and "me" have been banished along
with the concepts that go with them. If you are saying this, I agree.
If you are instead saying that the whole idea of being a seperate
individual is an arbitary and perhaps not very useful social
convention, or that I somehow owe my realization that I am an
individual to the local collective (!) (the US) I strongly disagree.
> Well just imagine what's it like when you constantly have to meet
> minimum standards of intelligent human behavior set by others. E.g.
> they question your intelligence everytime you say or do something
> and it is always not as good as somebody else, never mind if there
> is some of them who perform worse that you.
I know all about it, being a high school graduate who works with
Ph.Ds.
The uplifiting of the Afrikaner "race" was done by immoral means.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 7 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 55
Today's Topics:
History Lessons (3 msgs) &
Equal education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Subject: History lessons...
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
From: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu (Kirk Augustin)
> > Although you are correct when you said that the USSR book
> > incorrectly stated that they defeated Japan, you do not seem to
> > acknowlege that the USSR did defeat Germany almost single handedly.
Yeah, once you ignore the ever-increasing drain of troops from the
eastern front to provide forces to fight on the western front, and
that most of the motorized infantry the USSR had was riding in
American-built trucks, then it's obvious that the USSR defeated
Germany single handledly.
> > If the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so necessary,
> > then why not a longer time span between them, a military target
> > instead of a totally civilian population center, or any kind of
> > attempt to make them fully aware of the consequences.
Hiroshima was a major port for the Japanese Army and a convoy assembly
point for the Japanese Navy. The local Army Headquarters were located
there, with some 25,000 troops.
Nagasaki wasn't quite so important, but was still a military target.
It should be noted that Hiroshima was a secondary target, and that
Nagasaki was the _fourth_ city on the list of targets. The primary
target was Kokura Arsenal, a major munitions plant. The third target
was Niigata, a port and industrial area.
The standard explanation for the short delay is that it was to
demonstrate that the US could produce more than 1 bomb/n years. Since
the primary purpose of the bomb was to convince the Japanese to
surrender, this makes some sense.
There was some discussion of a full warning, but the thought of
issuing a "we're going to destroy a city" warning, only to drop a dud,
was to much to bear. There was a "surrender or else" type warning
before the bomb was dropped.
While you seem to realize that the bombs were an experiment in
destruction (as their _third_ purpose), you don't seem to realize the
consequences of this. For instance, to get an accurate view of how
much damage the bomb did, it had to be dropped on a city that hadn't
suffered damage from conventional bombs. Thus, all four of the cities
on the possible targets list didn't have conventional bombs dropped on
them during the course of the war. In addition, Kyoto had originally
been on the target list, but Secretary of War Stimson objected since
the city had historic and religious significance to the Japanes. It
was therefore removed from the target list, but left on the "taboo"
list for conventional bombings. In other words, while the Manhattan
project destroyed two cities, it saved three.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: History lessons...
Date: Mon, 04 May 87 03:07:23 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
It's been about 10 years since I was serious about military history,
so I'm 10 years more recent that you :-).
In any case, I do have a grasp of how big the eastern front is. I just
disagree about how much affect it had on the Germans, and one supply
line. The Germans spent a non-trivial amount of air power in the
Battle of Britain, and started pulling troops from the eastern front
to cover the beaches well before D-Day. Admittedly, most of the troops
being pulled from the line were refitted in the process, but they were
still kept out of the eastern front line for that much longer. I agree
that the arms supplied by the US to the Soviets were neglible. What
wasn't neglible was the troop transport trucks supplied through
Archangel. Since the people who wrote the text I use are British, I'd
expect them to be reasonably unbiased in the matter, and they claim
that the US trucks were vital in keeping the infantry support near the
front. You might also notice that the Western Allies were using a
particularly incompetent strategy (broad front), thus making life easy
on the Germans. What's really mind-numbing about this is that the
Western Allies were following a "Germany First" strategy, and running
what amounted to a holding action in the Pacific.
This did indeed start as a US vs. USSR discussion. And you're quite
right - the US looks pretty bad. But not worse than the USSR; just
farther-reaching. The Soviets weren't trying to play "global defender"
or some such idiocy all around the world; they were enmeshed in
battles on their borders. Spending rubles on an ability to project a
force across an ocean seems silly when under those conditions.
Odd, but the Spanish-American and the Mexican wars bring the Russion
wars of the last few decades to mind. Wonder why?
In any case, the US goverment has managed to avoid "purging" its
citizens of unwanted elements. Well, so long as you consider the
Amerinds as non-citizens.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 02:35:54 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu, mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU
Subject: Re: History lessons...
It has been almost 20 years since I was an avid historian of recent
military conflicts so I should be more careful with some of my
statements, but although you seem to have more knowlege on the pacific
front, you still miss the full impact of the western european front
completely. The amount of war materials that we got to the russians
was almost 0. The 100 or so tanks that we landed in siberia were
obsolete and the few ships that slipped past the subs in europe still
were hardly important later on. However they did help the russian get
time to move their production facilities safely behind the urals. To
give you an idea of the scale of the eastern front, imagine a battle
where there were as many as 3 thousand tanks on a side. On the
western front the largest battle had only around 2 hundred. Of course
there were factors that made this more probable such as air cover,
terrain, etc, but the western front was always just a holding action
for the Germans. Only for the battle of the buldge did they divert
any of their real armor to the west. Less than 100 Pkw 7's and 6's
were enough to totally rout everything we had. The only tanks we
normally fought were Pkw III's and IV's with only a 75 l 30 cannon.
On the eastern front the 88 l 70 was the standard cannon. The m3's,
priests, and stuarts we sent the russians were worthless against the
the latter German tanks. I used to collected all the photographic
works that I could on WWII for the miniatures that I would make, this
means that I had a true picture of how many and what kind of truck and
tanks the russians had. And believe me, they had so much more than we
did that there is no way we even could have supplied them. What they
did want from us was planes and that request was denied.
But I believe this all started with a comparison of the US and
USSR. We say the USSR is dangerous, but they have never sent troops
far from their borders. They are only now building an attack aircraft
carrier like the ones we have. They do not send fleets around the
world that are capable of invasion. They even removed missles from
Cuba when we asked them. But do we remove our missles from Turkey,
Greece, Germany, or England? How many counties have we invaded. For
what reasons did we fight any of our wars? If you go back far enough
to remove emotions, things like the Spanish American war, Mexican war,
etc, we look pretty bad. Eisenhower said to 'beware of the industrial
military complex' in his farewell address, and that is our real enemy
regardless of the country.
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 28 Apr 87 00:12:08-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
But the people not doigng well in learning are not the people who
were forcibly prevented from getting an education, but their
grandchildren or great grandchildren.
I do believe that parents have a very important role to play in the
education of a child. You can't expect illiterate parents to coach
their kids on how to take the SAT exams or what courses to take in
high school or what science projects to do. They are going to have a
hard time competing against children whose parents are MIT graduates
(say) and have the experience of having done it before. Kids learn
from the attitudes and work habits of their parents (who learn them
from their grandparents, etc.)
One of the main points of my message was (implicitly) that lack of
coaching from parents is a fairly minor issue.
That is one of the major points of disagreement. I do believe that
such coaching is important. I also believe that once the parents are
compensated for past discriminatory acts, their children are not
entitled to any further compensation. They will have to make it on
their own.
A student can make it on his own. The fact that so many don't has
more to do with attitude, i.e. belief that hard work and studying
is uncool or irrelevant. This attitude tends to be correlated
with one's parents accomplishments for obvious reasons. The
important thing is that there is nothing inevitable about it. A
determined student can do well, even if his parents don't even
know how to read or add.
Well one student may but statistically I would expect very few
students to make it on their own without any coaching or similar
support from their parents. Also those who are so determined to make
it on their own (e.g. immigrants) believe in the system i.e. that if
they try hard enough they will make it in the system. That is very
different from someone who thinks that the system is against him/her
and no matter how hard he/she tries the system is going to prejudge
him/her as never going to be as good as the others. Without parental
support, it's even harder to believe in the system.
Who pays for these classes?
Ideally those who did the discriminatory acts. But that's impossible
now. Given the strong self-interest in keeping the protectionist
features of the system by the "beneficiaries", I would think that
volunteer efforts would be the most realistic way i.e. the "criminals"
are never made to pay for their "crimes."
If the taxes are levied only on blacks, then the tax rate is higher
for blacks. That hardly seems fair either.
(As an aside, a black community in the LA area recently voted for a
tax hike for themselves to pay for more police protection.) I would
think that they would pay for it if they believe in it. Now we have
the "victims" paying to correct for the "crime."
The only consistent and moral solution is to recognize that each
student must take responsibility for his own education.
That only works if each and every student believe that your solution
can deliver i.e. he/she will make it if he/she tries hard enough.
Also moral in what sense? Shouldn't the "criminals" be punished and
the "victims" compensated?
My point was that it is unrealistic to say that everyone should go
to college, and is terribly counterproductive to tell people that
they are worthless losers if they did NOT go to college (speaking
as one who did not go to college - Radio ad, speaking of college:
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" - Me: "Speak for yourself,
bozo").
I believe very strongly that a college education is important. I
would try persuading you (very nicely and with no coercion at all) to
go to college based on my belief. I can also see the case where an
insecure person who has gone through college, discouraging you (and
others) from going to college or getting an education just so as to
reduce the competition.
If you are instead saying that the whole idea of being a seperate
individual is an arbitary and perhaps not very useful social
convention, or that I somehow owe my realization that I am an
individual to the local collective (!) (the US) I strongly
disagree.
I was talking about being treated as an individual e.g. being
considered by others as a trading partner.
I know all about it, being a high school graduate who works with
Ph.Ds.
Those Ph.D.s must be very insecure people. Let me assure that not all
Ph.D.s are like that. The situation would be even more exasperating
to you if you were a Ph.D. and they still think that you are not up to
par because of say the color of your eyes. I think I am beginning to
understand some your of feelings (resentment?) towards education
especially post-secondary education.
The uplifiting of the Afrikaner "race" was done by immoral means.
We agree on that. Nevertheless the Afrikaner tribe has been uplifted.
Now they can go champion the libertarian or objectivist cause. They
can now propose that as the moral and correct way to solve all
problems (i.e. ignore their immoral deeds). When you don't punish a
"criminal" you are going to encourage others to become criminals since
they have everything (in this case the gain is irreversible) to gain
and very little to lose in committing the "crime."
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 7 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 56
Today's Topics:
Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 01:55:58 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Reply to REM - Part I of II
> From: Robert Elton Maas < REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> > From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> Ok. Is your desired end that both the USA and the USSR completely
> get rid of taxes at the same time and have the kind of system you
> envision, or that just the USA does that?
Well, I would prefer that everyone get rid of taxation and other forms
of oppression at once, right now. Realistically, not all countries
are going to do so at the same time.
> If the latter, you need a very large defense program and I can't see
> how you are going to fund it without "stealing from the people" in
> the form of taxation. (By present standards we really need only a
> fraction of our current "defense" budget, but by standards of what
> you can fund without taxes it would nevertheless be huge.)
Government can get considerable revenues without involuntary taxes.
Not nearly as great as now, but more than enough for domestic defense.
> > Suppose me and a few friends had a great idea, and we decide to rob
> > you to get money for our project. How are you going to stop us?
> Call 911, funded by tax money. Under your system of non-funding, I'd
> be robbed with no way to defend myself.
What if my gang RAN 911, e.g. we WERE the government?
> > If you were to stop my gang, would you be trying to control it?
> Yes. I would be trying to limit its action, which is one part of the
> definition of "control".
In this sense of the word "control", everyone controls everything.
Wouldn't everyone attempt to fight back or at least run away if you
tried to kill them? Does this mean they are trying to "control" you?
This is not what I mean by the word.
> > You would only be saying YOU choose not to contribute to our cause.
> When your gang robs me, I am not CONTRIBUTING, you are TAKING.
> Refusing to voluntarily contribute, and stopping you from FORCIBLY
> TAKING are two different matters.
Of course. So?
> The government has the right, by majority vote after first
> establishing the Constitution by concensus, to FORCIBLY TAKE
> whatever taxes have been voted into effect.
I have never conceded them any such "right". And the Constitution was
not established by majority vote anyway.
> Your gang does not have the right to make up on its own what it
> wants and to then unilaterially FORCIBLY TAKE it from me.
Why not? Here are some possible reasons, and what's wrong with them:
1) Because it is wrong to steal? This is my reason. Apparently that
is not your reason, since you concede that another gang has the
"right" to steal from you.
2) Because it is against the law? Who makes the laws? What if my
gang had its own set of laws and its own constitution which
declared the government to be the outlaws, and our gang to have the
right to tax you?
3) Because the government is supported my the majority and my gang
is not? Where does it say that the majority rules? In the
constitution? But I said my gang has a different constitution.
4) The majority is always right anyway, you say? Regardless of the
constitution(s)? Well, does that mean that the Nazis were right
to kill the Jews if the majority of Germans approved? Please do
not reiterate why killing Jews is bad. I know it is bad. I want
to know if the majority rules or not. If so, why make an exception
for the Nazis? If not, who does, and why? And what majority are
we speaking of? The world? The nation? (If so, who gets to
define its boundaries?) All intelligent life in the universe?
The individual?
> I have the right in any case not to check that little box on my tax
> form that voluntarily gives extra money to Presidential Election
> Fund etc.,
You didn't have this "right" a few years ago, because there was no
such box. Is this a fundamental human right? Did it somehow go
unrecognized for centuries? Or did government just make it up? If
government can legitimately make up new rights, can they also deny old
ones, such as freedom of speech, and freedom to vote?
> and I have the right not to voluntarily hand over may wallet to
> your gang,
Did you get this right from the government? From the majority? (If
so, what majority?) Or is it intrinsic?
> > Or at least that you want the CHOICE of whether to contribute or
> > not, and how much. This does not mean that you are running my
> > gang, or that you are running the world, or that you are trying
> > to do either.
> It does mean ... that I am LIMITING the actions of your gang by
> stopping them from doing what they had planned to do, I am
> CONTROLLING their actions to that extent.
Do you really see no difference between your controlling my gang to
the extent of keeping your property, and my gang controlling you to
the extent of stealing your property? If so, does this mean that we
have equal claim on the property that you created or freely traded,
and that such competing claims can legitimately be decided by
violence?
> ... let's consider your taxless society on the whole. What would we
> lose and what would we gain? (But first, what is your proposed
> source of funding?? ...
I have told you several times, including in the message you are
replying to here! ANY source of government funding is legitimate so
long as it is non-coercive.
> If you have no funding, it's just
> anarchy. If you have something even more evil than taxation, then
> it's probably worse overall than the present situation.)
True.
> Right. I can't understand your source of funding to replace taxation
> until you tell me.
See above. Also see below.
> The ideas you told me last month were each either evil themselves
> (gambling)
I do not agree that lotteries are evil.
> or unworkable (donations)
I do not agree that donations are unworkable.
> or non-renewable (sell off land; when the USA has no land remaining
> we don't even have a creek to be up).
I'm well aware that selling land is a temporary measure. I never
listed it as a major funding source, though it is one in the short
term. The US government owns about a billion acres, and shouldn't.
> I'm waiting for your to propose something definite, then I can
> rebut it.
I have done so at least five times. See below.
> > The same is true of taxation in this country. Unless creating
> > wealth is doing something wrong. And if it is, a person accused of
> > it deserves a trial before a jury of his peers before being
> > convicted of the crime of creating wealth and being fined for it.
> Taxation (forfeit of money) isn't the same as deathcamps (forfeit
> of life).
So? You miss my point. You seem to believe that the majority rules.
If you do, you must believe that the deathcamps were ok, since Hitler
was freely elected. You do not believe that deathcamps were ok.
Apparently you find the Jews' right to life to be inalienable despite
the majority believing otherwise at that time and place. Is this so?
What are some other inalienable rights?
> Forfeiture of money can be either punishment or rent. In the case of
> your apartment or income tax, it's rent. ...
Income tax is not rent. It is only rent if I agree to pay it, which
I will do only if I agree that the goods or services I get are worth
what I am paying.
> But forfeiture of life can be only punishment (or just persecution),
> never rent, because the price is just too high, if you pay your
> life as rent you are dead and can't enjoy whatever you paid for.
What if you enjoyed the benefits first, and then paid with your life?
Is that legitimate? What if you are required to pay your life, not to
benefit yourself, but to benefit others? For instance suppose you had
a rare blood type, and by draining all your blood ten people could be
saved? If government's purpose is to ensure the greatest good for the
greatest number, aren't they justified in killing you? If not, why
not?
> (However, it's remotely possible that forfeiture of life of one
> member of a family could be used to pay for happiness and well-being
> of the rest, such as person selling body to medical research to pay
> for much-needed bone marrow transplant of other family member.
But is such a sacrifice ever not your choice? Can government
legitimately mandate that you donate your body to the Greater Good?
> But in the Nazi deathcamps whole families were killed, even whole
> cities, so the case is clear, it was definitely NOT rent.) Thus
> your example of Nazi deathcamps isn't relevant to the question of
> taxation and there's no point in further discussing it.
It IS relevant to our discussion of where government's legitimate
powers end. So far, Nazi death camps are the only thing you have
conceded is not legitimate. Now I am trying to find out just why you
find them to not be legitimate. Clearly not for the same reasons I
do, or you would also oppose taxation and laws against gambling and
other victimless crimes. Judging from your message, you would NOT
oppose death camps if they only killed ONE member of each family!?
Please clarify.
> Re rent: we use US currency for our transactions, it's only
> reasonable we pay rent to the agency that prints the currency
I am quite willing to stop using US currency. In fact for most things
I don't. I get paid for my work by being given a piece of paper
printed by a bank. I take it to another bank and a different piece of
paper, printed by that bank. Most major expenses I pay with other
pieces of paper printed by banks. Government has nothing to do with
it.
I would prefer to use a gold based currency. Unfortunately, the
government has mandated that I must accept government currency.
Nobody in the US is free to use an alternative currency.
> and regulates the supply carefully to prevent wide price swings in
> food and other essentials.
They don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. US currency has
lost over half its value in the past decade, and has lost over 90% of
its value since 1960. Simply basing the currency on gold, silver,
wheat, real estate, or anything more tangible than the "good faith" of
government would make it a lot more stable. Coins made of plutonium
or radium would be more stable!
Even if they had done a good job of it, I never agreed to contract for
any such service.
> The US also protects us from enemies, making a safe land for us to
> live in,
True. This is a legitimate government function. Making Europe and
Nicaragua and South Vietnam "safe" is not. Keeping me safe from
thieves and killers is a legitimate government function. Keeping me
"safe" from drug pushers, gamblers, dirty bookstores, tax evaders, and
draft dodgers, is not. The legitimate functions of government can be
afforded without a tax.
> and also works to clean up the environment and make safe roads etc.,
Those are not a legitimate functions of the government. The owners
of each road, and each piece of the environment, should be doing so
themselves, if they want it done.
> and we should pay rent to or landlord Congress for use of all these
> facilities.
Even if we agree not to use them?
> So taxation is really just rent. Maybe the rent is too high, but
> it's not right to refuse to pay rent at all while still enjoying
> the benefits of living in this fine protected land.
Suppose I refuse only to pay social security tax, and agree never to
use social security? Suppose I refuse to pay that portion of income
tax that goes to maintain a military presense overseas, and agree
never to ask for US military protection while overseas?
> > > ... This still leaves open the question of
> > > whether people who work more than others, or people who are
> > > fortunate to find employers who pay them more for the same work,
> > > are more deserving of food and other essentials of life than
> > > others
> > Of course they aren't.
> Then why do you permit those fortunate people to use their fortune
> to buy more food than others who are less fortunate?
It is not up to me to permit or not permit them to use wealth they
created. Do you think it should be up to me? To you? To the
"unwashed masses"?
What if you had asked if a person who walks for four hours is more
deserving of being ten miles from his starting point that a person who
sits at home for four hours? I would answer no. Neither person is
more deserving of anything than the other, all else being equal. But
it doesn't follow from that that I am being inconsistent for
"permitting" the walker to get to his destination.
> Why don't you want a totally socialist society where everybody gets
> exactly the same amount of food,
To be produced by whom? And why would anyone bother producing any
food, knowing that it will be taken from them if they do, and knowing
that it will be supplied to them if they don't?
> nobody is more fortunate than another, ...
Nobody is fortunate at all, to live in such a society. Except the
tyrants who run everything. They will be almost as well off as the
average American. There is no equality in a socialist society. There
is the tyrant class and the slave class. A greater inequality cannot
be found.
> (Personally I think it's too hard to decide whether a person has a
> good job because of skill or because of luck,
Too hard for what? Why does it matter to you how he got his job?
> therefore at best one can assume some of it was skill and some
> of it was luck.
Probably true. I don't know how one would determine how much of each.
And what about determination and initiative? Aren't those at least as
important as skill? Can't one improve one's skills if one has enough
initiative, i.e. if one spends more time studying and practicing than
partying and watching TV?
> Accordingly, the person with the good job should be able to keep
> some of the money, and should turn some of it over to the common
> pool, basically the portion due to skill he should keep, and the
> portion due to luck he should put in the pool.
Why? And by what right? And how does one determine the ratio between
luck and skill, anyway? Couldn't one argue that being lucky is itself
a skill? Or couldn't one argue that it was sheer luck that one was
born with skills, or rather that one was born (or conceived) with the
initiative to gain those skills, or with whatever it took to gain that
initiative, or something like that?
What makes a person more deserving of keeping wealth he produced
because of his skill than of keeping wealth he produced because of
luck, anyway?
I think the problem is that you are still thinking in terms of people
being "rewarded" by "society". This is not the case. People simply
do what they want and nobody has any right to interfere with them. If
someone does interfere with them, that is where government comes in -
its sole purpose is to prevent such interference.
Most people will choose to do something enjoyable and productive, so
that they can exchange the results of their effort for things they
find of value that other people have produced. Is someone chooses not
to trade with others, that is fine. If someone chooses not to produce
anything, that is fine too. But that does not somehow give them any
"right" to seize things produced by others, on the grounds of "need",
on the grounds of "you were just lucky to produce that", or on any
other grounds.
> This has to be done on an average basis, rather than an individual
> basis, because there's no way to decide in an individual case how
> much was skill and how much was luck, ...
What makes you think there is any way to measure the ratio between
skill and luck collectively, either? And if one could, wouldn't that
be unfair (by your own standards) to those who were less lucky and
more skilled than the average?
If this is how "society" is to distribute "rewards", why not
distribute punishments similarly? Why have you not become a bank
robber? If it is 10% due to sheer chance (you didn't happen to fall
in with the wrong crowd, etc), does that mean that you should serve
10% of a 50 year sentence for bank robbery?
> > I don't plan to reward people for "being fortunate".
> They already are rewarded. The question is whether they are allowed
> to KEEP that reward, or must give some of it back. If you let them
> KEEP all of it, it's the same in effect as if you allocated the
> reward to them in the first place.
You seem to imagine a centralized Department of Rewards. If someone
chooses to walk for four hours, the DoR now allocates him ten (10)
miles. If someone chooses to grow two bushels of wheat, the DoR
allocates him two (2) bushels of wheat. If someone chooses to write a
song, the DoR will issue him one (1) song. If someone plants flowers
the DoR will wait a few days and then issue him some buds, and will
later remove them and replace them with flowers. In the absense of
this DoR, no effort would yeild anything. This is all I can figure
out that you are trying to say.
This is magical thinking. This is not the way the world works.
> > I have nothing against someone who chooses not to work "in the
> > conventional sense" or otherwise. I don't plan to deny him any
> > food or shelter or money or anything else. Neither do I plan to
> > GIVE him MY food, shelter, or money.
> If they don't have food nor money to buy food, they starve, and it's
> moot whether you say you denied them or not. If you set up a system
> where there is *no* welfare, and you also refuse to voluntarily feed
> that person, you have in fact killed that person ...
If this is true, aren't all Americans murderers of millions of people
overseas? Suppose one person starves in Ethiopia. Which American is
guilty of killing him? All Americans? All people who have food in
any country? Only those over 18? If sitting at home minding one's
own business can be called murder, what would you call shooting people
at random? Is that no more serious a crime?
If not saving a person's life is murder, is not giving a person money
robbery? Is not working for free for a person enslaving him? Is not
putting out a fire arson?
...Keith
[Hitler was not elected. In fact, he was *defeated* by Hindenberg in
1934, and only appointed Chancellor. Then he rubbed out all the other
parties (and a few of his own people too), under the guise of fending
off anarachy (this threat suposedly came mostly from the communists).
You may say that someone in a election where there is only one
candidate is 'elected', but I wouldn't call it free. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 7 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 57
Today's Topics:
History lessons (2 msgs) &
Equal education (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 05:30:28 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu, mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU
Subject: Re: History lessons...
I guess I am also lenient on the soviets because they had so far to
come. Feudalism was only 70 years past for them as compared to 700
for our ancestors. Stalin was a nightmare, but their social
conciousness has become civilized extremely quickly. The biggest
problem is that a corrupt military hierarchy can legitimize its
existence because of the apparent threat that we seem to be. So in
effect the reason Russia does not have more freedom is because of us.
Those in power can use us to scare the soviet people into supporting a
huge 'defense' budget. Actually I think there is a corrupt
industrial/military hierarchy in both countries and we won't have
peace or true freedom until we get rid of both. This is why I am
quick to react when I think people are inflating the russian bear
paranoia. We don't have to be invaded to lose our freedom if we have
more politicians like tailgunner Joe.
------------------------------
Return-path: < usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Re: USSR singlehandedly defeated Germany
Date: 4 May 87 20:58:32 GMT
> Although you are correct when you said that the USSR book
> incorrectly stated that they defeated Japan, you do not seem to
> acknowlege that the USSR did defeat Germany almost single handedly.
This seems to be one of the second level myths for people who
don't buy the most blatant Soviet lies. Amazing how many people
will swallow such simplistic nonsense.
Anyway, this is really a test. I had thought this group was
moderated but it looks like I can join the debate directly.
Most respectfully,
-Tom
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu
(Intelligent responses welcome. Flames to /dev/null.
They only make me angrier and aggravate my ulcer.)
[ Well, you can join the debate... - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 2 May 87 16:10:18 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> I do believe that parents have a very important role to play in the
> education of a child. You can't expect illiterate parents to coach
> their kids on how to take the SAT exams or ...
True, but it does not follow from this that either:
1) A child with little support from home cannot succeed regardless of
his efforts.
2) You and I must be forced, at gunpoint if need be, to pay for the
child's education.
> > A determined student can do well, even if his parents don't even
> > know how to read or add.
> Well one student may but statistically I would expect ...
So? Statistics are useful for determining one's chances in surgery or
in an airplane, but they are completely useless and misguided when it
comes to "predicting" one's free will. I am not a slave because I am
free to leave my job. If you produce statistics showing that 95% or
however many people do NOT leave their jobs in a given year, that is
not meaningful, because it has nothing to do with whether I can leave
my job. If yoy produce statistics showing that 95% of students with
illiterate parents flunk high school, that is not meaningful because
a student who is determined not to flunk can succeed.
What is evil is compulsion, not statistical tendencies. If the
student is automatically flunked, or (more likely) is automatically
rerouted to the slow track because of factors beyond his control, then
your argument would make more sense. If every single one of the
students were to flunk, I would strongly suspect that there was some
compulsion or bias involved and that it was not possible not to flunk.
But if an investigation then shows that there really is no compulsion
or bias, then I see nothing wrong with the system. (By bias I mean
students from a poor home have points deducted - I do not think it is
meaningful to say that a multiple choice test, fairly graded, can have
any intrinsic bias.)
> Also those who are so determined to make it on their own (e.g.
> immigrants) believe in the system ... That is very
> different from someone who thinks that the system is against him/her
> and no matter how hard he/she tries the system is going to prejudge
> him/her as never going to be as good as the others. Without
> parental support, it's even harder to believe in the system.
You are saying the system must not only BE fair but must be THOUGHT
fair? How can the latter be accomlished? The obvious way is to
silence the black leaders, etc, who keep insisting that success is
impossible without major new government programs. I do believe that
these leaders are doing immense harm, especially to students with
little self confidence. But nobody has any right to silence them, not
that I think you are really advocating that.
It is not so much faith in the system as it is faith in oneself. Even
if the system did have considerable bias built in, which it does not,
success would still be quite possible for any individual who tries
hard enough.
> > Who pays for these classes?
> Ideally those who did the discriminatory acts. But that's
> impossible now. Given the strong self-interest in keeping the
> protectionist features of the system by the "beneficiaries", I
> would think that volunteer efforts would be the most realistic
> way ...
Sounds good to me. So who is stopping you?
> > The only consistent and moral solution is to recognize that each
> > student must take responsibility for his own education.
> That only works if each and every student believe that your solution
> can deliver i.e. he/she will make it if he/she tries hard enough.
You are still thinking collectively. You should say that only works
for any student who believes in himself. If a student chooses not to
believe in himself I don't see how anyone can help him until he
changes his mind.
> Also moral in what sense? Shouldn't the "criminals" be punished and
> the "victims" compensated?
If you are speaking of blacks, the only crime was slavery, and none of
the victims and none of the criminals are alive today, so nobody can
be punished or compensated. If you are speaking of poor people, I
don't know what crime you mean.
> I believe very strongly that a college education is important.
It is important but not essential - a mind is not necessarily "wasted"
in one who didn't go. Doesn't this conflict with your collectivism?
College IS important for an individual, but would be fairly worthless
and pointless, at least as job training, if everyone went.
> I would try persuading you (very nicely and with no coercion at all)
> to go to college based on my belief.
What has kept me out of college is not the belief that it is not
important, but money, time, and transportation. I may go someday when
all three of these are resolved, unless I am over 70 by then in which
case I may not bother. It helps if one has rich parents (so they can
pay) or poor parents (so the taxpayer is forced to pay). I don't
believe that my life, or anyone's life, is ruined by the lack of
college. If I did - if I honetly felt that my life would not be worth
living without that degree - I would find some way to go. At this
point I could probably afford to live without a job for several years
in Mexico, and commute accross the border to a community college.
> I think I am beginning to understand some your of feelings
> (resentment?) towards education especially post-secondary education.
Lets not start psychoanalyzing eachother. I do not resent any
education. I DO strongly resent being compelled to subsidize my
competitors. I do resent being considered worthless because of my
lack of a degree. I do not get that much from people with Ph.D.s,
actually. More from some of the ones with Bachelor's degrees. I
asked a yuppie coworker of mine what percent of the adult US
population he though had a college degree. He said 80%! It is more
like 20%. Fewer than 80% even have a high school diploma. It is this
fantasy-land thinking that I object to.
I also object to much of what is taught in public schools and college.
People are being indoctrinated with statist ideas. As a taxpayer, I
am being compelled to pay for the teaching of false and destructive
ideas. The graduates of these schools will then turn around and raise
tax rates, forcing me and others like me to pay even more to keep this
system going. This is what I resent. Please do not say that I resent
"education". In fact education is the main thing that most
objectivists and libertarians feel is most needed at this time.
> > The uplifiting of the Afrikaner "race" was done by immoral means.
> We agree on that. Nevertheless the Afrikaner tribe has been
> uplifted. Now they can go champion the libertarian or objectivist
> cause. ...
I wish they would. Doing so would of course mean getting rid of
apartheid, since equal rights for all people is central to libertarian
and objectivist principles.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 3 May 87 00:19:09-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
The obvious way is to silence the black leaders, etc, who keep
insisting that success is impossible without major new government
programs. I do believe that these leaders are doing immense harm,
especially to students with little self confidence.
Are you saying that all black leaders are like that? Are there no
black leaders who advocate self-help, hardwork and individual effort?
Even if all black leaders are like what you said, I would expect
blacks, being individuals, to be able to decide for themselves what is
good for them. Hence there is only immense harm if you think of
blacks as incapable of deciding things for themselves and will always
do what the black leaders say. Why? There are white leaders who
advocate similar things, yet you don't think of them as doing immense
harm or that whites will be so easily duped by what they say.
If you are speaking of blacks, the only crime was slavery, and
none of the victims and none of the criminals are alive today,...
I presume you forgot about segregation in the South not too long ago.
The criminals and victims are still around.
If I did - if I hone[s]tly felt that my life would not be worth
living without that degree - I would find some way to go.
I sincerely hope that when you do find out, it will not be too late.
People are being indoctrinated with statist ideas.
Hmm, are these people individuals or weaklings? Can't they decide
between good and bad ideas? Your model of the individual is rather
confusing. At one moment he/she is capable of making up his/her own
mind, at another he/she is easily duped by the "system."
In fact education is the main thing that most objectivists and
libertarians feel is most needed at this time.
If the people you were talking about are weaklings wouldn't you be
worried that they can be easily "indoctrinated" by the "education"
that objectivists/libertarians have in mind? If they are individuals
capable of thinking like you and assuming that you are right about the
need, they would have recognized the need by now and would have done
something about it. They don't need any "leaders" to tell them what
to do.
Doing so would of course mean getting rid of apartheid, since
equal rights for all people is central to libertarian and
objectivist principles.
Yeah, like a criminal, who after stealing a few million dollars and
murdering quite a few persons, would declare that the world will from
now be libertarian/objectivist and that the past should be ignored
(i.e there ain't no criminals nor victims no more). Perhaps now you
see what I mean by the system should be perceived as fair.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 9 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 58
Today's Topics:
Soviet history (2 msgs) &
Equal education (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 May 87 00:40:21 GMT
From: ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: (none)
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU (Kirk Augustin) writes:
#
# Although you are correct when you said that the USSR book
#incorrectly stated that they defeated Japan, you do not seem to
#acknowlege that the USSR did defeat Germany almost single handedly.
#The general ignorance of US citizens is appalling and although we
#criticise the lack of freedom of information in the USSR, I find that
#their knowledge of history to be much more accurate than our.
I have no doubt that THEIR version of history is accurately
minipulated to reflect the idiology of the Soviet Union, but I rather
doubt that their version has anything to do with real world history.
I understand that even Japan's version of the accounts of WW2 is
grossly distorted. Under pressure from China they have only now begun
including the act of wholesale slaughter of millions of Chinese at the
hands of imperial Japan in their history books.
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Tue, 5 May 87 03:18:21 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, kirk%uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu@RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Since there are few genetic differences between all human ethnic
groups, we can assume that Russians are very much like us. Only very
few people are warped enough to be insensitive to the pain of others.
Therefore if there is something wrong the soviet union we must
conclude that it is because of a small powerful minority. People who
desire extra privileges and have the influence to get others to
support them. Force and repression are unstable so manipulating
information and the media to make the hierarchy seem important to the
survival of all the people is the easiest way. That way the workers
at the bottom not only slave away for you but they do it with
patriotic enthusiasm. All the leaders have to do is alittle saber
rattling once in awile. And that is the real threat. Could you
imagine the US actually invading the USSR or them us. This is all
fantasy. Neither country could or would want to. This fraud and
deception is what I consider the enemy. But the similarity between
these 2 countries is much deeper than you are willing to admit. The
lies and misinformation in this country are just as bad or worse than
in the USSR. Let us use the 'sneak' attack on Pearl Harbor as an
example. Since we had secretly broken the Japanese code we knew the
attack was coming. But all we did was get the only valuable ships,
the carriers, out. They were forced to circle and refuel for a week
at sea so that they were sure to be out of the way. Not only didn't
we want them damaged, but we had to make sure that there were not
enough US planes to defeat the moderately small enemy force that we
knew were coming. This has been documented in numerous books
including one by the man who broke the code. The fact that you don't
question why we even had such a base like Pearl and the idea that you
somehow think it was good to test the bomb on people makes me wonder
if your conditioning is already too strong. These are not rational
thoughts. Using your own ideas, the bomb should not have been dropped
because if nothing else a dud would have given them the bomb. It
should have been ground tested with Japanese observers that were under
our supervision. This is what all the rational people wanted to do.
But I also read a book by the man responsible for Dresden. It was
called 'The Scientific Method' and I know that he was worse than
Stalin. He wanted to attach powerful flares and whistles to the bomb
so that it could have blinded people on a mass scale. If you don't
think our 'leaders' wanted the war, look back further in history.
There is the Lusitania, Maine, and Alamo; all of which were media
events to get us into wars which were very profitable for some people.
But you have got to get rid of the conditioning. Hitler fooled around
with some socialists to getstarted, but by 1932 he had killed them all
and was pure capitalist by his standards as well as everyone elses.
Capitalism is 'get what you can any way you can' by its own
definition. Socialism and communism simply are human addmissions that
we should also be guided by ethics as well as profits. However I will
admit that any idea of how to legislate ethics without turning into a
monstrous beaurocracy is beyond me. But all more primitive cultures
are and have always been essentially communist and democratic. If you
think that is like ants and bees then you have it wrong. When you
help the neighboring pioneer raise a barn or hunt buffalo with your
Indian tribe, that is pure communism. Private ownership of private
goods has no conflict with communism. Communism simply is where the
means of survival should be available to all. This means a place to
work and live. In capitalism you can lock a worker out until he is
willing to become a slave. Fortunately we don't have capitalism here
anymore. And Stalin and Hitler were never friendly. The mutual defense
pact was just buying time and both sides knew it. Stalin may have
been as bad as Hitler, but some of the things you said show that you
have been listening to good talkers instead of reading good books.
They can't get away with distorsions like that in print. Think for a
second and compare yourself with the patriotic soviet workers who are
furious with the political dissedents for selling out the USSR.
Somebody has got to be wrong.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 3 May 87 01:04:44 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Are you saying that all black leaders are like that?
No.
> Even if all black leaders are like what you said, I would expect
> blacks, being individuals, to be able to decide for themselves what
> is good for them.
Every person, of any race, is free to reject bogus ideas. That
doesn't mean they will do so. This is the same thing you were saying
- that if one's parents tell one that there is no chance, that the
deck is stacked against one, that one is likely to do very poorly
unless one consciously rejects this concept.
> There are white leaders who advocate similar things, ...
Hence my "etc". I know it. People saying if you are black, forget
it, if you are poor, forget it, if you are overweight, forget it.
They are all doing harm to whoever believes them.
> I presume you forgot about segregation in the South not too long
> ago. The criminals and victims are still around.
Yes, I remember using a restroom marked white's only when I was young.
What exactly am I guilty of for doing so, and what can I do to pay for
it? Mandatory segregation should be, and has been, abolished. I
don't see what more needs be done.
> If I did - if I honestly felt that my life would not be worth
> living without that degree - I would find some way to go.
> I sincerely hope that when you do find out, it will not be too late.
I don't understand. Are you saying that life is NOT worth living
without a degree? I seem to be doing ok. When is too late, anyway?
> > People are being indoctrinated with statist ideas.
> Hmm, are these people individuals or weaklings? Can't they decide
> between good and bad ideas? Your model of the individual is rather
> confusing. At one moment he/she is capable of making up his/her own
> mind, at another he/she is easily duped by the "system."
Any person is free to reject invalid ideas at any time. Many people
do. Fewer than would if they were exposed to alternative ideas. I
for one was quite confused about this during high school, about how
the teacher went on and on about the utter necessity of zoning laws
and limits to growth, as if these ideas were under attack, though
there was no sign of attack. Most people choose to not examine what
they are taught, and unthinkingly follow their leader, even if he is
Hitler or Stalin. This is what I want to change. If more people were
exposed to non-statist ideas they would be less likely to accept the
supposed necessity of sacrifice, etc, without thinking about it.
What I am saying is that a person always has the ablity to choose
good, but will not always do so. This is often not so much because he
wants to do evil but because he is just lazy and doesn't bother to
think. While people are always free to choose their beliefs, there is
little doubt that people will on the average tend to believe what is
told them for years and years when they are young, and will tend not
to believe ideas they never hear of.
> If the people you were talking about are weaklings wouldn't you be
> worried that they can be easily "indoctrinated" by the "education"
> that objectivists/libertarians have in mind?
I am not to worried about people being "indoctrinated" with the idea
that they should think for themselves, or with the idea that they
should not try to run their neighbor's lives, or collectively steal
their neighbor's wealth. There are good reasons to hold these
opinions, and a person who holds these opinions for an invalid reason
("my teacher said so") will cause no harm, any more than there is any
great harm in a student knowing the earth is round before he knows how
this was proven.
I am more worried that they will be indoctrinated idea that they must
run other people's lives for them, that they must compel people to
join social security for their own good, that they must be forced to
pay for schooling of still more students in these statist ideas, that
they have a duty to sacrifice their wealth and even their life if
their country calls, and that they have a duty to make sure that YOU
sacrifice too.
> If they are individuals capable of thinking like you and assuming
> that you are right about the need, they would have recognized the
> need by now and would have done something about it. They don't
> need any "leaders" to tell them what to do.
Truth is not always obvious. Most students in communist countries do
not conclude that communism is a big lose. Most students through all
recorded history saw nothing wrong with slavery. For a person to have
any reasonable chance of learning the truth, he must be exposed to it.
Almost anyone can understand some scientific theory, for instance, but
very few can independently derive it.
> Yeah, like a criminal, who after stealing a few million dollars and
> murdering quite a few persons, would declare that the world will
> from now be libertarian/objectivist and that the past should be
> ignored (i.e there ain't no criminals nor victims no more). Perhaps
> now you see what I mean by the system should be perceived as fair.
I see what you mean but I don't agree. I think it would be sufficient
for South Africa to abolish all racist laws. If you further insist
that members of their present administration be tried for racist
crimes, how do you expect them to ever agree to anything? Similarly,
I ask that taxes be abolished, but I have never asked to get back all
the money I have paid in taxes. It is enough that the injustice be
stopped. Do you think that every person in prison who was arrested
before they gave Miranda warnings should be set free and be
compensated for their time behind bars?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 3 May 87 09:17:25-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
This is the same thing you were saying - that if one's parents
tell one that there is no chance, that the deck is stacked
against one, that one is likely to do very poorly unless one
consciously rejects this concept.
But until a child grows up and develops the mental facilities to think
for themselves, they'll have to depend on somebody else.
Yes, I remember using a restroom marked white's only when I was
young. What exactly am I guilty of for doing so, and what can I
do to pay for it?
If it were so immoral and you were of voting age, then why didn't you
use your vote to get rid of it? If you were old enough to vote but
didn't vote for such a change then you must think that it ain't that
bad (or that it was beneficial to you) and hence must take part of the
responsibility for perpetuating it. If it were indeed beneficial to
you e.g. you got a job which otherwise would have gone to a more
qualified black, then you have robbed someone of an economic
opportunity. I would expect a person who has strong moral beliefs (or
who let the world thinks that he/she holds such beliefs) to have a
hard time living with that and that he/she would perhaps do something
about correcting it.
Most students through all recorded history saw nothing wrong with
slavery.
Many people still see nothing wrong with discrimination now. Only
time will tell if these people know what truth is.
If you further insist that members of their present administration
be tried for racist crimes, how do you expect them to ever agree
to anything?
That's because they already have the power i.e. they know they are in
a no lose situation. And they got to that position by committing an
immoral act. They thought (and some still do) they were obeying God
i.e. it is their "truth." Perhaps now you see why one person's
"truth" can another person's "lie." I would expect a reasonable
person to be wary of "truths" that benefit the preacher directly.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 3 May 87 09:43:10-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I am not to worried about people being "indoctrinated" with the
idea that they should think for themselves, or with the idea that
they should not try to run their neighbor's lives, or collectively
steal their neighbor's wealth.
Assuming, of course, those were the things that they got after the
indoctrination. Racists could very well selectively use those
"truths" to justify their acts.
For a person to have any reasonable chance of learning the truth,
he must be exposed to it.
I heard recently that someone in France "proved" that the Holocaust
didn't exist as part of his Ph.D. work. It would be very distrubing
if people who are exposed to it, think that he has the "truth" now.
It is enough that the injustice be stopped.
Wouldn't you think that your arguments would be very appealing to the
Nazis at the end of WWII? I certainly don't think it is enough to
just stop the genocide then, the guilty must be hunted down and
punished.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 10 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 59
Today's Topics:
Soviet History (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 May 87 04:45:26 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, kirk%uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu@RUTGERS.EDU
I can't really agree that the Russians are 'very much like us'.
Physically, sure, but historically they have an entirely different
context to base a national character. It would be very difficult for
a soviet-style regime to be imposed on the US - there'd be a
revolution; but on the flip side there is evidence that soviet
citizens are not in favor of true or US-style representative
democracy/capitalism, they aren't sure how to deal with it.
Your discussion of the US and USSR invading one another is
interesting, and is a distant echo of the argument of the
'internationalists' of the post-WWI era. You may argue that the same
forces applied then, to which I answer the WWII happened anyway. Its
pleasant to think of everyone as rational people, but most of the time
it doesn't work out that way.
Only very few people qare warped enough to be insensitive to
the pain of others.
... interesting. I have a counter-argument (that I don't really like,
by the way) that people are more insensitive to the pain of strangers,
people they don't have a familial/national identity with. Watch/read
"Shoah" for examples of this.
Since we had secretly broken the Japanese code we knew the
attack was coming. But all we did was get the only valuable
ships, the carriers, out. They were forced to circle and
refuel for a week at sea so that they were sure to be out of
the way.
That we had broken the 'purple code' (using the "Magic" operation,
which provided information to the US through most of the war - the
Japanese couldn't beleive that we could break their code) is beyond
question. However, before Dec. 7, access to "Magic" intelligence was
severely restricted within the services (for valid secrecy reasons),
and did not include base commanders at Pearl, or Doug McArthur in the
Phillipines. Further, armed forces protocol in pre-atomic days gave
local commanders great control over deployment of their forces.
Although pacific commanders were warned that war was possibly
imminent, they weren't told anything more about what to do (so Pearl's
land-based aircraft were parked to be guarded against sabotage, not
dispersed). A specific warning to Pearl was sent (once the Japanese
war declaration was decoded on the morning of Dec. 7 - Washington
time) , but didn't arrive until after the Japanese air-raid had
started due to a mixup in transmission (the message wasn't stamped
"urgent", so it went by commercial channels - navy beauracracy wasn't
any different then).
No one in the US expected an attack on Pearl, they expected the
blow to fall on the Phillipines (ol' Doug kinda fell down on this
one). There are some historians who consider it a bit too convenient
that both US carriers were at sea during the raid, but I consider this
drawing conclusions from hindsight, and we were just lucky. As far as
I know, there is no direct evidence for the carriers getting a sailing
orders due specifically to the impending attack. Certainly they were
no more on alert than the rest of the pacific fleet at the moment of
the attack. USS Enterprise was within air-range of Pearl (and so
within easy reach of Japanese planes had they found her) - some
Enterprise planes landed at Pearl during the attack! My rememberance
(I don't have my references to hand) is that Enterprise refueled at
Pearl the night of Dec. 7-8 and rushed back out to sea.
Not only didn't we want them damaged, but we had to make sure
that there were not enough US planes to defeat the moderately
small enemy force that we knew were coming.
... I would not call *6* fleet carriers a small force. If the US
fleet had been fully prepared and gone out to meet the Japanese fleet
at sea, as you seem to be suggesting, it would have been crushed
(start-of-war US aircraft were markedly inferior to Japanese
aircraft). Worse, all those battleships which were raised from the
relatively shallow water of Pearl to fight again would have been lost
in the deep Pacific. The land-based aircraft compliment at Pearl was
not reduced prior to the attack, in fact it was being reinforced. The
were other carriers in the USN, but they were assigned to the Atlantic
(or transferring aircraft to the phillipines), and we would have
probably lost anyway, due to faulty employment along the
battleship-battle lines.
Continuing in this vein, lets look at the phrase 'valuable ships,
the carriers'. The USN did not consider fleet carriers their main
battle weapon. Plan "Rainbow 5", the navy's war plan, involved a
"Super Jutland" off of the Phillipines, supported by the carriers, but
the battleships were thought to be the weapon of decision. We used
the carriers like we did from the start of WW II precisly because no
battleships (which were slower than the carriers and cruiser we did
use) were left! So again, I think this is a case of hindsight leading
you to incorrect conclusions.
The fact that you don't question why we even had such a base
like Pearl
Why did we have a base like Pearl? I think, again, we have to
look at the times, not using 'hindsight wisdom'. Pearl was the main
fleet base because San Diego was considered too far away to allow
rapid deployment of the fleet in time of war. Our only naval rival in
the pacific was Japan. I can't understand why you think I should
question the use of Pearl. It seems like a perfectly reasonable
decision to have been made.
you somehow think it was good to test the bomb on people
I did not say I thought it was a good idea to drop atomic weapons
on people. If I had my way, WWII would have been settled by
large-breasted women mudwrestling. I said it was an understandable
decision considering other things that were going on at the time. I
refuse to condemm my forebears without trying to understand them.
makes me wonder if your conditioning is already too strong.
... well, hm... how does one answer that? I could make the same
statement to you, it appears. Well, lets go on...
I don't buy the 'it coulda been a dud' routine for the a-bomb
(although it was the reason given by Oppenheimer and others at the
time for NOT going the 'demonstration' route). Once you understand
the principles of making atomic weapons explode, its not too hard to
make one that will be droppable (after all, they did use a parachute
on it) and pretty much guarantee it will go off. As to 'Japanese
observers', I think it might have been interesting, but consider:
We only had 3 bombs at all ready to use (2 assembled, 1
unassembled) - it would have been months before more were ready.
Let's say we successfully perform this test, and the military faction
of the cabinet refuses to beleive the technical experts. (Don't wave
it off, its entirely possible considering the mindset of the Japanese
military - initially they percieved the a-bomb as just a very
efficient firebomb.) After all, it could all be some American trick,
they could say. What do we do now? We're short one bomb to no
effect.
Consider again the estimated casualties to both sides in an
invasion of the home islands. Consider the mindset of the American
people (talk to your parents, or maybe your grandparents), and the
Japanese people of the day. Its not as easy a question as you make
out. There are no pleasant answers to be found. You may wish also to
consider the years AFTER the war if an invasion (which without a
Japanese surrender, would have been necessary) had been carried out.
Using your own ideas, the bomb should not have been dropped
because if nothing else a dud would have given them the bomb.
... well, maybe. We could always drop the second bomb on the first
one in that case. On the other hand, if it had been a dud for us, it
would have been a while before the Japanese could have done anything
with it (providing that it survived intact), and the invasion would
have gone through anyway. Again, we come back to the mindset of the
people at the time. Apparently Truman beleived his people that told
him it would go off.
If you don't think our 'leaders' wanted the war,
That Roosevelt wanted the US in the war is pretty much undeniable.
He was very afraid that the Japanese would only attack British and
Dutch posessions in the southeast pacific. He was very fortunate that
Hitler declared war on the US (which the Japanese did not reciprocate
on and declare war on the USSR - which is what Hitler hoped, he was
seven months into his invasion of Russia and running out of steam).
It was Europe that Roosevelt really wanted to get into. I do *not*
buy the argument that he 'lured' the Japanese into attacking. His
actions in trade with the Japanese were fully justified considering
the Japanese actions in China. If the Japanese had attacked only the
British and the Dutch, they would have alleviated their supply
problems. They opted for a pre-emptive strike, hoping a bloody nose
would scare off the US (the rest of the IJN was out chasing the Brits
and the Dutch and supporting landings while the Pearl Harbor operation
was going on). Their mistake, not ours.
I wonder about some of your 'facts' (the Lusitania, Maine, Alamo).
The Lusitania was a British ship, its stores of ammunition put on
by order of the Admiralty (Winston Churchill, as a matter of fact).
What caused the ballyhoo was that US citizens were killed. Back then
lives of our citizens were viewed with a bit more value than these
days - then again, we didn't have national anhilliation to worry about
like we do today. Consider also that US sympathies were
overwhelmingly with the Allies, and German submarine warfare and
inciting the of Mexicans were not exactly friendly acts. The facts
are that things were complicated, and that the US decision to enter
the war was very popular. You may wish to claim it was all hoopla,
but I disagree.
Texas was held by Texicans, not US citizens (sure there were some
americans down for the fun, but it wasn't thought unusual - and they
weren't there as US government troops). Texicans wanted to secede
from Mexico, and then later be annexed by the US. The same thing
happened in California, by the way, but the Californians had an easier
time of it. The US didn't fight the war for Texas, it fought it for
California. The feeling at the time was that the Mexico was weak, and
that if the US didn't move in, the Europeans would grab the west
coast. Considering the world political climate of the day, this isn't
so farfetched - France, England and Spain all had far-flung empires,
and even without gold (discovered after the war had begun), California
is a colonial prize. Indeed, France moved in on Mexico proper 30
years later, installing the Austrian Maximillian on the throne of
Mexico. US Government troops weren't in Texas until after the Mexican
invasion.
The Maine and the Spanish-American war: absolutely right. The
Maine probably blew up by accident (ships did that occasionally in
them days), and the imperialist-minded elites within the US wanted to
establish colonies. What is curious is that the war was so popular,
even in places where the (east-and-west-coast based) popular press
couldn't reach. The government actually got far more troops than they
knew what to do with (a lot of them wound up occupying the
Phillipines).
But I also read a book by the man responsible for Dresden. It
was called 'The Scientific Method' and I know that he was
worse than Stalin. He wanted to attach powerful flares and
whistles to the bomb so that it could have blinded people on a
mass scale.
You refer to 'the bomb' and 'it'. Dresden was bombed with
conventional firebombs (and high explosives), in several raids, by the
RAF and 8th US Air Force. Flares were used during the raid (and all
other post-1942 night raids) as markers, they could not have been used
to blind people. After all, the germans knew the bombers were coming,
Dresden is in eastern germany, the germans had radar, and its a long
trip from England. The population had plenty of warning (alas, it
didn't do them much good). Whistles were used by the Germans early in
the war (on Stukas), and were useful in divebombing, but at Dresden
not (in my opinion) as bad as the firebombs themselves. Whistles and
flares on firebombs are a waste of time, which is probably the real
reason they weren't used.
Hitler fooled around with some socialists to get
started, but by 1932 he had killed them all and was pure
capitalist by his standards as well as everyone elses.
Hitler might have called himself a socialist, but only someone who
had never listened to his speeches would have been surprised by his
actions. How many socialists espouse the 'fuhrerprinzip'? I don't
buy that Hitler was a pure capitalist, either. Hitler's politics were
a matter of pragmatism, using whatever policies suited him.
Its interesting that you consider socialism and democracy to be the
'natural state' of humanity, yet point to primitive societies as the
examples. I wonder: is progress always at the cost of the loss of
this 'naturalness'? Is progress always then a bad thing? Aren't
there primitive societies that are tyranized by their warrior classes?
And Stalin and Hitler were never friendly.
...wellll, it depends on your definition. All through the 30's,
Hitler and Stalin traded with each other exhuberantly (the last grain
train from Russia passed through the german invasion force). German
pilots helped train the Soviet air force, and themselves trained in
Russia. Can we agree that they were friendly when it suited them
both?
Stalin may have been as bad as Hitler, but...
T'ain't no 'but' to it. I don't think Stalin was worse, I think
they were both cut from the same cloth - that of the ruthless
pragmatist.
...show that you have been listening to good talkers instead
of reading good books.
Argh! A touch, I feel it! I am cut to the quick! :-) Actually, I
read books too, but I find that when I read a book I have to keep in
mind who's writing it and why. Obvious examples: Speer, Westmoreland,
Kissinger, Churchill, Mrs. George Custer (or even the indians). I
keep in mind things like: what were other (their own or other
nationality) histories saying? What was important to the person then?
What sort of society did they live in? What are the bare facts of the
events recounted, what is interpreted fact, and what facts are
omitted? What else was going on at the time?
Think for a second and compare yourself with the patriotic
soviet workers who are furious with the political dissedents
for selling out the USSR.
... certainly, and I have other sources to draw on to help me:
anti-war protestors in the West in all the wars of the 20th Century,
labor dissidents, and so on. One thing I notice: sometimes the
dissidents are right!
Charles
PS - (You'll notice I chose not to argue too much the idealized
capitalist vs. idealized socialist angle. Its not that I agree with
you, but the arguments we'd use have been used before!)
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 10 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 60
Today's Topics:
Soviet history &
Less Filling/Tastes Great (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 20:13:11 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Soviet history
To: kirk%uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu@RUTGERS.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
> From: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu (Kirk Augustin)
> ... the USSR did defeat Germany almost single handedly.
This is not very accurate. Certainly the USSR did fight against
Germany, but I think D day, the battle of the bulge, etc, counted
for something.
Nazi Germany and the USSR were allied. Hitler and Stalin signed a
pact. This is hardly remarkable seeing how the two socialist
countries stood for pretty much the same things. Nazi Germany had air
bases in the USSR - the Luftwaffe (Nazi air force) was trained there.
The USSR and Germany together smashed Poland and several other
countries. This alliance of terror only broke up when Hitler attacked
the USSR.
> The general ignorance of US citizens is appalling
I agree.
> and although we criticise the lack of freedom of information in
> the USSR, I find that their knowledge of history to be much more
> accurate than ours.
And just where did you learn history?
> If the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so necessary,
> then why not a longer time span between them,
Mostly to convince the Japanese that we had a large supply of the
things, and to shock them into action. Also, so that they would not
have time to take precautions. What if they were expecting the second
bomb, and managed to shoot down the plane it was in, capture the bomb,
and learn how it was built? Also, the USSR had declared war on Japan
on August 8 (2 days after Hiroshima) despite having signed a
non-agression pact with Japan. Clearly they wanted to get a piece of
Japan now that it was nearly defeated. That is just what they did.
They annexed part of Japan, unlike the other allies. Fortunately they
didn't get much. But Japanese in the Kuril islands and elsewhere are
STILL trying to get permission to return home.
> a military target instead of a totally civilian population center,
Hiroshima was a major naval base and manufacturing center. Nagasaki
was a major manufacturing center and rail depot. It would be nice if
war could be fought without endangering civilians, but civilians often
live near military targets, especially those who are engaged in war
industries, as most of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were.
> or any kind of attempt to make them fully aware of the
> consequences.
The Japanese had been warned several times to surrender or be
annihilated. They should have thought of that before attacking Pearl
Harbor during peacetime, and before murdering thousands of POWs and
millions of civilians. I don't think we had any responsibility to
explain to them just what we had in our armory. Suppose we had
offered to demonstrate the bomb on an uninhabited island? How could
we have guaranteed that the bomb would not be captured? How could we
be sure that they weren't on the verge of developing an atomic bomb
themselves? Or some other nasty weapon that would extend the war and
kill more innocent people? I think the best thing we could have done
was whatever it took to end the war as quickly as possible, and that
is just what we did.
> These bombs had nothing to do with ending a war or saving lives, ...
I don't know where you got your facts from. The only other way to
defeat Japan would have been to invade. This would have caused about
a million allied deaths. And many millions of Japanese deaths - far
more than were caused by the atomic bombs. Also, it IS good that the
world can see just what those bombs will do in a city, so nobody will
be tempted to use one, though that was never the reason for exploding
them.
> there were an experiment in destruction just as the firestorm
> in Dresden was.
Another unsubstantiated allegation.
> It is not difficult to find thousands of similar incidents
> so I won't go on,
Please do. IF you have any supporting evidence.
> but imagen for a moment how the citizens of the USSR feel. They
> never received any sympathy before the revolution,
Sympathy for what?
> then when freedom is attained
What freedom? Attained by whom? From whom?
> the entire world suddenly turns on their government and wants to
> destroy it.
Who did so, besides Hitler?
> No sane person could condem communism for anything other than being
> to [sic] idealistic to actually implement, ...
I can! Socialism (not communism, which has never been attained and
never can be, except by ants and bees) is not some noble ideal gone
bad, it is a horrible system of tyranny and mass murder. Socialists
have had numerous victories. The USSR, China, Cambodia, Ethiopia,
Nazi (National Socialist) Germany, and many others, all of which
resulted in countless deaths of innocent people, and all of which are
decried as not being REALLY socialism, by socialists in this country.
Somehow, OUR gang would have done better, they all insist.
In a free country, nothing prevents any group of people who believe in
socialism or communism or whatever from getting together and forming a
commune. This has been tried, and always fails. The only way
socialism can hold together is when people are compelled, at gunpoint,
to cooperate with the socialist government. This is how it is done in
the USSR and other socialist countries. This is why there is a Berlin
wall. The total failure of socialism at providing for the welfare of
its subjects is why so many of them are willing to risk near certain
death by attempting to cross the Berlin wall and other walls between
free and socialist countries, most of which are guarded with armed
guards (many of whom use the opportunity to escape, themselves) and
with land mines.
> With the irrational way the world treated the USSR it is not hard to
> understand why they reacted harshly to internal factionalism.
Nazi Germany used the same excuse. They said that the Jews had
declared war on Germany, and thus extraordinary measures needed to
be used in their time of national emergency - after all, a war was
on! Their national survivial was at stake! No time for nicities.
> Their very survival was at stake.
By a few dissidents with the temerity to publish unauthorized poetry?
Or who have the gall to ask permission to leave the country? Many of
whom are Jews? History repeats itself.
> What is our excuse? The last real threat to us happened in 1812.
It is true that no Nazi or Soviet tanks have ever travelled up our
interstates. Do you think this is because the Nazis and Soviets were
(are) peaceful people? Or do you think it is precisely because of our
defense programs, and because of our fortunately being nearly
surrounded by oceans? (Which has less military significance these
days, unfortunately.)
> And why is it that US school books don't mention that the USSR
> lost 13 million soldiers and 17 million civilians in WWII?
Perhaps because these are highly suspect numbers. It is generally
believed that those numbers were exaggerated in an attept to hide the
number of people brutally slaughtered in Stalin's death camps and
deliberately starved in his hellish campaign against the Kulaks in the
Ukraine and elsewhere.
Also, don't forget that the war started in 1939 for the USSR. This
was when Nazi Germany was the USSR's ally in the fight against Poland,
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, and Romania. It wasn't until
1941 that the Soviet Union switched sides, after Hitler's surprise
attack. Even then, they remained allied with Japan until August 1945.
I strongly doubt THIS is mentioned in Soviet schools.
At least you are more consistent than the other people on this list
who espouse collectivism without noticing that socialism is the only
consistent collectivistic system. Collectivism says we have the
rights we do simply because government, representing the majority,
chose to give us those rights, and is free to deny them at any time.
That is, people are property of the state or collective, rather than
the state being the servant of the people.
The essential difference between collectivism and individualism is
that individualism starts with the individual and says his rights are
intrinsic and inalienable. That any government or person which
violates those rights is criminal, regardless of what the laws say or
of what the majority say. Collectivism starts with a group of people
and imagines that they have collective rights, and that they can
legitimately kill or enslave individual members of the collective.
Socialism is a political system based on collectivism.
There is a political system based on individualism. It is called
capitalism. It's meaning and its history have been systematically
misrepresented. Not just in socialist countries but even in the
United States. The US has never been a totally capitalist country -
contradictions were built in from the beginning. And we seem to be
drifting further away now, to the great detriment of individual
liberty, the economy, and historical accuracy in the classroom. For
information on capitalism read Ayn Rand's book _Capitalism: The
Unknown Ideal_.
Or perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Perhaps you are not sympathetic
to the Soviet goals, but simply find it intolerable to think that we
are sharing the planet with such a brutal regime. I sometimes feel
the same way. It is natural to think that most everyone is decent and
reasonable. Unfortunately they aren't always.
This same attitude helped to fuel World War II. Few people would
believe that the Nazis really intended to invade all those countries.
Few people would believe that they were really murdering millions of
innocent civilians in concentration camps. People said lets
compromise and lets give them some concessions and surely that's just
groundless Jewish propaganda and surely they mean well and lets try to
see it from their viewpoint for a change. Even the people being sent
to the concentration camps usually didn't revolt, figuring that if
only they are sure to always obey the Nazis they would be safe.
Interestingly, few people have difficulty believing these things about
the Nazis now. Perhaps it is because they are gone - just dusty
history. Surely it could never happen again. Surely people are much
more civilized today. Sigh.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 3 May 87 18:23:43 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> But until a child grows up and develops the mental facilities to
> think for themselves, they'll have to depend on somebody else.
True, though this often happens at an earlier age than you may think.
It is never too late - one can reject one's previous ideas at age 20
(or age 90) - but I agree it is much better not to waste a person's
childhood. This is why things should be set up so that students are
exposed mostly to correct ideas.
> > Yes, I remember using a restroom marked white's only when I was
> > young. What exactly am I guilty of for doing so, and what can I
> > do to pay for it?
> If it were so immoral and you were of voting age, ...
I was not of voting age. It didn't seem immoral to me at that time.
> > Most students through all recorded history saw nothing wrong with
> > slavery.
> Many people still see nothing wrong with discrimination now.
Are you speaking of private discrimination or government mandated
discrimination. The latter IS evil. The former is stupid, but is
perfectly legal, or should be.
> > If you further insist that members of [South Africa's] present
> > administration be tried for racist crimes, how do you expect them
> > to ever agree to anything?
> That's because they already have the power i.e. they know they are
> in a no lose situation.
How do we get out of that situation? I think they know they are
losing now. What is needed is a way they can start sharing power
without being lynched, and without South Africa turning socialist.
Telling them to surrender to the hangman is not going to accomplish
anything. Telling them that they are as evil and irredeemable as
Hitler is going to do nothing except make them stop listening to you.
> And they got to that position by committing an
> immoral act. They thought (and some still do) they were obeying God
> i.e. it is their "truth." Perhaps now you see why one person's
> "truth" can another person's "lie."
I am not speaking of "truth" but of truth. I do not agree that truth
is relative. If it is, how can you condemn them, or anyone?
> I would expect a reasonable
> person to be wary of "truths" that benefit the preacher directly.
That is precisely what being reasonable means. Weighing purported
truth against reality and against a process of reason rather than
against what seems most comfortable or against what is said most
authoritatively.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 3 May 87 21:22:53-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
It didn't seem immoral to me at that time.
Sigh, well better late than never.
Are you speaking of private discrimination or government mandated
discrimination. The latter IS evil. The former is stupid, but is
perfectly legal, or should be.
Only time will tell if it will be perceived as evil as slavery or
murder.
... and without South Africa turning socialist.
The Russian would say something similar, except that "socialist" get
replaced by "capitalist." Let the South Africans decide for
themselves what system of government they want.
Telling them that they are as evil and irredeemable as Hitler is
going to do nothing except make them stop listening to you.
They might not listen to you at all.
I do not agree that truth is relative. If it is, how can you
condemn them, or anyone?
Isn't that the problem i.e. deciding whose "truth" is the truth?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 3 May 87 18:53:59 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Ideas, Justice
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > For a person to have any reasonable chance of learning the truth,
> > he must be exposed to it.
> I heard recently that someone in France "proved" that the Holocaust
> didn't exist as part of his Ph.D. work.
What are you saying? That it is also necessary that a person NOT be
exposed to false ideas? How would you propose this be done? I
understand it is illegal to publicaly claim in Canada that the
Holocaust is false. Do you consider this a reasonable law?
There is as much evidence for the Holocaust as for anything else in
history. But that doesn't mean people don't have the right to make
idiotic claims. I am more shocked that someone would be given a Ph.D.
for making such a claim. How did he explain the disappearance of all
the Jews? What college was that that issued him the Ph.D., anyway?
(-: New Kennedy assasination theory - the whole thing was an elaborate
hoax. He wasn't killed. In fact there never was a John F. Kennedy.
Or a state of Texas. :-)
> It would be very distrubing if people who are
> exposed to it, think that he has the "truth" now.
Any such person has NOT been educated. If he has been, he would know
to apply critical thinking rather than saying "gee - it's in print, it
MUST be true!" or "it was endorsed by the University of
TrueFactualKnowledge, it MUST be true!". I agree that small children
shouldn't be deliberately exposed to such ideas (though I don't think
it is a distaster if one is, lest one suggest that it be banned on the
chance that it might fall into the hands of a small child - I am just
saying it has no place in an elementary school, same as flat-earth
society propaganda).
> > It is enough that the injustice be stopped.
> Wouldn't you think that your arguments would be very appealing to
> the Nazis at the end of WWII? I certainly don't think it is enough
> to just stop the genocide then, the guilty must be hunted down and
> punished.
Well, there is an enormous difference between Hitler and Botha. There
is a difference between mass murder and unfair discrimation. Some
crimes are so reprehensible that nothing will do but to put away the
perpetrators permanently. Others need only be stopped. I believe
that taxation should be stopped, for instance, but I do not believe
that all tax collectors should then be hanged. Lets be reasonable.
To compare every instance of jaywalking to Hitler is to insult the
memory of all the victims of the Nazis.
Alternatively, one could make the pragmatic argument that we have to
get there from where we are. If we can reach a compromise with South
Africa, or more importantly with the Soviet Union, getting them to
agree to respect individual rights, that would be a big win. We
should not be out for blood. In fact if we had been able to make a
deal with the Nazis that they stop the Holocaust in return for
amnesty, I think that would have been reasonable. Since we obtained
total surrender, it is moot. But what about the USSR, SA, etc? Is
the only possibility total war? Millions of Americans dead just so we
can run in with guns blazing and straighten the bastards out? This is
NOT a rational foreign policy, however emotionally satisfying it might
be. And I hope you don't for a minute think we will get any foreign
leaders to step down and turn themselves in for "crimes against
humanity" just because we tell them to, WITHOUT a major war!
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 3 May 87 22:58:47-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ideas, Justice
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
To compare every instance of jaywalking to Hitler is to insult the
memory of all the victims of the Nazis.
Yes such a comparison would be extremely insensitive. Just as in the
case when comparing jaywalking or taxation with discrimination.
Arguments similar to those used for trivializing discrimination can
also be used for trivializing fraud, which we agreed is a crime.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 10 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 61
Today's Topics:
Taxation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 01:46:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Reply to REM - Part II of II
To: rem%imsss@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
> If a person's success in making money is mostly based on willingness
> to work, not on luck, explain how so many good hardworking people
> couldn't find paying jobs during the Great Depression, ...
The great depression was caused by massive government interference
with the economy. Even in the worst part of the depression, 70% of
the people were employed. Do you think it was entirely luck that
determined who was in the 70%?
> I submit that during poor economic times, many hardworking people
> find themselves in unfortunate circumstances, ...
True. And it is true that it is partly just bad luck. It doesn't
follow from this that the luck would be better, or the world
wealthier, if government ran the economy. Also note that most people
cannot coast through bad times on their savings thanks mostly to
inflation, another misguided government policy.
> > No. In a free society, such as I advocate, individuals are free to
> > practice capitalism, socialism, or anything else they like.
> (1) What if your parents formed a commune before you were born, then
> while living in that commune you decided you wanted to be
> capitalistic instead? Would the fellow commune members have the
> right to ask you to leave their property if you wanted to break
> their communal rules?
Yes, if the commune owned or was leasing the land.
> (2) What if your parents were born in or miagrated to a great nation
> which has a constitution which specifies how laws are to be passed,
> and has a great body of laws, including taxation and welfare. You
> are born into this great nation and decide you don't want to abide
> by those laws, you want to never ever pay taxes because you consider
> taxes evil. Would your fellow country men have the right to ask you
> to leave their great nation if you wanted to avoid their laws?
No.
> I say the two are analagous.
No. The land the commune is on is presumably owned or leased by the
commune leadership. The land of a country is not owned by its
government.
> The totally free place you want is the world, not the USA. Each
> nation (commune) is free to make its own rules, ...
What if the rules say we enslave blacks? Are the blacks nonetheless
"free", since the nation "freely" collectively willed that they be
slaves? It is individuals, not countries or communes, that have
rights. Communes do not have any right to come into existance or to
persist, rather, individuals have the right to form a commune if they
want to, and to leave it if they want to. Similarly with countries.
> You're free to pick some other nation if you don't like the way this
> one is run, ...
True. You then agree that a person has the right to leave a country
regardless of the will of the majority? What other inalienable rights
does every individual have?
> Most people have no sense of fair play, yet don't understand what
> the alternative is (namely, the "rule of the jungle").
This is an excellent description of how you seem to want to run
things. No fair play. Rule of the jungle, i.e. wealth belongs to
whoever steals it.
> Some people believe everything was created by God and hence
> everything is already owned by God. When you take a natural
> resources or use a plant or animal, you are stealing from God. He
> allows this, providing you pay 10% back to him (tithe). If it's
> wrong to steal from fellow men, isn't it even more wrong to steal
> from God?
People are free to believe this. I would argue against them but would
not try to punish them for having wrong beliefs.
> If you can't use natural resources (because that would be stealing
> from God), how are you going to run your capitalist society?
A person who believes this form of theism cannot consistently support
capitalism. This is not a problem unless people with this belief run
the country. While people have the right to believe what they choose,
they have no right to impose these beliefs on the rest of us.
Not that I have heard of anyone who does believe this. The Bible
clearly favors use of natural resources. So does every other major
religious book I have heard of.
> > The fact that nobody is intelligent enough, etc, is an excellent
> > reason why there IS known to be a best policy, and that policy is
> > to let people run their own lives.
> Maybe you're wrong. Maybe a controlled society is actually better
> than letting everybody make their own mistakes.
Better in what way? Certainly not freer, by definition.
You should have said that maybe YOU are wrong, since you are the one
who said that nobody is intelligent enough. Of course I do agree with
you that nobody is smarter than everyone else put together. So what
are you saying here? That there is a chance that someone really is
smarter than everyone else put together? That because of this chance
we should turn over control of the economy to someone at random,
hoping that that person is your imagined supergenius? Also hoping
that this supergenius is not only smarter and more knowledgable than
everyone else put together, but more interested in each person's self
interest than that person? Apparently he is to be given all power
except that people must be allowed to leave the country (presumably to
other countries run the same way) and no more than one person from
each family can be killed? Please clarify.
It's not clear just who can turn power over to this person, anyhow.
Each individual can do so for his own self, but what if one individual
refused?
> If nobody knows what is best, how do you know??
I know (assume) that nobody is both smarter than everyone else put
together and more interested in each person's self interest than that
person. (I suppose God might be, if He exists, but He does not seem
to be willing to directly rule at this time.)
Do I really have to explain how I know this? Or how I know that
people should be allowed to run their own lives until this superman
shows up? (I would maintain - AFTER he shows up, too.)
> It might seem that freedom to experiment is a good idea, but we
> don't know for sure. Nobody is smart enough to figure that out for
> sure.
You don't know for sure that freedom will work, so you say why not try
draconian government controls instead. Do you really know FOR CERTAIN
that the Nazis were wrong? If not, why not turn the world over to
them or to their heirs? Do you really know FOR SURE that blacks
should not be enslaved? If not, why not start a plantation, etc?
In the absense of certainty, we just have to muddle along as best we
can. I would maintain that only with an overwhelming preponderance of
evidence that liberty won't work should we consider any alternative.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points in the exact
opposite direction. Every socialist country is in terrible shape.
People chose to give up some freedom in return for some food. Instead
they get NO freedom and much LESS food. Thousands starved in
Ethiopia. Millions starved in the USSR. Millions brutally murdered
in the USSR, in Cambodia, and in National Socialist Germany.
Socialist revolutionaries in each remaining free country deny that any
of these nightmares are what THEY mean by socialism. But if and when
they take over, the nightmare repeats. See Orwell's _1984_.
*IF* there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that liberty
leads to starvation and mass murder and that tyranny leads to peace
and prosperity, then I would strongly consider personally joining a
commune. But even then I would not for a moment consider compelling
OTHER people to do the same. Why do you? Why, on such nonexistant
evidence? Why do you hate liberty so much?
Perhaps nobody is smart enough to figure out which will work. But we
don't need to be. All we need is the wits to look about us and see
which system works.
> A concensus is more likely to be a stable (tame) situation than a
> lot of waring factions are likely to be.
Where do you find this consensus? And why can't it be a consensus for
liberty, rather than for tyranny?
> A stable (tame) situation is more likely to be computable than a
> wild chaotic situation which has warring factions changing the world
> drastically every few days.
Neither one is literally computable until a program can be written
which correctly simulates the workings of millions of free minds.
Last I heard, nobody knew how to simulate even one.
I have heard it claimed that the best situation is the one which
yields the greatest good for the greatest number. And I have heard it
claimed that the best situation is whatever the majority happens to
favor. (I disagree with both.) But this is the first time I have
heard it claimed that the best situation is whatever is most easily
computable. Wouldn't that situation be the one in which we are all
dead? Perhaps you should reconsider.
> (Witness the upset that happened in 1974 when just one cartell
> decided to drastically change the price on just one commodity.
If domestic energy companies were not so highly taxed and regulated,
it never would have happened.
> Imagine this happening on a daily basis in hundreds of commodities.)
It does. Look at gold prices, or the futures market.
> I don't think a chaotic situation can be optimal.
Why not? The price is simply whatever most people value the commodity
at. How could it be otherwise, except by punishing people for the
"crime" of trading it at an unapproved price?
> [A lottery] increases the amount of wealth that is supplied because
> of luck instead of skill.
So? What's wrong with that? Especially if the revenues from the
lottery are used to finance government programs that you approve of.
> Didn't you say people were fortunate because they worked hard to
> get that way?
No.
I do not value skill. Or hard work. Or good luck. I value actual
goods and services such as food and shelter. These are what I am
willing to pay for. I am not willing to pay for a chance at a
lottery. This doesn't mean I find it immoral or feel that I should
punish people who choose otherwise.
> Lotteries undermine that, making a bunch of people rich just because
> the quantum mechanics in the lottery device happened to randomly
> select their numbers, even though they may be slovenly bums who are
> unwilling to do anything productive.
What do you have against slovenly bums? Do you feel it is immoral for
them to get money? This seems to contradict other things you have
said, such as that it is immoral NOT to give them money!
> That was just to get started. You now claim not one of your sources
> can supply 10%?? ...
I made no such claim.
> You haven't yet proposed even one method of funding that is both
> moral and feasible.
I have proposed several methods, some of which (lottery, fines, stamps
and coins meant mainly for collectors) are already being used. All of
them are both moral and feasible. Earlier you said that not only is
gambling immoral, so is stamp collecting?! You can call every source
of money other than plain robbery immoral, but that doesn't make it
so.
> > What would be left? The major revenue sources would be fines,
> What is your estimated per capita average from fines?
Depends on the crime rate. If the crime rate is high, government
needs plenty of revenues to run the justice system, and gets them from
fines. If the crime rate is low, government neither needs nor gets a
lot of money from fines.
Lets say 1/4 of the population get a speeding ticket each year, and
the fine for that is $100. That is 5 billion dollars per year
assuming 200 million drivers.
Lets say that 10,000 murders are committed each year (currently 20,000
are) and that the fine for each is 20 years salary, to be deducted
from all future paychecks. With an average salary of $30,000, that is
6 billion dollars per year. If there are one million burglaries each
year (currently there are five million), and half of them are solved,
and the fine for each one is 5 years salary, that is 75 billion
dollars per year.
> > an enforcement "tax" on all contracts (it would be legal not to pay
> > it, but the contract would not be enforcable in court without it),
> Ditto from contract-protection insurance.
Lets say 100 million people work, and half of them take out such
insurance on their salary, which averages $30,000. If the insurance
costs 5%, that comes to 150 billion dollars a year. Lets say half of
them rent an apartment for $600 a month, and two thirds of those
insure the rent contract. That is another 13 billion dollars a year.
Suppose 10,000 corporations each insure ten one million dollar
contracts each year, and 1000 corporations each ensure ten ten million
dollar contracts each year. That is another 10 billion dollars.
> > the estates of everyone who dies without relatives or a will,
> Infinitesimal, not worth debating, like bake sales.
Lets say that each person saves $4000 a year, less than he now pays in
social security taxes alone. If he does this for 40 years, at just 5%
interest, he will have 483,000 when he retires (inflation is zero,
since we are assuming a gold standard). If he lives 20 more years,
spending $26,000 a year as he did before, his estate will be $422,000,
not even counting the value of his house, car, and household goods.
If two million people die each year, two thirds of them have close
living relatives, and two thirds of those remaining have a will, the
government will get over 93 billion dollars each year. This doesn't
count the value of houses, cars, etc, or the people who explicitly
will their estate to the government. I wouldn't call 93 billion
dollars trivial.
> > lotteries,
> Immoral, rejected.
Suppose one tenth of the people play, and each of them bets an average
of one dollar a day. That is another 4 billion dollars, if government
keeps half and returns half to the jackpots.
> > and voluntary contributions (telethons rake in millions every
> > year).
> ... a few millions isn't enough to support a national government.
It isn't just a few millions. Single day telethons have raised more
than 30 million dollars. More than a quarter BILLION dollars was
donated for the Statue of Liberty restoration. If someone is willing
to donate that much for a symbol of liberty, don't you think they
would be willing to donate that much for liberty itself?
Stamp and coin collecting: If one tenth of the population collects an
average of one dollar's worth per month, that is another quarter
billion dollars per year.
Bail: If 100,000 people are arrested each year, and half of them are
released on bail, if the average bail is $10,000 and one tenth of them
skip town, that's 50 million dollars a year. If half of those who do
NOT skip town are ultimately convicted after an average delay of half
a year, and if the government keeps all interest on bail if the person
is convicted (currently they keep it whether he is convicted or not)
that's another 10 million dollars, assuming just 5 percent interest.
Bake sales: :-) If a third the people attend two a year, and buy an
average of $20 worth of baked goods, that is 3 billion dollars a year.
From just these, I can see getting 360 billion dollars a year. That
is more than the WHOLE defense budget. These numbers are off the top
of my head, and may be way too low or way too high, though I have
tried to make very conservative estimates. Also note that these are
not all possible ways of funding a government - any method is
perfectly legitimate so long as it is not coercive. I think that 360
billion a year is far more than enough to pay for domestic military
defense, police (for NON-victimless crimes only), and courts (ditto).
> ... If only the people who pay are protected, it is indeed a mob
> racket, but if everyone must pay whether they agree or not, then we
> avoid the "protection racket" syndrome.
I couldn't disagree more. In the one case, if you choose not to pay
the fire department, if your house catches fire they will not put it
out, and you will lose your house. In the other case, if you choose
not to pay the fire department, you will lose your house whether it
happens to catch fire or not. The former is a legitimate service.
The latter is a racket. The latter is no better than a mobster who
destroys your property if you refuse to pay him to "protect" it.
> > If you want to clean litter from freeways, or to pay people to do
> > so, go right ahead. But leave me out of it.
> ... I hope someday you are seriously injured by a piece of litter
> your car runs over which snags the left front tire causing your
> car to go out of control because your government didn't have the
> litter cleaned up.
Well thanks a lot! And if I chose not to pay for fire protection, I
suppose you would hope that somebody would torch my home, preferably
with me in it. Your true colors are showing.
> How do you propose funding roads that are used for short trips (90%
> of trips are short), like to the store or to school?
There are plenty of ways to do this. Smart cards which are
automatically read as you enter and leave the road, perhaps. Or the
local roads might have been built by the developer of the neighborhood
your house is in to enhance the value of the property (which would be
nearly zilch if there were no access). Or the road might be built by
a billboard company to be paid for entirely by companies renting
billboard space adjacent to the road, analogous to how commercial
radio and TV now operate. Or the roads might be built by a consortium
of car manufacturers, to boost car ownership. Or by oil companies to
boost gasoline consumption. Or you might pay a fixed monthly fee to
use a road, and spot checks are done with roadside cameras to catch
non- paying users. Anything is legitimate except forcing people to
pay who do not want to use the road.
It is likely that mass transit is more cost effective than networks of
roads filled with privately owned cars. I think most people would
prefer not to spend money on a car if they can get where they want to
when they want to, without one. I prefer modes of transit in which
one can read, and which do not kill 40,000 people each year.
> Do you propose that there be tollbooths every one or two blocks
> along every street?
That is legitimate, but probably not very practical for short roads.
Please, THINK before answering. Try to understand what I am
proposing.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 11 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 62
Today's Topics:
Pollution and regulation &
Crimes (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 18:45:20 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU>
To: testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA
Cc: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu,liberty
Subject: Re: Pollution & regulation (220 lines)
> ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA> " Writes:
> Then why not fix the EPA? Fire the inept managers, and hire
> better ones. Or fix the EPA's structure. Just wishing the EPA
> away certainly cannot reduce pollution any more than wishing away
> the pollution itself will.
I'm sorry I'm not being clear, but I didn't say anything about wishing
away the EPA. It is not the implementation of the EPA that's the
problem - it's the concept of a political organization making edicts
about the "environment" that is the problem.
The idea that some surrogate decision makers can do a better job of
deciding what are and aren't acceptables levels of pollution, than the
the people directly involved, is flawed in my constrained, man-is
an-imperfect-creature view.
> > It is my contention that there is no such thing as a "solution"
> > to any problem, given peoples individual nature. The best we can
> > hope to achieve is a "trade-off" of goods and bads (or goods).
> I never said that there was a perfect "solution" to *eliminate* the
> problem of pollution, just an way to greatly contain its frequency.
^^^^^^^
I never said that you said there was a perfect solution. I'm saying
is that markets are the most efficient way to quantify fuzzy thinking
conepts like "a lot", "greatly" and "mostly" that people use. Words
like these sound great and real altruistic, but someone is going to
have to put some real numbers to them. Someone is going to have to say
to an individual driver, factory manager or homeowner (for sewage
hookup) "wait a minute buddy, you're polluting... you're going to be
fined, or go to jail." (and do not pass go, do not... :-)
I for one, would like to be able to know what my constraints are. I
want to be able to figure out what I can and can't afford to do,
especially if I'm investing in something like a house, or a factory,
or a car. If I have to purchase (from the "victims" the "right" to
generate pollution then I can figure that cost into my cost of
production or of driving vs walking, or the kind of waste disposal my
house (septic tank, sewer hookup, on site reprocessing plant).
I perfer to setup a freedom preserving, institutional framework - a
market. I prefer to let people decide what they are best capable of
deciding, what they want to do about their own lives. I prefer, as
much as possible, to limit the ability of people to force other people
to go along with what they consider the right way of doing things.
I honeymooned in Cancun last year. Don't waltz down there and try to
tell the people you are not going to allow them to build resort hotels
on the on the beach, because all those tourists and the support people
generate waste and pollution. They are a poor country - the 120,000
jobs the tourist industry in that part of Mexico created, are far more
needed there than the 10 miles of "unspoiled" beach.
I'm not claiming markets are perfect, I'm just saying they are the
most efficient yet devised way to distribute the costs of human
activities to those who gain the benifits. The whole "problem" of
pollution is not because of a market! I it because there is NO MARKET
- actions are taken by fiat.
> Given your logic: "given peoples' nature, there is no such thing
> as a 'solution' to the problem of murder." Well, if laws reduce
> the chances that i will be murdered by 90%, i think that is a
> good start.
^^^^^
Correct:
You set up an instititution: "The Law". (in this case, aginst murder).
When it occurs, you punish the perpetrators. In the U.S., we have a
system in place that trys to prevent accidential or incorrect use of
this power.
"8000 Americans/yr. are killed with guns, lets ban guns, that'll solve
the problem!" - no it won't.
"2000 Americans/yr are killed with knives, lets ban metal knives and
forks and only allow people to own plastic ones (metal spoons are O.K.
you can't really call a spoon a deadly weapon :-), that'll solve the
problem!" -no it won't.
You think the crime rate is too high??
Well, lets install a more totalitatian system like the right wing
kooks in this country want to, to wit: if you're even suspected of
commiting a crime, you'll be punished. (valid system, I don't like the
side effects).
Still too high for you?? How about all friends and family of a
criminals or suspected criminals will be exhiled or even executed!
Peer pressure not to commit a crime or even look like you were
commiting a crime would be very high. (USSR?) I bet you the crime rate
would really drop!!!. Sorry though, I think lots of other activities
would really drop also.
I'm not saying you advocate (what I consider stupid) positions. I'm
trying to say that the crime is "murder" not owning a butcher knife, a
gun or looking like a sleezeball walking through a high class
neighorhood. The point is, are you going to look at the outcomes, and
say "too high" "lets keep trying to fix it", or are you going to set
up a process that allocates the benifits and the responsibilties, the
goods and the bads, of social living in the most individual and
voluntary way possible.
> > Pollution is usually a "bad".
> ^^^^^^^
> Can you give an example of when it is a "good"? Just one will do.
In Los Angeles, a company wants to build a trash to energy plant. They
think that the garbage I put out on Sunday night is wonderful stuff.
I don't, that's why I'm throwing it away. There are fertilizer plants
that convert cow/pig/chicken dung into a usefull thing.
> > Pollution is usually the by product of a "good"
> > (production/consumption of something).
> Maybe, but i'll agree just for the sake of the discussion.
Next time you're driving somewhere think about the exhaust of you car
- you're benifiting from a "good" and inflicting a "bad" on everyone
else. Maybe you're on a bus, or in an electric train, the electricity
had to come from somewhere). And I bet you're gettnig off scott free
from having to pay the people for the dammage/inconvienence your
activities are causing. I think we all shoud bear the cost of our
decisions.
> > Whatever you consider it, it is a natural by product of human
> > endevors. How do we eliminate it? We can't.
> With this attitude, no wonder you want to do away with environmental
> regulation.
I'm not anti-regulation. I'm anti regulation-by-some-oligarchy. I'm
saying that that system is not nearly as good and responsive to
peoples conflicting needs as regulation by market. Markets respond to
needs of individuals, oligarchies respond the the power of a few
special intersts.
> Most human endeavors can be performed in a number of
> ways; normally they are done in the cheapest way possible. This
> would be particularly true in your desired free market. But since
> pollution control is frequently expensive, or processes which cause
> less pollution are more expensive than processes which produce much
> pollution, your free market would *encourage* polluting the
> environment in the interest of maximizing profits!
Why are you not understanding me? The whole point is that a market
could be set up for pollution. If a someone want's to build an
electric power plant, they will have to go into the marketplace and
purchase pollution credits from the people in the area. People that
decided to move into the area after the plant was build, knew what
they were getting into, and won't have anything to sell but they could
buy some from others and then have some to sell. This would raise the
cost of their product, and ENCOURAGE them to figure out a way to
pollute less!! The way it works now, all they have to to is go before
some government board, wave their hands, present a few approiate
experts cry jobs, future, and low and behold! A new power plant next
door.
In Los Angeles area, we have 9 Oil/Gas fired and 1 Nuclear power plant
in a costal plain 80 miles long and about 20 miles wide. The SCAQMD
(South Coast Air Quality Management District) has finally instituted a
quasi-market method of allocating air pollution. They're on the right
track, but a true market would work much better. When Chevron Oil
wanted to build a new oil refinery, SCAQMD said, "Ok, fine - all you
have to do is remove from other sources in the area 10% more pollution
than your plant will put into the air. Rather than spend $400million
on stack scrubbers, Chevron spent $60million on cleaning up the
emmisions of 26 local casting and forging foundrys.
Chevron brings 400 jobs to the area, greedily cuts it's construction
costs 30%, cleans up the air 10%, provides a nearer source of oil for
Southen California Edison and L.A. Department of Water and Power
staving off an increase in electricity rates.
The alternative, BAN the plant - it pollutes too much. No jobs, higher
electricity costs, DIRTIER AIR!. Force the foundries to "clean up" on
their own: Cleaner air, loss of 3000+ jobs (more street people),
higher costs for the Southern California Aerospace industry, you know
the place where they makes Lockheed L-1011s and the like...
In a pollution market a group of people (say 1/10 of L.A. - 1,000,000)
that really wants very clean air, could go into the market and buy up
lots of pollution credits - drive their price up transfer money to
those that wouldn't mind as much pollution and who's standard of
living might otherwise drop as their factory is forced to close
because it can't afford to purchase the pollution credits.
This market purchase would also discourage new entries into the area
or drive up the cost of goods produced at polluting plants. Maybe the
plants would close, maybe they would clean up, maybe they would raise
prices to cover - it doesn't matter, the system is decentraized,
autonomous, flexible, liberty preserving and most efficient in
allocating the goods and bads.
> And with no one watching, they could get away
> with it!
There sure would be someone watching: The people that own the lake,
the stream or the air credits will shure as h--l be watching, unless
they really don't care that much about enforcing a contract they have
with the local "polluter" that wants to use the area's resources.
Enforcement of contract is much more vigourous by interestred patries,
than by some third party who has other concerns about what it want's
and how it is to stay in power.
> If the "correct" people (whoever that might be???) are making
> decisions, a well-constructed constitution will be of no hinderance
> at all -- their decisions will be the same whether or not the
> constitution is in place.
That is not true! The point of a constitution is to constrain an
organization. To specify what is and isn't allowed, SPECIFICALLY - NO
ARGUING. If you somehow elect/appoint some benolvent dictator or
junta or comittee that really knows what is best for "the people" then
some written "Right to Free Speech" is a hinderance, because there are
cases where free speech can injure someone. This surrogate decision
maker should be able to do the best for all concerned by banning that
instance of speech.
The U.S. Constitution usually won't allow something like that. It was
written because the founders of this country thought that man is not
capable of being given arbitrary power to "do what is best" because
they beileved man was not capable of knowing what is best. That man
can fall prey to greed, hate, ignorance, and 100s of other frailties.
Read the Constitution, the Fereralist Papers, Hamilton, Madision and
Jefferson's memoirs and letters. These were not men that thought man
could be trusted with absolute power, not because men were "evil" but
because men could be and frequently were wrong about things - unable
to forsee the eventual outcome of their actions, especially when these
actions related to something they were not an expert in, like other
people's affairs.
(bill)
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 00:33:41 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Crimes
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > To compare every instance of jaywalking to Hitler is to insult the
> > memory of all the victims of the Nazis.
> Yes such a comparison would be extremely insensitive. Just as in
> the case when comparing jaywalking or taxation with discrimination.
I think taxation is roughly comparable in severity to mandated
discrimination. Both allow life to continue but take away its
meaning. A small amount of taxation (1% of salary above the poverty
level) and a small amount of discrimination (blacks required to carry
ID at all times) would effect life little, but once people accept such
intrusions soon you have a large amount of taxation (50% of salary
(close to what we have now when you count all direct and indirect
taxes)) or a large amount of discrimination (blacks not allowed to use
public roads) which can seriously interfere with living. Of course
neither discrimination nor taxation is really comparable to the
Holocaust (except to the extent that it paves the way for a new one)
or to jaywalking.
> Arguments similar to those used for trivializing discrimination can
> also be used for trivializing fraud, which we agreed is a crime.
I still don't know whether you are speaking of government mandated
discrimination which I agree is a serious violation of rights or of
private discrimination. Fraud is a crime whether committed by a
government (for instance inflation) or privately (for instance writing
bad checks - which is the private version of inflation, and just as
legitimate - not at all legitimate).
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 4 May 87 16:40:43-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Crimes
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I think taxation is roughly comparable in severity to mandated
discrimination.
I think discrimination is worse than taxation.
Fraud is a crime whether committed by a government (for instance
inflation) or privately (for instance writing bad checks - which
is the private version of inflation, and just as legitimate - not
at all legitimate).
How about not telling someone that you will not trade with him/her
because of the color of his/her eyes (say)? Or worse still, tell that
someone that you don't discriminate based on the color of his/her eyes
but in actuality you do. Is that trading in good faith? Isn't that a
crime?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 4 May 87 16:27:42-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Crimes
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Of course neither discrimination nor taxation is really comparable
to the Holocaust (except to the extent that it paves the way for a
new one)...
You mean that discrimination can lead to another Holocaust? So
discrimination is ok (with you) until it leads to another Holocaust?
How many times must we go through that (i.e. how many Holocausts based
on discrimination must we have) before we say that discrimination is
evil?
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 20 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 63
Today's Topics:
Pollution &
Tax Reform &
Discrimination (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 25 Apr 87 22:55:47-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Pollution
To: lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu
Cc: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
"William J. Fulco" < lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
>
> The idea that some surrogate decision makers can do a better job of
> deciding what are and aren't acceptables levels of pollution, than
> the the people directly involved, is flawed in my constrained, man-
> is-an-imperfect-creature view.
Yes, people are imperfect creatures. So imperfect, in fact, that
"people directly involved" the most, i.e. the victims of pollution,
often will not realize that they ARE being victimized until much
damage has already been done. So even if they "decide" anything, it
won't have any effect.
> I'm saying is that markets are the most efficient way to quantify
> fuzzy thinking conepts like "a lot", "greatly" and "mostly" that
> people use. Words like these sound great and real altruistic, but
> someone is going to have to put some real numbers to them.
OK, how about this: "mostly" == "greater than 50%". I confess that my
use of "mostly" was vague, but i was not really attempting to measure
anything. I should have said something like "by 90% or more".
> Someone is going to have to say to an
> individual driver, factory manager or homeowner (for sewage hookup)
> "wait a minute buddy, you're polluting... you're going to be fined,
> or go to jail." (and do not pass go, do not... :-)
>
> I for one, would like to be able to know what my constraints are. I
> want to be able to figure out what I can and can't afford to do,
> especially if I'm investing in something like a house, or a factory,
> or a car.
Agreed. But in Libertaria, who will that "someone" be?
> If I have to purchase (from the "victims" the "right" to generate
> pollution then I can figure that cost into my cost of production or
> of driving vs walking, or the kind of waste disposal my house
> (septic tank, sewer hookup, on site reprocessing plant).
>
Here is where we diverge. What does it mean to "have to purchase"?
By what method can this be enforced? What if the victims cannot be
identified -- such as "future generations" -- or the company chooses
to conceal the real effects of its proposed endeavors? Or if the
victims are "everyone on the East Coast"?
I *agree* that the idea of "pay as you pollute" has some interesting
merits. I have basically two reservations about it, though:
1) no one with authority to monitor that potential polluters
are telling the truth in Libertaria -- but HAVING such an
agency and the pay-as-you-pollute concept are NOT mutually
exclusive, as you showed by an example;
2) the impossibility of putting a monetary value on some forms
of pollution -- especially those most biologically harmful,
rather than those which are merely "unpleasant".
> I prefer to let people decide what they are best capable of
> deciding, what they want to do about their own lives.
As others have mentioned, this depends on everyone having full access
to the same information, and also the same intellectual ability to
analyse that information in order to come to a decision.
> You think the crime rate is too high??
> Well, lets install a more totalitatian system like the right wing
> kooks in this country want to, to wit: if you're even suspected of
> commiting a crime, you'll be punished. (valid system, I don't like
> the side effects).
>
> Still too high for you?? [and more, umm, "suggestions"]
No, i don't think your analogy is correct. I think a more accurate
one would be to suggest eliminating the government-funded police, and
instead creating private companies to enforce the law in whatever
manner is the most profitable. As far as i am aware, not even
Libertarians suggest this.
> I'm not saying you advocate (what I consider stupid) positions.
Why, thank you!
> > > Pollution is usually a "bad".
> > ^^^^^^^
> > Can you give an example of when it is a "good"? Just one will do.
>
> In Los Angeles, a company wants to build a trash to energy plant.
> They think that the garbage I put out on Sunday night is wonderful
> stuff. I don't, that's why I'm throwing it away. There are
> fertilizer plants that convert cow/pig/chicken dung into a usefull
> thing.
Aaaaahhh . . . i think we have differing definitions of pollution.
Since the waste is contained and then used for some particular purpose
later, i don't consider this to be "pollution", since it is not
released into the environment.
> > Most human endeavors can be performed in a number
> > of ways; normally they are done in the cheapest way possible.
> > This would be particularly true in your desired free market. But
> > since pollution control is frequently expensive, or processes
> > which cause less pollution are more expensive than processes which
> > produce much pollution, your free market would *encourage*
> > polluting the environment in the interest of maximizing profits!
>
> Why are you not understanding me? The whole point is that a market
> could be set up for pollution.
I understand you -- it's just that i don't believe you.
> If a someone want's to build an electric
> power plant, they will have to go into the marketplace and purchase
> pollution credits from the people in the area...
Ok. I want to build a power plant, but i don't want to bother with
this "pollution credits" stuff. Who is going to stop me if
1. I say "i am going to build this polluting plant, nyah,
nyah",
or
2. I conceal the fact that my plant will create pollution.
> > And with no one watching, they could get away
> > with it!
>
> There sure would be someone watching: The people that own the lake,
> the stream or the air credits will shure as h--l be watching, unless
> they really don't care that much about enforcing a contract they
> have with the local "polluter" that wants to use the area's
> resources.
I don't know about you, but no matter how hard i watch, i can't really
tell who is polluting what how much, except in some obvious cases.
And even if i were an expert, with all kinds of fancy equipment, i
couldn't prove that someone was polluting if they were doing it from
their private property, to which i had no legal access.
> > If the "correct" people (whoever that might be???) are making
> > decisions, a well-constructed constitution will be of no
> > hinderance at all -- their decisions will be the same whether or
> > not the constitution is in place.
>
> That is not true! The point of a constitution is to constrain an
> organization
Right, but again we have differing definitions. My idea of the
"correct" people is those who would do the same thing whether or not
the constitution was there. I doubt that such people exist.
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < tikal!news@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
From: uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk)
Subject: another tax reform
Date: 5 May 87 15:57:13 GMT
I have an idea I would like to try to get some resopnse to. I have
not discussed it with many people yet, so it may have a few "rough
edges" still. (flameproof suit coming on) Generating discussion (and
a possible result) is what I am interested in anyway.
Our Constitution was originally written without a provision for a
personal income tax. The implication is that that omission was made
to compensate for the lack of representation such a national
government could give to its individual citizens. With the
installment of a personal income tax, there seems to be an inbalance
today--seen mostly in the apathy felt toward government programs as
most people feel powerless.
On our income tax forms, with a simple check mark, we can donate $1
(without adding to our taxes) to the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund. Would it not also make sense for Congress to set up various
other "funds" for its various programs? One could then designate what
percentage of his or her taxes could go toward each fund with Congress
setting the default percentages in case one does not wish to itemize
the contributions. Departments and agencies like the Pentagon,
Welfare, NASA, etc. could each be in a separate funding category. If
the "people" were too "irresponsible", Congress could make up the
difference with income from excise taxes, deficit spending, etc., on a
discretionary basis. (However, they would be reacting to us, not vice
versa.)
Since Social Security is an insurance payment, it would not be
affected by changes in the income tax law.
It has often been said that the middle class pays the bulk of the
taxes, but the rich are the most influential. This instrument would
give the middle class unprecedented voting power--the power of the
purse IS the real voting power. It would also get people involved.
More than half of federal income comes from the personal income tax.
What would be more natural than for a direct input from the populace
on how it should be spent?
Brett Van Steenwijk
< uw-beaver!uw-nsr!brett>
(206) 543-5417
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 00:16:42 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination, Truth
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > Are you speaking of private discrimination or government mandated
> > discrimination. The latter IS evil. The former is stupid, but is
> > perfectly legal, or should be.
> Only time will tell if it will be perceived as evil as slavery or
> murder.
I hope that exercising one's right of free association (deciding with
whom one will associate for whatever reason) will never be regarded
as equal to murder. You are seriously suggesting that someday an
employer will be sent to the electric chair for not hiring a black
person? Why not also suggest that someday a white employee will be
executed for choosing to work for a white owned firm? Why not also
suggest that someday a black employee will be executed for taking the
advice of Malcom X and choosing to work for a black owned firm? Do
you also think that donating money to the United Negro College Fund
should be a capital offense?
> > ... and without South Africa turning socialist.
> The Russian would say something similar, except that "socialist" get
> replaced by "capitalist." Let the South Africans decide for
> themselves what system of government they want.
I am sure he would, but is it a reasonable thing to say? If South
Africa becomes free, it will be up to each South African whether to
practice capitalism, socialism, asceticism, leave the country, or
whatever. If South Africa becomes socialist, nobody will have any
choice. He cannot practice capitalism, he cannot practice socialism,
except the particular flavor of it the government mandates, he won't
(if it is like most socialist countries) be allowed to practice
religion or to leave the country. It doesn't matter what the majority
wants. The majority has no right to deny rights to the minority. And
if you believe otherwise, South Africa's institutionalized racism is
only evil because whites happen to be in the minority - import enough
whites and all the racist laws become just fine, by this standard,
even though the laws and the way the blacks are treated will not have
changed. Also, by this standard, racist laws in the US are just fine,
since whites are in the majority. I reject this standard.
> > I do not agree that truth is relative. If it is, how can you
> > condemn them, or anyone?
> Isn't that the problem i.e. deciding whose "truth" is the truth?
Yes. But you seem to be saying that truth cannot be found - that if
one group find slavery ok, its ok. That if another group finds
discrimination a capital crime, that's fine too. The only constant is
that the collective opinion is the local truth, and the individual
must always count for nothing except where the collective explicitly
grants him a few privileges. You seem to be saying that if some guy
says that the Holocaust never happened while others say otherwise
there is no rational way to choose between them. Isn't his opinion as
good as the next guys? Is this what you are really saying?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 4 May 87 12:47:46-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination, Truth
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I hope that exercising one's right of free association (deciding
with whom one will associate for whatever reason) will never be
regarded as equal to murder.
Perhaps not murder. But as evil as (if not more evil than) fraud or
taxation. Regarding discriminating "for whatever reason", how about
this: refusing do trade with a individual without first telling the
individual that you discriminate based on the color of his/her eyes.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 4 May 87 13:09:18-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination, Truth
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
You are seriously suggesting that someday an employer will be sent
to the electric chair for not hiring a black person?
No but someone who reasons like you would. Anyway to treat something
as evil does not necessarily mean that the death penalty should be the
punishment for doing the evil act. In fact as we evolve, we should be
moving away from our primitive forms of punishment. Wouldn't the
denial of freedom as a punishment be sufficient for all individuals
who as you said love their own freedom? If the death penalty is the
only punishment deemed strong enough in preventing someone from
committing a crime then we have long way to go regarding individuals
appreciating individual freedoms and knowing what it means to live in
a free and civilized society. Furthermore if your model of the
individual is true, any form of state mandated punishment would be a
rarity as individuals would respect the rights of others not because
they are going to be punished for violating the rights of others but
rather because it is *MORALLY* right.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 20 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 64
Today's Topics:
History &
Equal education (4 msgs) &
Discrimination (2 msgs) &
Rent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 May 87 04:27:52 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: History lessons...
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
I guess I am also lenient on the soviets because they had so
far to come.
... if you're going to admire people for that, admire the Chinese.
Stalin was a nightmare, but their social conciousness has
become civilized extremely quickly.
Curiously enough, Stalin is a figure of nostalgia for older
Russians. He represents strict order and discipline to them now.
Interesting, no?
The biggest problem is that a corrupt military hierarchy can
legitimize its existence because of the apparent threat that
we seem to be. So in effect the reason Russia does not have
more freedom is because of us.
I'm not sure I really buy this. Russia maintains a huge land army
that has nothing to do with us or any western enemy. One reason the
large army exists is to safeguard the regime. It was the regime that
created the large army, not the other way around. This is an
interesting argument you have here - everything is our fault! I don't
buy that either, by the way. The US demobilized after WWII, then
rebuilt. The Russians never demobilized.
We don't have to be invaded to lose our freedom if we have
more politicians like tailgunner Joe.
On the other hand, WE got rid of tailgunner Joe ourselves.
Charles
------------------------------
Date: Mon 4 May 87 16:58:34-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I do not think it is meaningful to say that a multiple choice
test, fairly graded, can have any intrinsic bias.
Except of course when a test that is advertised to be a predictor of
college performance turns out not to be one. Here is a case in point,
according to the MIT admissions office, women who have lower SAT
scores are holding their own against men (read doing as well as men)
in all courses at MIT. So those men who have higher SAT scores and
aren't doing better than women, aren't really as smart as their SAT
scores indicate. Hence admitting them based on their SAT scores alone
would mean that they are given preferential treatment since they were
considered smarter but in actuality they were not. (Such a
preferential treatment for men has been going on for quite a
while---should be long enough for the self-correcting forces of your
model of the market to work.)
Fortunately some colleges don't think like you. They are beginning to
do away with SAT scores and are developing more objective measures.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 4 May 87 17:12:37-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
At this point I could probably afford to live without a job for
several years in Mexico, and commute accross the border to a
community college.
Why does it have to be a college in the US? From all your flaming
about how bad education is in the US, one would expect you to be more
imaginative and think of colleges (very good ones too---more education
for the buck) in India, Singapore, Hong Kong, England, Canada, New
Zealand, and Australia, to name a few places. It is so cheap living
and attending school in many of these places that you should be able
to save enough in a few years to attend school full-time. You don't
even have to learn a foreign language to attend these colleges. The
possibilities are even greater if you are prepared to learn a foreign
language. (-:Just make sure that you do well enough in their verbal
test scores to get admitted.:-) Furthermore some of the college
programs take only 3 years!
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 23:55:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > I do not think it is meaningful to say that a multiple choice
> > test, fairly graded, can have any intrinsic bias.
> Except of course when a test that is advertised to be a predictor of
> college performance turns out not to be one. ...
You misunderstand. I was trying to define bias. Using a poor test
isn't bias. Bias is when one does something that is explicitly
non-colorblind, such as deducting 1/10 of the final grade for having
brown eyes.
I agree that SATs are a joke. Studies have shown that having a dull
pencil can add 50 points to one's score - because one spends less time
filling in the little squares! (No, this isn't sour grapes - I scored
in the 1500s.)
> Fortunately some colleges don't think like you. They are beginning
> to do away with SAT scores and are developing more objective
> measures.
Please don't tell me how I think.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 09:32:13-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I agree that SATs are a joke. Studies have shown that having a
dull pencil can add 50 points to one's score - because one spends
less time filling in the little squares! (No, this isn't sour
grapes - I scored in the 1500s.)
(-: So you scored in the 1500s in a joke. :-)
> Fortunately some colleges don't think like you. They are
> beginning to do away with SAT scores and are developing more
> objective measures.
Please don't tell me how I think.
Why do you construe stating an observation as telling you how to
think? You have made lots of observations and yet I don't see them as
you trying to tell me how to think.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 23:41:02 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > Of course neither discrimination nor taxation is really comparable
> > to the Holocaust (except to the extent that it paves the way for a
> > new one)...
> You mean that discrimination can lead to another Holocaust? So
> discrimination is ok (with you) until it leads to another Holocaust?
> How many times must we go through that (i.e. how many Holocausts
> based on discrimination must we have) before we say that
> discrimination is evil?
If the government were to decree that no brown eyed people may get a
job, that may well lead to a Holocaust.
If an employer were to choose not to hire you, whether because of your
eye color or otherwise, that will not lead to any Holocaust. It may
lead to poverty for the irrational employer.
It is unfortunate that the term "discrimnation" applies to both of
these actions. When discussing discrimination, one should be clear on
which of these he means.
One must be careful with words, especially ones with two very
different meanings. "Nothing is better than being healthy. Having a
week to live is better than nothing. Therefore having a week to live
is better than being healthy." Spot the flaw.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 09:20:48-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
If the government were to decree that no brown eyed people may get
a job, that may well lead to a Holocaust.
No, the government acts may simply be due to individuals within the
government not been able to discard years of prejudices that cause
them to exercise their individual "right" to discriminate. It is even
worse when the citizens tacitly closed their eyes to such government
acts because they share the same personal feelings as those
individuals in the government. That is, you can't effectively prevent
a government from doing anything if there are not enough people
willing to make the government obey the laws, however well intentioned
the laws may be. Hence individual prejudices can become the state's
prejudices. Perhaps you think that individuals in the government are
very different from individuals outside the government.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 23:34:00 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Rights & Rents
To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
> From: Robert Elton Maas < REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> If you live in an apartment or a nation, and refuse to leave, and
> the apartment owner or national government says you have to pay
> rent, ...
Taxes aren't rent. The US government does not own the US. The state
government does not own the state. If I am minding my own business on
land owned by me, or on land owned by someone I am already paying rent
to, the government has no right to demand anything of me.
> Since I don't believe in hedonism, I believe in evolution, ...
Hedonism is a philsophy for how to live one's life (one I don't happen
to believe in, but I do not intend to stop others) and evolution is a
theory about how life came to proliferate in its present forms. I do
not understand them being used together like this. It is like asking
whether you walked to work or brough your lunch. The theory of
evolution says nothing about how one should live one's life.
> ... the only benefits possible outside of hedonism are
> those which increase your survival, and if you are killed all the
> benefits are lost.
There are plenty of other ideas about benefits. For instance that it
is a great virtue to sacrifice one's life for one's religion/country/
family/planet/cause. You yourself once said that one has a duty to
one's children, even unborn children and grandchildren, etc. Perhaps
this is what you misinterpret Darwin as saying? Personally, I do not
believe in sacrifice. I won't stop someone else, but if someone tells
me that *I* have to be sacrificed to *his* cause, I will not consent.
Anyway, you seem to have lost the context again. I was asking
whether, if government can take one's money, it can also take one's
life. You gave reasons why you belive taxes are rent and giving's
one's life cannot be rent. I have now demolished both arguments.
> > What if you are required to pay your life, not to benefit yourself,
> > but to benefit others? For instance suppose you had a rare blood
> > type, and by draining all your blood ten people could be saved? If
> > government's purpose is to ensure the greatest good for the
> > greatest number, aren't they justified in killing you? If not,
> > why not?
> That would be a legitimate rule of goverment,
Even though you say your life cannot be rent?
> possibly useful in a space colony
Why bother colonizing space if we leave freedom behind? Why even
bother to go on living? If government DID go around draining blood
from people, I would try to take as many of them with me as I could,
unless there was still a free country somewhere I could escape to
instead.
Please, please, reconsider your ideas here. There IS an alternative
to this totalitarian regime you describe.
> It would of course not be legal in the USA due to constitutional
> restrictions.
Unless "we" change the constitution, of course. Not that we are
arguing about what is legal. Whatever the laws say is what's legal,
by definition. We are arguing about what is right.
> > So far, Nazi death camps are the only thing you have conceded
> > is not legitimate.
> Legitimate in what sense? Probably they *were* legitimate in terms
> of Germany's laws. ...
Actually, they weren't legal under Germany's laws. But this is
precisely my point. They would have been just as unjustified/
illegitimate/immoral/evil (choose your term) even if Hiter had
bothered to pass a law legalizing them.
> If South Africa started doing that sort of thing, perhaps we'd join
> the USSR in getting that government stamped out too ...
More likely we would join the the SA to stamp on the USSR. The
Soviets are far worse violators of human rights. Not that it is clear
how to do this in the nuclear age.
> But then you'd probably say the USA and USSR have no right to
> dictate to S.A. what they can do to their citizens or residents.
We have a perfect right to invade a country whose government is
violating individual rights. We have no DUTY to do so, but we have
the RIGHT. Not that I think doing so would be a wise move at this
time. Running in with guns blazin to straighten the bastards out is
emotionally satisfying but it is very deadly and is (usually) poor
foreign policy.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 21 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 65
Today's Topics:
Government (2 msgs) &
History &
Fraud (7 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 22:23:30 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Government
To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
> From: Robert Elton Maas < REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> > What if my gang RAN 911, e.g. we WERE the government?
> You can't do that without first overthrowing the present government.
> I'll assume you intend to overthrow the government (for sake of
> argument). Do you intend to do it via election of your people, or by
> violent revolution? ...
You seem to have lost the context here. I was trying to ask why
government has the right to take from you and I don't. Your answer
was that if I tried it you would call the police. Sigh.
Just for the record, I do not have a gang, I do not plan to steal
from anyone, and I do not plan to overthrow any government.
> You were born into your parents' contract.
Nobody has any right to make a contract that someone else has to
fulfill. Not that my parents made any such contract anyway. What
you are describing sounds like feudalism, in which a person bought
protection from a local baron in return for selling himself and his
children and his children's children, etc, into slavery.
> Why don't you feel bound by the constitution?
I am MORALLY bound to respect other people's rights. I am not morally
bound to obey the constitution or the law. The law could say
anything. At one time it said one had to turn in a runaway slave. I
do not think it is immoral to disobey such a law.
Of course I am LEGALLY bound to obey the constitution (as interpreted
by the courts) and the law.
How I FEEL doesn't enter into it.
> Would you want free passage back to the home of your ancestors??
No, but I might accept a round trip ticket :-). The home of my
ancestors is no more my home than anyplace else I have never been to.
> > ... you concede that another gang has the "right" to steal from
> > you.
> You are misquoting me, probably deliberately.
Ok, replace "steal" with "take your property against your will". And
the gang I refered to was of course the government. Is this still a
misquote? If so, does this mean you now agree with me on taxation?
> Unless your gang's constitution also derives from the thirteen
> colonies or other concensus of all the USA, or perhaps your gang's
> constitution was actually approved by me individually or my
> authorized proxy, it doesn't apply to me.
That was my next question in the message you are replying to - whether
majority always rules. Here you seem to be saying yes. Please reply
to my next questions. Don't make me retype them yet again.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 22:46:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Government
To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
> From: Robert Elton Maas < REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> Yes, if we amended the constitution to eliminate freedom of
> speech, then indeed that right would no longer be ours legally.
Not legally, but would it be morally? Or do you not see the
distinction?
You should say "if the constitution was amended" not "if we amended
the constitution". "We" is ambiguous. It certainly wouldn't be
unanimous. If it was unanimous, the change would have no effect
anyway!
> > > and I have the right not to voluntarily hand over may wallet to
> > > your gang,
> > Did you get this right from the government? From the majority?
> > (If so, what majority?) Or is it intrinsic?
> It comes from the state constitution, right to property, as enacted
> by the state legislature, ...
So you really see no intrinsic right? If the constitution was
ammended to declare open hunting season on Californians, you would
have no objection? You wouldn't try to fight back?
> > I do not agree that lotteries are evil.
> I told you that lotteries encourage people to try to get money based
> on luck rather than skill or work.
What is wrong with that, other than that most people will not have
too much luck with this approach?
> Since you believe in free enterprise whereby people work for their
> money rather than steal from others, I don't see how you can condone
> lotteries which are opposed to working for a living.
I don't understand why you so consistently misunderstand me. I am not
some Reaganite, prattling about the protestant work ethic. There is
nothing immoral about not working. What is immoral is stealing. How
can you say it is evil for people to get money without working when
you advocate welfare? (Please note that I oppose welfare, not because
it gives money to people who don't work, but because it TAKES money
from people (the taxpayers) against their will. There is nothing
wrong with VOLUNTARY charity or VOLUNTARY unemployment insurance.)
In any case, you seem to have said that nothing is evil if it is not
illegal, so long as the laws are supported by the majority (I may be
misunderstanding you). So how can you say that a government run
lottery would be evil if supported by the majority? In any case, if
it takes the same money, or less money, from the same people as taxes
would, how can you say that is evil while supporting taxes?
...Keith
------------------------------
Date: 7 May 87 04:17:49 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: History lessons...
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
kirk says:
The amount of war materials that we got to the russians was
almost 0. The 100 or so tanks that we landed in siberia were
obsolete and the few ships that slipped past the subs in
europe still were hardly important later on.
... well, I don't have the figures to hand, but I think it was more
than 100 tanks. We provided large numbers of trucks, and a number of
aircraft (with pilots). There a tendency in the west to play up the
impact of aid to the Russians (a lot of it via Vladivostok on Soviet
ships), but conversely the Russians tend to downplay it. After all,
its more conforting to say that it was worker's solidarity with the
state than filthy capitalists that won the war. In any event,
Churchill and Roosevelt pushed as much material as through could
through to the soviets, and the Archangel run was not a fun one.
Shipping was tight all around.
To give you an idea of the scale of the eastern front,
Throughout the campaign, about two-thirds of the Wehrmacht was
engaged on the eastern front. No doubt about it, the Russians played
a big part in the defeat of Hitler. However, its not at all clear
that if the English had made peace, and the US had stayed neutral that
Stalin's regime would have survived. As it was, the germans came
within a hairs-breadth of taking Moscow and Leningrad. For the Moscow
campaign, 'General Mud' had more to do with it than anything else.
(In other words, I've looked at the european theater too.)
However they did help the russian get time to move their
production facilities safely behind the urals.
Actually, Stalin started moving his industry east immediately after
the german invasion. Russian production was at a low ebb during their
winter 41/42 offensive due to this.
Only for the battle of the buldge did they divert any of their
real armor to the west.
... this is after the Normandy campaign, where most of the
western-front german armor was destroyed or abandoned. On D-Day, the
Germans had about 1,400 heavy and medium tanks and 800 light tanks and
armored cars. That many of them were held out of the battle by
sitting at Pas-de-Calais is hardly the allies fault. This ignores the
monumental feat of putting the Allied army ashore at all.
Less than 100 Pkw 7's and 6's were enough to totally rout
everything we had.
Oh? Well, western histories tend to overdramatize the threat from
the Ardennes offensive. The german offensive was pretty much doomed
due to lack of fuel, poor road network, and the (amazing, to the
germans) resiliency of the US forces. After the initial confusion,
German movement was difficult, and US positions tough to take.
The german objective of Antwerp was completely out of reach.
On the eastern front the 88 l 70 was the standard cannon. The
m3's, priests, and stuarts we sent the russians were worthless
against the the latter German tanks.
... well, first off, a Priest is a mobile artillery vehicle, and m3's
are half-tracks (you could knock either out with a 50mm), but they're
not tanks in any case [Note: I later discovered Kirk meant M3
Lee/Grants, not M3 halftrack]. Second off, tanks aren't supposed to
be used (and weren't used by the Russians) as a slug-through weapon.
They are a mobile weapon, and in fact AT guns were the worst enemy of
tanks. American tankers learned (as did Germans against KV's and
other heavy tanks) that a shot in the flank or rear usually did the
trick.
The Russians made their own quite excellent tanks, and in great
numbers. Trucks were where we helped them the most, actually.
We say the USSR is dangerous, but they have never sent troops
far from their borders.
... well, they haven't had to, they've got lots of places near them to
invade. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Afganistan, Manchuria,
the odd border-two-step with China, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the
Czecs, Manchuria. We haven't invaded Canada (since 1812) or Mexico
lately (since 1848), so?
They are only now building an attack aircraft carrier like the
ones we have.
... um, well, then why are they building one now?
They do not send fleets around the world that are capable of
invasion.
... well, among other things, they have the good sense to know they
don't have the know-how to do it. We do.
They even removed missles from Cuba when we asked them.
Make that "when we forced them". We asked, and asked, then got
serious, then got really serious. We were one whit away from going to
war with them. It was not a pretty time.
But do we remove our missles from Turkey, Greece, Germany, or
England?
yes, yes, yes and yes (I assume we're talking strategic missles
here).
For what reasons did we fight any of our wars? If you go
back far enough to remove emotions, things like the Spanish
American war, Mexican war, etc, we look pretty bad.
For what reason does any country fight wars? It seems a trifle
interesting that you're leaving out their invasion of Afganistan,
Manchuria, Hungary, Czechoslavkia, and so on. They've had better luck
with client states than we have, too - North Korea, Syria and Cuba
come to mind (and if you think acts of aggression by clients would be
possible without strong Soviet backing, think again).
Eisenhower said to 'beware of the industrial military complex'
in his farewell address, and that is our real enemy regardless
of the country.
... ah, ideology. Eisenhower also made the industrial military
complex a reality with his buildup of nuclear and other forces during
his presidency...
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 23:48:41 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fraud
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
> How about not telling someone that you will not trade with him/her
> because of the color of his/her eyes (say)?
That is not fraud.
> Or worse still, tell that someone that you don't discriminate based
> on the color of his/her eyes but in actuality you do. Is that
> trading in good faith? Isn't that a crime?
I have no strong opinion on that. It is irrational, of course, but is
it fraud? I suppose it could be regarded as fraud, but what about the
employer who falsely leads a job hunter to think he has a chance at
consideration, causing him to waste time, etc? What about the shopper
who has no intention of buying, but wastes the salesman's time? One
could argue that these are fraud, but I think there are enough
lawsuits already. It is better to just put up with the occasional
time waster.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 09:22:32-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fraud
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> How about not telling someone that you will not trade
> with him/her because of the color of his/her eyes (say)?
That is not fraud.
Why?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:20:31 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fraud
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> > > Fortunately some colleges don't think like you. They are
> > > beginning to do [something I actually regard as reasonable - KFL]
> > Please don't tell me how I think.
> Why do you construe stating an observation as telling you how to
think?
You weren't telling me how TO think, you were telling me how I DO
think. Or rather how you think I think (I think). And you guessed
wrong. See above.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:16:54 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fraud
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> > > How about not telling someone that you will not trade with him/her
> > > because of the color of his/her eyes (say)?
> > That is not fraud.
> Why?
Fraud involves deception. Look it up.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 14:46:07-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fraud
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> > > How about not telling someone that you will not trade with
> > > him/her because of the color of his/her eyes (say)?
> > That is not fraud.
> Why?
Fraud involves deception. Look it up.
Isn't it deceptive not to trade in good faith?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 14:58:40-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fraud
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> > > Fortunately some colleges don't think like you. They are
> > > beginning to do [something I actually regard as reasonable
> > > - KFL]
> > Please don't tell me how I think.
> Why do you construe stating an observation as telling you how
> to think?
You weren't telling me how TO think, you were telling me how I DO
think.
Sorry, I read it as "Please don't tell me how I [should] think." Now
that you brought this up and given that you have on numerous occasions
told me how to think (or how you think I think), I would expect the
same goes to you too.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:15:27 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fraud
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
> > > > > How about not telling someone that you will not trade with him/
> > > > > her because of the color of his/her eyes (say)?
> > > > That is not fraud.
> > > Why?
> > Fraud involves deception. Look it up.
> Isn't it deceptive not to trade in good faith?
It would be not in good faith if I told someone that I would trade
with him when actually I had no such intention, whether because of his
eye color or anything else. But if I came right out and said "I don't
do business with you brown eyed people" that is not bad faith.
I can see why you might think that such dicrimination is immoral (I
don't agree) but I don't understand why you think it is deceptive.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************