From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri May 1 03:28:57 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:28:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0904292252t4d46e87k3f4545c9bc5b08e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904292314l7e8f3ee3l9afd931381492c25@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > People in paid work don't feel like they need to give back. It's a > social norm, that being in paid work means you are "doing your bit" > for society. So not a very strong drive to volunteer. ### Do paid workers do it for their "bit" or simply because they want to buy a flat screen TV? Do the unemployed volunteer a lot? --------------- > > 1: Let's say that sewers need cleaning. Then, why would we want to > make a person do it? It's a job for a machine. The only reason we > think it's ok for a person to do it now is because we are used to > people doing crap like this. ### There are two reasons why humans do it: because some people need to have their sewers cleaned and because people who clean sewers are cheaper to hire than people who make sewer cleaning robots. This may change in favor the robot makers but even then somebody will need to commit resources (time, capital) to cleaning sewers, and that person will need to be rewarded for their sacrifice, in some sort of material, or spiritual coin. ------------------- If a universal income made it really hard > to employ people to do this, then it would provide incentive to > private industry (or a free project!) to automate the job once and for > all. ### Since you would need to tax private industry into oblivion to provide an universal income guarantee, nothing would get automated. And why would you expect that there would be a sufficient amount of voluntary contribution to sewer cleaning or building and maintenance of sewer cleaning equipment? How many volunteer sewer cleaners have you met recently? -------------- > > 2: I actually think you'd still have people volunteering to do work > like this. Absent the need to earn a living, people still need to find > meaning in their lives. Many find meaning by doing something they know > is needed by others, no matter that it's a bit shitty. I'm constantly > surprised, for instance, at the depth of driver support on Linux. > These drivers are mostly maintained by volunteers I think. ### What percentage of the population spend 8 or more hours a day producing good quality Linux software? 0.01%? 0.00001%? Somewhere around the lower bound, I think. If it was true that a lot of people could find all their meaning in serving others, there would be no monetary economy - some of such servants would be farmers, feeding other servants, who would produce all the goods needed to keep all servants alive (in effect generating their own income guarantee), and all of them would then spend all their extra time providing free flat screen TV's, haircuts and blowjobs to all comers. Since it's not happening, it's a proof that the vast majority of humans are not charitable, although most would like to pretend they are. Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 1 03:58:24 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:58:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Message Message-ID: <49FA7360.50700@rawbw.com> Hopefully, all unpleasantness is behind us. The list owners have graciously permitted my return. I'm unaware of the contents of anything posted between early Tuesday morning and just now (I just now see a post by Rafal, and just before that one from Will Steinberg), and I'm not interested in any such posts, at least not any that referred to me. Thanks, Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri May 1 04:11:52 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:41:52 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0904302110v23a72a85k5a8db992b181777d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904302110v23a72a85k5a8db992b181777d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0904302111x2c0b319l11fdfd20ab975a24@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/1 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Emlyn wrote: > >> >> People in paid work don't feel like they need to give back. It's a >> social norm, that being in paid work means you are "doing your bit" >> for society. So not a very strong drive to volunteer. > > ### Do paid workers do it for their "bit" or simply because they want > to buy a flat screen TV? Both. We want our flat screen TVs (or indeed 3 square meals) and we also want to find meaning in our lives. We have a social truth that paid work is meaningful, and to the extent that we individually buy that notion, we can find our meaning in it as well as our subsistence. Even if we don't, there seems to be a fallback truth that if you are working, you need feel no other pressure to contribute. > > Do the unemployed volunteer a lot? It probably depends where you are and why people are unemployed. Unemployed people I've known who have volunteered have said they still felt the stigma of being "unemployed". Also in Australia, the welfare system frowns on unemployed people volunteering more than a little, because of course they are supposed to be finding a job! >> >> 1: Let's say that sewers need cleaning. Then, why would we want to >> make a person do it? It's a job for a machine. The only reason we >> think it's ok for a person to do it now is because we are used to >> people doing crap like this. > > ### There are two reasons why humans do it: because some people need > to have their sewers cleaned and because people who clean sewers are > cheaper to hire than people who make sewer cleaning robots. You don't need to hire people who make sewer cleaning robots, you need to buy or hire the robots themselves, and probably hire robot tend maintenance staff (presumably far fewer people than your original sewer cleaners). When you look at this with a transhumanist hat on, doesn't it drive you crazy? That people lives are so cheap that we can't afford the up front investment to automate away their drudgery? > This may > change in favor the robot makers but even then somebody will need to > commit resources (time, capital) to cleaning sewers, and that person > will need to be rewarded for their sacrifice, in some sort of > material, or spiritual coin. If few people are required (say robot makers, and robot tenders), then you don't need to find a motivation that works for everyone (eg: work or starve). You just need a motivation that appeals to enough of the right people to do the work. When that becomes a small enough percentage of the population, reputation plus inner motivation can be enough, especially considering that people in this scenario are not having to also separately work to feed themselves. The opportunity cost of volunteering in a modern western economy is very high. I think the situation changes if you can drop that way down. > > ------------------- > > ?If a universal income made it really hard >> to employ people to do this, then it would provide incentive to >> private industry (or a free project!) to automate the job once and for >> all. > > ### Since you would need to tax private industry into oblivion to > provide an universal income guarantee, nothing would get automated. > And why would you expect that there would be a sufficient amount of > voluntary contribution to sewer cleaning or building and maintenance > of sewer cleaning equipment? How many volunteer sewer cleaners have > you met recently? Well it might be that we need more automation, so that we are not trying to replace full employment with full volunteerism. Also, when people are waking up in the morning and finding they are not compelled to do anything, there'll be a good chunk of people who will do "good honest work" like this, for the wuffie, and for the internal motivation. I should mention that there is also a halfway point; you could also pay them but tax that payment of course. Many many people will want more than the base income even if the base income is pretty good. Resource hoarding is a status game; many people want flat screen TVs (or large wasteful cars), for signalling purposes presumably. > > -------------- >> >> 2: I actually think you'd still have people volunteering to do work >> like this. Absent the need to earn a living, people still need to find >> meaning in their lives. Many find meaning by doing something they know >> is needed by others, no matter that it's a bit shitty. I'm constantly >> surprised, for instance, at the depth of driver support on Linux. >> These drivers are mostly maintained by volunteers I think. > > ### What percentage of the population spend 8 or more hours a day > producing good quality Linux software? 0.01%? 0.00001%? Somewhere > around the lower bound, I think. > That doesn't matter, as long as there are enough. There is no per-user cost for software. This is the whole point. More technology = more useful product from less human labour. Why we have an idea that we need to keep everyone labouring is beyond me. > If it was true that a lot of people could find all their meaning in > serving others, there would be no monetary economy - some of such > servants would be farmers, feeding other servants, who would produce > all the goods needed to keep all servants alive (in effect generating > their own income guarantee), and all of them would then spend all > their extra time providing free flat screen TV's, haircuts and > blowjobs to all comers. Since it's not happening, it's a proof that > the vast majority of humans are not charitable, although most would > like to pretend they are. > > Rafal No way. This is a network effect problem. Why do we work for money? Because when we predict the behaviour of others, we know that we wont be able to live without money to trade. Isolated volunteers will live in poverty. If on the other hand everyone did everything voluntarily, you'd have the same problem with money; if you insisted on being paid, you'd have nothing to do. You'd probably find it very difficult to spend money, because no one would take it. You can see it in microcosms even now; try to buy a book in library, or buy a premium social networking service. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 1 04:13:46 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:13:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances Message-ID: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> Early on, I naturally believed in group selection, and Darwin did too; it seemed rather obvious and logical. Then along came Dawkins who spread the views of the critics of Wynne-Edwards (a great group selection advocate), and finally in "The Selfish Gene", "The Extended Phenotype", or "The Blind Watchmater" Dawkins penetrated my thick skull. Think about it. Suppose that a gene (e.g. one for genuine altruism) is of no genetic benefit whatsoever to the individual who possesses it, and is even a detriment, i.e., however much it helps his mates (because of actions he'd take), it lowers his own fitness. How could such a mutation possibly spread? Well, every so often I'd ponder this and write notes to myself entitled "Group Selection Can Exist!", but waver back and forth. Then in 1995 or so, "The Origins of Virtue" was published by Ridley, which made it perfectly clear that genuine altruism almost surely exists, and that there are clear ways that it could have evolved. But these ways did *not* include group selection. So does group selection exist, or not? Then in 1998 Sober and Wilson published "Unto Others", where they outlined at least one concrete and evidently irrefutable mechanism whereby true group selection can and will obtain. See the whole story, new to me, with its latest developments, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection Of course, humans hardly need such genes for group selection, since memes serve so much more powerfully. But it is a relief to know that when one senses that one has committed what seems to be a genuinely altruistic act, it's not necessarily true that one is fooling himself. "The problem with group selection is that for a whole group to get a single trait, it must spread through the whole group first by regular evolution. But, as J. L. Mackie suggested, when there are many different groups, each with a different Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS), there is selection between the different ESSs, since some are worse than others[20]. For example, a group where altruism arose would outcompete a group where every creature acted in its own interest." This brings up the fascinating question, explored here a bit a few months ago, of sociopathy and how it fits into all this. But I should save that for another time and another thread. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 1 05:00:41 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:00:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Message In-Reply-To: <49FA7360.50700@rawbw.com> References: <49FA7360.50700@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <49FA81F9.10309@rawbw.com> Hopefully, all unpleasantness is behind us. The list owners have graciously permitted my return. I'm unaware of the contents of anything posted between early Tuesday morning and just now (I just now see a post by Rafal, and just before that one from Will Steinberg), and I'm not interested in any such posts, at least not any that referred to me. Thanks, Lee From max at maxmore.com Fri May 1 05:00:46 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: Temporary moderator Message-ID: <200905010500.n4150xg0002664@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Now that I have access to the controls, I shall be acting temporarily as Moderator until one or more list members are chosen to take over. I have not used the controls before, so bear with me if I'm not an expert right away. Regarding Lee Corbin: Lee should now be able to post to the list once again. Onward! Max Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From spike66 at att.net Fri May 1 04:47:27 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:47:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances > > Early on, I naturally believed in group selection, and Darwin > did too; it seemed rather obvious and logical. > > Then along came Dawkins who spread the views of the critics > of Wynne-Edwards (a great group selection advocate), and > finally in "The Selfish Gene", "The Extended Phenotype", or > "The Blind Watchmater" Dawkins penetrated my thick skull. ... > Lee When debates over group selection in evolution take place, humans get into the picture. Perhaps we have a hard time discussing humans in evolution because we are too close to the situation. Furthermore humans evidently have all these meta-memes which mess with our instincts. For this reason it is perhaps easier to debate the topic by looking at the example of the Irish elk, which apparently evolved themselves into a corner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk The canonical version of the story is that the Irish Elk went extinct about 10k years ago because the females persisted in choosing the mates with the largest antlers, to the point where the females could not bear their weight upon being mounted, which eventually made it impossible to copulate successfully. There is plenty of room to doubt that theory, altho it does make a good story. But what if that version is true? Then we have an example of group selection, for there are elk genera that did survive. We still have elk today. The Irish elk and his ilk perished, but related species did not. So wouldn't that be an example of group selection? The elk that did not get turned on by huge antlers, as a group, had a survival advantage over those that did so, to their detriment. The notion of group selection appears to me to be too readily dismissed, perhaps because we do not like the implications it could have on humanity. If one reads Origin of Species, Darwin apparently anticipated the problem of the philosophical implications of evolution. His solution was to leave humans out of the book, or leave it for a later work, the Ascent of Man. Following his example, I focus on the elk. I don't see why, in principle, group selection is impossible. Group selection could even lead to speciation, altho it isn't clear that it did in the elk example. Your first comment was "...I naturally believed in group selection..." Why? "...Darwin did too..." Why? I know Dawkins makes a strong case, but why do we naturally believe in group selection before we read Dawkins and Gould? spike From max at maxmore.com Fri May 1 05:37:31 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:37:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Yielding to Ideology Over Science, by Ron Bailey Message-ID: <200905010537.n415bbp4022090@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Another good piece by Ron Bailey: Yielding to Ideology Over Science Why don't environmentalists celebrate modern farming on Earth Day? http://www.reason.com/news/show/132997.html Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri May 1 07:14:55 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:44:55 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Yielding to Ideology Over Science, by Ron Bailey In-Reply-To: <200905010537.n415bbp4022090@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200905010537.n415bbp4022090@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905010014n7798ac4n2368bd4866dc956b@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/1 Max More : > Another good piece by Ron Bailey: > > Yielding to Ideology Over Science > > > Why don't environmentalists celebrate modern farming on Earth Day? > > http://www.reason.com/news/show/132997.html I think this is shaky ground. While modern farming looks to be a good thing for the environment per se, improved agricultural technology seems to just let us increase the total population. More people == more environmental stressors. Environmentalists don't approve of this. Me, I'm for more people. Go people! -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri May 1 08:15:33 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:45:33 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Attack of the (ant) clones Message-ID: <710b78fc0905010115p5732c4f4r91ea2369c0e858f0@mail.gmail.com> One for Spike, and food for genetic thought: Rare All-Female Ant Society That Reproduces By Cloning Discovered http://www.impactlab.com/2009/04/18/rare-all-female-ant-society-that-reproduces-by-cloning-discovered/ A group of Amazonian ants have evolved an extremely unusual social system: They are all female and reproduce via cloning. Though their sexual organs have virtually disappeared, they have also gained some extraordinary abilities. University of Arizona biologist Anna Himler orginally began studying the ants, called Mycocepurus smithii, because they had incredible success as farmers. Many breeds of ant keep domesticated ?farms? where they breed various kinds of fungus for nourishment. But Mycocepurus smithii was able to breed fungus far more successfully, and in greater varieties, than other ants Himler had encountered. As she and her team studied the insects, they realized there were no male ants anywhere to be found. Himler told the BBC that it?s possible the ants evolved so as ?not to operate under the usual constraints of sexual reproduction.? Interestingly, the fungi that the ants cultivate also reproduce asexually. But why would these ants choose to emulate the reproductive cycle favored by their crops? Himler explains: ?It avoids the energetic cost of producing males, and doubles the number of reproductive females produced each generation from 50% to 100% of the offspring.? All the members of the colony are clones of the queen. While that means the queen can control every aspect of the population, it also makes the colony vulnerable to pandemics. A virus that can kill one ant can kill all of them, since they all have the exact same immune systems. On the other hand, it seems that a lack of men gave these women more time and energy to cultivate some of the most elaborate forms of ant agriculture ever studied. According to Himler, ants often evolve highly unusual reproductive strategies. But all-female ant societies are highly rare. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 1 13:08:17 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 06:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Yielding to Ideology Over Science, by Ron Bailey Message-ID: <84078.41697.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Emlyn wrote: >> http://www.reason.com/news/show/132997.html > > I think this is shaky ground. While modern farming looks to > be a good > thing for the environment per se, improved agricultural > technology > seems to just let us increase the total population. More > people == > more environmental stressors. Environmentalists don't > approve of this. Yes, though the same thing could be said of anything that lessens demands or impact: it allows for more of it under the same conditions. The environmental movement, too, is not uniform. Some environmentalists are just purely anti-human; others are not. I think the latter are more in tune with the rest of humanity than the former. > Me, I'm for more people. Go people! I don't believe one is forced to choose. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 1 15:25:11 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians Message-ID: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 4/28/09, BillK wrote: > On 4/28/09, Dan wrote: >> No.? The law of supply and demand is not a >> law people merely adhere to casually >> -- because they're too stupid to see real value -- or >> a law that they adhere to >> because of ideological predilections.? It merely >> states what's inescapable. >> The reason some people in the entertainment industry >> are paid a lot is because >> they are, for whatever reason, highly demanded or >> (inclusive "or") in short supply >> as compared with others -- say, farmers, mathematics >> professors, trauma surgeons, and caretakers. >> >>? What you've stumbled onto, too, is the what >> diamonds and water paradox: >>? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value > > That's what I said.? :)? You have to start > discussing complex theories of 'value'. Well, this is what's under discussion, no? And I don't think they [value theories in economics] are all that complex. The chief problem is that people often seek objective values and try to compare values interpersonally. Subjective value theory has, IMO, shown this not to work -- not in economics, anyhow -- and resolves the classical values paradoxes. (And this theory was mostly complete before the end of the 19th century. That intelligent people seem unaware of this is partly a failure of education and likely partly due to ideology. On the latter, subjective value theory establishes some pretty firm limits on what economists as economists can say about preferences and values. Also, economics itself, especially in its praxeology form, is fairly unpopular with elites because it basically shows why most rationalizations for elite rule are flimsy and why social order is the result of human action rather than some wise leaders planning things and guiding the herd.) > Supply and demand is not a law. I disagree. > Lots of things the public wants, they > can't get. And lots of things available, they don't really > want. But > you have to make do with what is available. Well, praxeologically speaking, one starts with action and works back to preferences -- wants.? Strictly speaking, actions demostrate preferences.? In that sense, if a person chooses A over B, then they want B -- even if, perhaps, given another choice, C, she might have choosen C or even if she might have preferred choices other than A and B.? And this is the demand covered in the law of supply and demand -- not some hypothetical demand where a person can wish for anything at all. In fact, a key problem, in my mind, with much mainstream economic theory -- where it deviates from a more rigorous theory -- is presuming some idealized choices and then faulting real world people (and institutions) for not choosing (or allowing) for the idealized choices.? (This goes along with many other unrealistic assumptions of mainstream theory, such as perfect information, no time lags, and equilibrium conditions.? Real world people and real world markets lack perfect information, have time lags (and these differ between people, between markets, and between times), and are often if not always in disequilibrium.? This doesn't at all invalidate the Law of Supply and Demand.? That law, like most praxeological laws, doesn't require perfect economic actors or perfect markets.? Also, that real world markets are far from any dreamed of ideal does NOT mean that interventions will actually make things better.? In fact, sound economic theory mainly demonstrates that, despite these imperfections, interventions will only make things worse -- often much worse.) > In olden times, you had to pay the strolling minstrel to > hear him > sing. Nowadays, everyone that sees or hears anything could > be > recording it. > I've been to concerts where the band announced they would > not be > playing anything from their latest recordings because of > the danger of > surreptitious recording. So the audience were treated to > 'Their > greatest Hits' of years past.? (Still enjoyable). I'm not sure how this relates to the Law of Supply and Demand...? Do you mean that that law would only work if supply is limited or if people always get absolutely what they expect? >>? I'd also point out, too, that with regard to >> entertainers who make a lot of money, >> the judgment that they make too much (or too little) >> is subjective and merely >> signals the judge's particular subjective >> values.? Yeah, you and I probably think >> that a highly paid sports star is not of any value to >> us.? But the thing she or he is >> obviously of value to others -- that is, they value >> her or his entertainment more >> than other options, hence they're willing to trade >> other values (e.g., money) for it. >> (And all that would happen if you or I or Rafal or a >> group of people were to decide >> who gets paid what is merely to substitute our value >> judgments for those of the >> people who actually pay lots, say, to see their >> favorite team play.)* >> >>? Of course, this is ignoring the myriad >> government interferences in the market, > > Not the evil government again!? Boo! Hiss!? ;) > It is also ignoring all the 'entertainment industry' > interference in > the market, with all the manufactured boy bands, > promotions, etc. > manipulating the market. > It is also ignoring all the crooked dealers in the market, > like the > financiers out for as much as they can con people for. Not at all.? There is a difference between coercive interference and non-coercive participation.? And the former is not limited to government, though government interference tends to have a broader and more long lasting impact, partly because governments tend to be big players (the Big Player Effect) and tend to have legitimacy in their actions (or they would be overthrown, no?). Also, to be for free markets and a libertarian society in general is not to ignore that people often do rotten and low things. They do, but the best we can do is deal with them non-coercively until they use actual coercion. In the case of music you don't like -- e.g., you seem to have an aversion to boy bands (that's your taste, but I don't see any good reason why your taste should dictate the choices available to everyone else) -- you don't have to listen to it or buy the music and you can even speak out against and offer, creative, or promote alternatives. The non-libertarian alternative is not to make things better per se -- as who knows what the right tastes should be if there are even a right set of tastes -- but simply to allow an elite to force everyone else to support some laundry list of musicians currently favored by that elite. To use an analogy, would you do that with science? Would you say scientists left to their devices come up with wrong theories and that there should be no free market in science ideas, but a highly regulated one to prevent junk science from taking over? I hope not. Such an outcome would not be Extropian. We'd end up with officials deciding and planning what to pursue -- instead of an open-ended, free inquiry where, yes, some will make stupid choices, but the overall entreprise is better for that than under the regulated alternative. > 'Supply and demand' is like the 'free market'. They are > mythical > beasts that never appear in our day to day world. Not at all. The free market is an ideal. However, economic laws, like the Law of Supply and Demand, apply to non-ideal conditions. This is why that law is applied fruitfully to regulated markets. For instance, the reason why many economists argue against rent control and minimum wage laws (and other price controls) is because the Law of Supply and Demand shows how, all else being equal, these interventions will not have the intended outcomes -- unless the intention is to, respectively, cause housing shortages and increase unemployment. (The Law, of course, does not mathematically predict the amount of real world shortages or gluts.) Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 1 15:00:25 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Crying "fire" in a crowded theater: Rothbard's view Message-ID: <891418.15007.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 4/29/09, painlord2k at libero.it wrote: > I'm talking about a formal contract that people accept > freely. > Obviously, people that don't accept the contract of mutual > defence is probably left alone to fend off for themselves in > case of troubles. > Or would be forced to pay more to be defended. They couldn't be forced; they could only be charged.? And no one could stop them from relying on others -- as in the case of charity.? E.g., were I living in a libertarian society and some person were being attacked, I might come to her or his rescue even if I don't know her or his status in terms of having a formal mutual defense contract with me. >> How does this relate to Rothbard's view of Holmes >> crying-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument? > > My understanding is that Rothbard addresses the > crying-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument as a problem of > free speech, where the Schenck v. United States is not a > free speech argument but a series of unlawful acts > undermining the war efforts of the US. Actually, that's not exactly the way the Court viewed it: the majority opinion was this was a case about where freedom of speech is limited. In other words, it was about the boundaries of freedom of speech. Of course, to be sure, these limits were, for the Court, set by the nation being at war. However, your take on this -- agreeing with the Court, it seems -- is not libertarian, but legalistic. Yes, if one agrees with a statist court interpreting law in a statist fashion, then you can agree with said limit. Rothbard -- and here he is not standing outside strict libertarianism -- does not agree. Also, the crying-fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument is just what Holmes uses to establish that freedom of speech can be limited. It's an analogy he uses, I take it, because simply arguing as you do would not in his [Holmes'] mind not settle the issue. (In fact, another constitutional interpretation could be that the First Amendment supersedes any congressional declaration of war -- so that merely by declaring a war, the First Amendment cannot be set aside. Note: this is not a libertarian interpretation. The strict libertarian interpretation is that the federal government has NO right to set limits of rights, including setting limits on free expression or drafting individuals. This strict view seems to me to fit with Extropianism better than the alternative -- the alternative being that governments have a right to abridge individual rights. The latter -- governmental interpretation and abridgement of rights -- seems to me to be a call for regression and turning back civilization from an advance toward posthumanity to barbarism.) >> In my understanding of Schenck v. United States, I >> completely and >> wholeheartedly disagree.? Schenck was not under >> contractual >> obligation to the federal government not to express >> his opinion >> concerning the draft and the war. > > In fact, Schenck was not incriminated for printing the > leaflets and distributing them to the wide public or stating > his opinion in public, but to sending them to drafted men to > incite them to resist the draft and disobey to lawful orders > and the words he used were not rational albeit passionate; > they were directed to incite fear and other strong emotions > in young men that were vulnerable to them. > > The proper way to prevent the draftees to be sent in war > was to change the Congress opinion or the electors opinion, > not push the draftees to mutiny and rebellion. That's the not the "proper way" from a libertarian perspective, but from a statist one. The libertarian view would be to call the draft itself unjust and thus to be resisted period. (The only limits to said resistance would be that no one's rights be violated in the process. That the Congress declared war gives it and the rest of the government no special right to ensalve (to draft) and no right to prevent someone from expressing views that will undermine the government's efforts to enslave or to make war.) >> Even if he were under some sort of >> obligation for common defence -- something that >> remains to be proved >> -- it's hard to see how that same government's >> involvement in a >> European war had anything to do with the common >> defence. > > This would become a longer thread, so maybe it is better > not start it now. I limit myself to note that the best way > to help people after a earthquake is to build earthquake > resistant homes before the earthquake. And while US involvement in World War One is a long debate, the actual outcome was not to make, to stick with your metaphor, "earthquake resistant home," but to make the homes more vulnerable to earthquakes. After all, it set the stage for a much worse conflict and the aftermath of that was the Cold War. (My opinion is US involvement in World War One actually made the world safe for the British and French states to expand into the Middle East and for fascism and communism to rise -- the fruits of which we're still seeing to this day. Hard to say what might have been, but my guess is had the US stayed out of that European war, Germany would've eventually been forced to negotiate, but the outcome would've been much more limited -- rather than the British and French dictating terms to the losers.) >> At best, >> it'd be a matter of opinion and one could easily >> imagine a reasonable >> opinion against that war being for common defence. > > In fact, I'm sure many were against the war but only a few > went if jail. But the point is many were silenced. In fact, the government (or any criminal gang) need only make an example or two to silence many more. This is exactly the kind of thing I think goes against an open and Extropian society: the fear that expressing an opinion that goes against official policy, especially during a supposed emergency, is quashed. In fact, it's during crises and emergencies when elites all too often suppress contrary views and rationalize this suppression in the name of the greater good -- a greater good which they, notably, define and supposedly speak for. Regards, Dan From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 1 17:22:29 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:22:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/09, dan_ust wrote: > Not at all. The free market is an ideal. However, economic laws, like the Law > of Supply and Demand, apply to non-ideal conditions. This is why that law is > applied fruitfully to regulated markets. For instance, the reason why many > economists argue against rent control and minimum wage laws (and other price > controls) is because the Law of Supply and Demand shows how, all else being > equal, these interventions will not have the intended outcomes -- unless the > intention is to, respectively, cause housing shortages and increase unemployment. > (The Law, of course, does not mathematically predict the amount of real world > shortages or gluts.) > I have responded in more detail to a later post than the one you quoted. But, to summarize, I feel it is a very odd sort of law that has unpredictable outcomes. Because 'all else is *never* equal' every situation has to be examined on its merits. As just one example, if GM cut the price of their cars by 10%, consumers probably wouldn't rush to buy. Why not? Where has the 'law' gone that says cut prices = sell more? It is because of expectations that next month prices will be even cheaper. Or, maybe, GM might go bust, so they wouldn't buy a GM car at any price. Or, maybe, they just don't like GM cars. This applies to every price change. You have to examine the special circumstances every time. Put prices up, sales increase. Why? Because the goods now have an added 'expensive' image. There are other explanations as well. It might as well be random. I much prefer a 'law' that says if you do x, then y will *always* happen. That's my kind of law. BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri May 1 17:12:58 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:12:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> Message-ID: <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> > ...On Behalf Of spike > Subject: Re: [ExI] Group Selection Advances > > ... > > Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances > > > > Early on, I naturally believed in group selection, and > Darwin did too; it seemed rather obvious and logical... Lee > > When debates over group selection in evolution take place, > humans get into the picture. Perhaps we have a hard time > discussing humans in evolution because we are too close to > the situation. Furthermore humans evidently have all these > meta-memes which mess with our instincts. For this reason it > is perhaps easier to debate the topic by looking at the > example of the Irish elk, which apparently evolved themselves > into a corner: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk ... > spike It seems that with the survival of the species at stake, some sporty young Irish elk couple would have come up with an alternate position, in which the stag's massive antlers could somehow rest on the ground. It is difficult to form a mental image of that. Are humans the only species with more than one mating position? Intraspecies war (as far as I know) is seen in only four species, chimps, gorillas, humans and ants. The anthropologists argue to this day whether the chimp and gorilla intraspecies fights qualify as war. Some are more comfortable comparing that phenom to a gang rumble, for they tend to be chaotic and short-lived with little apparent overall plan or goal, and the territory capture aspect is questioned. So intraspecies war would then be considered something that is seen in nature but is extremely rare if one ignores humankind as an oddball species. Even the ants would be considered a special case, because the actual fighting is be done exclusively by the non-breeders, as neither the queen nor the drones get involved in duking it out, or in this case mandibling it out. It is the workers which open a can of whoop-abdomen. It isn't clear to me that this case of war would lead to group selection, for the losing side maintains its reproductive capacity. Imagine a group of hungry pre-technology humans, where some extropian minded individual comes up with the idea of agriculture. Some agree this is a great hi-tech way to get reliable food, but the majority insist on the traditional way of praying to Etaoin Shrdlu for divine guidance in finding roots, berries and squirrels. Over time, the agriculturalists have a more reliable food source, become richer and more numerous, and eventually everyone is an agriculturalist. If this is not a clear example of group selection I don't know what else to call it. I can imagine that group selection is analogous to intraspecies war: present in nature but extremely rare. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 1 17:55:29 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 12:55:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501124926.0227b970@satx.rr.com> At 10:12 AM 5/1/2009 -0700, spike wrote: >Imagine a group of hungry pre-technology humans, where some extropian minded >individual comes up with the idea of agriculture. Some agree this is a >great hi-tech way to get reliable food, but the majority insist on the >traditional way of praying to Etaoin Shrdlu for divine guidance in finding >roots, berries and squirrels. Over time, the agriculturalists have a more >reliable food source, become richer and more numerous, and eventually >everyone is an agriculturalist. If this is not a clear example of group >selection I don't know what else to call it. Learning? There'd be some genetic components to that--aptitude for observation and analysis, maybe, or for following a persuasive leader--but I'd imagine there could be many diverse paths to agriculture or industry or Twitter. Big brains, even hidebound conservative big brains, beat the hell outta blind watchmakers. Damien Broderick From aware at awareresearch.com Fri May 1 17:43:26 2009 From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:43:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:22 AM, BillK wrote: > I much prefer a 'law' that says if you do x, then y will *always* happen. > That's my kind of law. Nothing at all wrong with such "laws", or rather principles describing observed regularities. The problem here (as often within these "rationalist" forums), is one of context. The meaning of x (its semantics, its observed nature in terms of the dynamics of the system) is *always* dependent on context, and when context is taken into account, the value of the principle is a reflection of its extreme consistency (within an extremely general context.) - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 1 18:09:14 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:09:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0904292252t4d46e87k3f4545c9bc5b08e0@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904292314l7e8f3ee3l9afd931381492c25@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> At 11:28 PM 4/30/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > If a universal income made it really hard > > to employ people to do this, then it would provide incentive to > > private industry (or a free project!) to automate the job once and for > > all. > >### Since you would need to tax private industry into oblivion to >provide an universal income guarantee, nothing would get automated. The thread-context has been lost, I think. My sense is that this thread started as an enquiry into what happens as machines drive more and more people out of work--can such people be retained, and for what jobs? Even so, in my own long post summarizing early analyses of guaranteed income proposals, I cited one economist's estimate that introducing such a scheme in the 1960s or 1970s would have cost the equivalent of a small war. There has been a number of wars since then, large and small, paid for by taxpayers, yet private industry is still around (even if it's currently battered by other failures, usually of its own making). Damien Broderick From aware at awareresearch.com Fri May 1 18:19:41 2009 From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:19:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501124926.0227b970@satx.rr.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501124926.0227b970@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The arguments about "group" or "multilevel" selection remind me of similar silliness about the evolvability of modularity in genetic programming. * Yes, it's mathematically demonstrable that the alleles of individuals within a group will not evolve in favor of fitness acting at the level of the group. * Yes, given static objectives, there is no increased fitness to offset the added cost of functional modularity. But, characteristically, I'd like to point out it's a matter of context. * Groups do tend to split and then evolve independently, such that their distinct genes do tend to eventually compete at the group level. * Environments do tend to change, conferring increased fitness on modular reuse of functional building blocks. And overall, evolution isn't about genes or particular modules, but about exploiting increasingly synergistic (extropic, multi-level) solutions maximizing freedom with least action (at least within the system.) - Jef From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 1 18:21:48 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:21:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/09, Aware wrote: > Nothing at all wrong with such "laws", or rather principles describing > observed regularities. The problem here (as often within these > "rationalist" forums), is one of context. The meaning of x (its > semantics, its observed nature in terms of the dynamics of the system) > is *always* dependent on context, and when context is taken into > account, the value of the principle is a reflection of its extreme > consistency (within an extremely general context.) > Perhaps surprisingly, I agree! :) As I said, every situation has to be examined on its own merits. I am objecting to simplistic economic statements like 'reduce prices and sell more'. Sometimes that happens, but not always. Like the years of economic depression we are in now, prices will be falling for many years, but there will be little, if any, increase in sales for a long time to come. BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 1 18:41:33 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Economic laws Message-ID: <916515.16069.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Aware wrote: > BillK wrote: > >> I much prefer a 'law' that says if you do x, then y >> will *always* happen. That's my kind of law. > > Nothing at all wrong with such "laws", or rather principles > describing > observed regularities.? The problem here (as often > within these > "rationalist" forums), is one of context.? The meaning > of x (its > semantics, its observed nature in terms of the dynamics of > the system) > is *always* dependent on context, and when context is taken > into > account, the value of the principle is a reflection of its > extreme > consistency (within an extremely general context.) There's another point to be made here too. Economic laws -- and laws in general of this sort -- are literally incontrovertible and they don't result merely, as I've pointed out before, because one casually decides to accept this or that context. They actually apply to the context of human action. The form they take in particular case, of course, depends on the particulars of that case. I hope to respond more directly to Bill's rejoinder later. Regards, Dan From benboc at lineone.net Fri May 1 19:30:37 2009 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 20:30:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49FB4DDD.5010509@lineone.net> Dan wrote: > --- On Tue, 4/21/09, John K Clark wrote: > > "Keith Henson" > > >> > > Of course I agree with you.How would you go about > > reducing the cost? > > > > Use lunar materials, but you don't like that idea. A space > > elevator would be > > nice but I don't expect to see one anytime soon. > I would say: lunar or (inclusive) other off-world materials. Plenty of NEOs to mine. > Of course, to be sure, there is far less data on their composition and structure -- as > well as many other unknowns regarding them. OK, I'm way behind on this list, so someone may have asked this already, but I'm interested in the issue of NEOs as a source of raw materials, and whether this is even remotely feasible. I'm thinking NEOs, like most things in space, go fast, relative to the earth. Really fast. Getting to them, extracting useful resources and getting back with those resources isn't at all like drilling for oil or digging up metal ore here on earth. I suspect it's possible that the energy required to get there and get the hydrocarbons or ores or whatever back, would far outweigh their value. Anybody know some hard facts about this? Ben Zaiboc From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 1 19:59:30 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:59:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905011259o60543cefkabcd689d03d16912@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > But these ways did *not* include group selection. > So does group selection exist, or not? > > Of course, humans hardly need such genes for group > selection, since memes serve so much more powerfully. In fact, most of the debate is concerned with our own, somewhat "special", position. I think it is best however to examine first the issue in general terms, temporarily excluding whatever might be peculiar to the human species from the tableau, since this ends up clarifying issues which have a broader interest *and* remain relevant for our own case - irrespective of the addenda and qualifications that may concern only us. I will read with interest the material at the link indicated, and for the time being much of what I know and find more persuasive on the subject is related either to gene selection (sociobiologists' main explanation of altruism in nature) or to game theory. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 1 20:14:30 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 22:14:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1AD4F6A677044EDC84C84FACF30A545D@MyComputer> <49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:33 AM, hkhenson wrote: > It would have to be structured carefully so at the end the customers were > getting cheap power (and synthetic oil). In fact, natural fossil and other chemical fuels and the possible scarcity thereof are really not an issue when you have abundant, cheap energy from another source. Not only because the latter can replace the former for most purposes, but also because they can easily - albeit obviously with energy-negative processes - synthesised in arbitrary quantities. The point on which I have increasing doubts is whether they are really suited to carry a significant mass of matter out of deep gravity wells. In fact, were the earth more massive, it might even be impossible, if I am not mistaken, to achieve escape velocity with chemical-reaction rockets, given that any such fuel would not contain enough energy to lift itself, let alone any useful payload and the necessary vehicle. And even from planets of earth mass, the margin available for the latter with which we have to work is very limited indeed, so that no engineering magic can do more than working on decimals... -- Stefano Vaj From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 1 20:10:23 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Resource extraction from NEOs/was Re: Power satellites Message-ID: <93018.71988.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/1/09, ben wrote: > Dan wrote: >> I would say: lunar or (inclusive) other off-world >> materials.? Plenty of NEOs to mine. >> Of course, to be sure, there is far less data on their >> composition and structure -- as >> well as many other unknowns regarding them. > > OK, I'm way behind on this list, so someone may have asked > this already, but I'm interested in the issue of NEOs as a > source of raw materials, and whether this is even remotely > feasible. Well, I think the two big problems with NEOs as a source of raw materials is finding out what they're composed of and their overall structure. My guess is they probably fall into a few classes and each member of the class differs in ways that would mean one would have to do some prospecting... However, things are not too different with Luna -- save that there's lots more data. But, still, no one has done a lot of prospecting and from only a handful of sites have samples been taken. The rest is guess and surmise based on the samples and remote sensing. > I'm thinking NEOs, like most things in space, go fast, > relative to the earth.? Really fast.? Getting to > them, extracting useful resources and getting back with > those resources isn't at all like drilling for oil or > digging up metal ore here on earth. The difference: no atmosphere and extremely low gravity. Once you're above the Earth's atmosphere, as the saying does, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Also, the usual proposal for lunar extraction involves using mass drivers -- not taking off with a space ship loaded with ore. (I actually don't see why a lot of processing can't be done on location on Luna -- or on an asteroid.) No reason the same can't be done with a NEO. Of course, rendezvousing with a NEO involves problems, but there are a few in fairly regular orbits. Soem are Earth-crossers, so they come closer, but then, yes, the speeds are high. I don't think it's impossible -- just a little harder than lunar prospecting and landing. (Partly because the latter has been done before, partly because Luna's orbit/positions are really well mapped out, and partly because Luna is a really big target compared with the average NEO.) > I suspect it's > possible that the energy required to get there and get the > hydrocarbons or ores or whatever back, would far outweigh > their value. I actually think you're wrong here, but this is my guess. First off, regarding volatiles, Luna has none (or so it seems) and hauling them up from Earth would be very expensive. Mass drivering (word?) them off a NEO would seem -- and this my guess - fairly low cost. (Prospecting the NEO, mining it, and placing a mass driver on it would seem to me to be where the large costs would in the whole operation. But Luna has similar costs -- it ain't free.) They could be launched into a solar orbit to be caught at whatever desire location and the mass driver could be solar powered. > Anybody know some hard facts about this? Well, it's speculation for now. The only sure numbers we have are past and current prices on hauling stuff up the gravity well. Regards, Dan From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 20:21:27 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:21:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> Message-ID: <1241209746_17598@S3.cableone.net> At 09:47 PM 4/30/2009, you wrote: > > > ...On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > > Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances > > > > Early on, I naturally believed in group selection, and Darwin > > did too; it seemed rather obvious and logical. > > > > Then along came Dawkins who spread the views of the critics > > of Wynne-Edwards (a great group selection advocate), and > > finally in "The Selfish Gene", "The Extended Phenotype", or > > "The Blind Watchmater" Dawkins penetrated my thick skull. >... > > Lee > >When debates over group selection in evolution take place, humans get into >the picture. Perhaps we have a hard time discussing humans in evolution >because we are too close to the situation. Furthermore humans evidently >have all these meta-memes which mess with our instincts. Could you be more specific? I don't know what you might mean by this. I have never seen a proposed group selection trait that could not be accounted for with standard selfish gene theory. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 1 21:21:09 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 23:21:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241209746_17598@S3.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <1241209746_17598@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20905011421s376041caxb9d8f88b2d2c21f@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:21 PM, hkhenson wrote: > I have never seen a proposed group selection trait that could not be > accounted for with standard selfish gene theory. Yes and no. The original hypothesis had mostly to do AFAIK with the relative genetic proximity of the altruist behaviour's beneficiaries - offspring, hive, family, herd, tribe, etc. OTOH, on the basis of a game theory approach, it is sufficient that dividends in terms of increased success, offered by the genetic traits inclining towards group loyalty, exceed the related costs for the relevant traits to thrive. More or less as in the case of an agreement amongst a few players at a poker table. You are right however in the sense that even in the second scenario the only ultimate beneficiary may only be the replicator that codifies for the trait - or the trait would never evolved and be maintained in the first place. -- Stefano Vaj From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 21:00:06 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:00:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> At 09:13 PM 4/30/2009, Lee quoted from: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection > >"The problem with group selection is that for a whole group to get a >single trait, it must spread through the whole group first by >regular evolution. But, as J. L. Mackie suggested, when there are >many different groups, each with a different Evolutionarily Stable >Strategy (ESS), there is selection between the different ESSs, since >some are worse than others[20]. For example, a group where altruism >arose would outcompete a group where every creature acted in its own interest." The last sentence is not true, because creatures *DO NOT* act in their own self interest. They act in the self interest of their genes. Most of the time that *looks* like self interest. Then along comes a situation where it is clear that the interest of the creature and it's genes have diverged--and the genes dictate the response. If you have been listening to me in the last few years at all, you can plug in the common examples I have used. If you have not and don't want to look in the archives, ask. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 1 21:37:38 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:37:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 5/1/09, hkhenson wrote: > The last sentence is not true, because creatures *DO NOT* act in their own > self interest. They act in the self interest of their genes. Most of the > time that *looks* like self interest. Then along comes a situation where it > is clear that the interest of the creature and it's genes have diverged--and > the genes dictate the response. > Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first world societies? Developed societies are deciding that riches and a comfortable lifestyle is preferable to the trouble and expense of raising children. Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce reproduction? BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 21:17:08 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:17:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> Message-ID: <1241213087_18138@s6.cableone.net> At 10:12 AM 5/1/2009, spike wrote: snip >It seems that with the survival of the species at stake, some sporty young >Irish elk couple would have come up with an alternate position, in which the >stag's massive antlers could somehow rest on the ground. It is difficult to >form a mental image of that. Are humans the only species with more than one >mating position? You should read the wiki article. The antlers are not thought to have been the problem. >Intraspecies war (as far as I know) is seen in only four species, chimps, >gorillas, humans and ants. What gorillas do can't really be called war. It's displacement of one harem master with another. Lions come closer because one group of brothers will fight another group for the females in a pride. You can make a case for wolves and hyenas where social groups fight other social groups, generally at the territory edges. The same may be true of cooperative breeding birds, where a group hold the territory and one pair breeds. >The anthropologists argue to this day whether >the chimp and gorilla intraspecies fights qualify as war. Some are more >comfortable comparing that phenom to a gang rumble, for they tend to be >chaotic and short-lived with little apparent overall plan or goal, and the >territory capture aspect is questioned. Read Goodall on this subject. Her group at Gombe was severely reduced and their territory much reduced at one point. A splinter groups was killed to the very last individual, and in other places whole groups have been subjected to genocide. What's really interesting is that Bonobos, who are as closely related to us as chimps, don't seem to do this. >So intraspecies war would then be >considered something that is seen in nature but is extremely rare if one >ignores humankind as an oddball species. Even the ants would be considered >a special case, because the actual fighting is be done exclusively by the >non-breeders, as neither the queen nor the drones get involved in duking it >out, or in this case mandibling it out. It is the workers which open a can >of whoop-abdomen. It isn't clear to me that this case of war would lead to >group selection, for the losing side maintains its reproductive capacity. Over time, much reduced capacity is "failing to reproduce." >Imagine a group of hungry pre-technology humans, where some extropian minded >individual comes up with the idea of agriculture. Some agree this is a >great hi-tech way to get reliable food, but the majority insist on the >traditional way of praying to Etaoin Shrdlu for divine guidance in finding >roots, berries and squirrels. Over time, the agriculturalists have a more >reliable food source, become richer and more numerous, and eventually >everyone is an agriculturalist. If this is not a clear example of group >selection I don't know what else to call it. It's not. It is a simple case of one trait (farming) pushing out another (hunter gatherer). Happened a number of times. Farmers were not better off, but there were typically 200 times as many of them. >I can imagine that group selection is analogous to intraspecies war: present >in nature but extremely rare. I don't think anyone has made a cogent argument for group selection. I have never seen one that can't be better understood with ordinary evolution. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 21:51:26 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:51:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <49FB4DDD.5010509@lineone.net> References: <49FB4DDD.5010509@lineone.net> Message-ID: <1241215145_18153@s8.cableone.net> At 12:30 PM 5/1/2009, Ben Zaiboc wrote: snip >OK, I'm way behind on this list, so someone may have asked this >already, but I'm interested in the issue of NEOs as a source of raw >materials, and whether this is even remotely feasible. Sure. A reasonable mass budget for a processing plant is ~50,000 t or 5 million kg. At current launch prices, it would cost $1000 billion just to launch it. >I'm thinking NEOs, like most things in space, go fast, relative to >the earth. Really fast. Getting to them, extracting useful >resources and getting back with those resources isn't at all like >drilling for oil or digging up metal ore here on earth. I suspect >it's possible that the energy required to get there and get the >hydrocarbons or ores or whatever back, would far outweigh their value. >Anybody know some hard facts about this? In the context of a power sat construction project that is using a million tons per year of materials, it's just a matter of delta V and payback time. For example, GEO and asteroid 1986 DA are only 140 m/sec from each other. If the processing plant was turning out 2% of its mass per day, in say Invar, it would take 50 days for the investment in the processing plant to repay its mass. Simple math. It does take some design thought. My suggestion is an open ended induction furnace where the metal is drawn off in a fast moving rod. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 22:08:28 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:08:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.co m> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1AD4F6A677044EDC84C84FACF30A545D@MyComputer> <49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1241202078_18611@s1.cableone.net> At 01:14 PM 5/1/2009, Stefano wrote: >On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:33 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > It would have to be structured carefully so at the end the customers were > > getting cheap power (and synthetic oil). > >In fact, natural fossil and other chemical fuels and the possible >scarcity thereof are really not an issue when you have abundant, cheap >energy from another source. Not only because the latter can replace >the former for most purposes, but also because they can easily - >albeit obviously with energy-negative processes - synthesised in >arbitrary quantities. Details including capital cost here: http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline >The point on which I have increasing doubts is whether they are really >suited to carry a significant mass of matter out of deep gravity >wells. For almost a year I have been talking about how to do this: http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg Compared to using chemical rockets for the same traffic, using lasers ablation propulsion for the second stage reduced the lift off mass (per hour) by a fact of 5, from one 6000 ton rocket to four 300 ton rockets. This provides at least a five to one reduction in transport cost to GEO. >In fact, were the earth more massive, it might even be impossible, if >I am not mistaken, to achieve escape velocity with chemical-reaction >rockets, given that any such fuel would not contain enough energy to >lift itself, let alone any useful payload and the necessary vehicle. The key word you use here is "useful." But you can put number on it. If you want to say anything about space you really have to understand the rocket equation. Even a graphical understanding of it is good enough. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deltavs.svg and check out what mass ratio you need for a delta V of just 3 times the exhaust velocity. >And even from planets of earth mass, the margin available for the >latter with which we have to work is very limited indeed, so that no >engineering magic can do more than working on decimals... The problem is not getting off *our* rock. It is getting off cheaply. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 22:14:11 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:14:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1241202415_18624@s1.cableone.net> At 02:37 PM 5/1/2009, Billk wrote: >On 5/1/09, hkhenson wrote: > > The last sentence is not true, because creatures *DO NOT* act in their own > > self interest. They act in the self interest of their genes. Most of the > > time that *looks* like self interest. Then along comes a > situation where it > > is clear that the interest of the creature and it's genes have > diverged--and > > the genes dictate the response. > > >Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first world societies? No. The only thing this shows is a temporary mismatch between the environment (including culture as environmental element) and the genes. Come back and see what genes are around after 20 generations. >Developed societies are deciding that riches and a comfortable >lifestyle is preferable to the trouble and expense of raising >children. > >Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce reproduction? Never. By definition. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 1 21:38:50 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:38:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Yielding to Ideology Over Science, by Ron Bailey In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905010014n7798ac4n2368bd4866dc956b@mail.gmail.com > References: <200905010537.n415bbp4022090@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905010014n7798ac4n2368bd4866dc956b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1241214389_16947@s5.cableone.net> At 12:14 AM 5/1/2009, Emlyn wrote: >2009/5/1 Max More : > > Another good piece by Ron Bailey: > > > > Yielding to Ideology Over Science > > > > > > Why don't environmentalists celebrate modern farming on Earth Day? > > > > http://www.reason.com/news/show/132997.html > >I think this is shaky ground. While modern farming looks to be a good >thing for the environment per se, improved agricultural technology >seems to just let us increase the total population. More people == >more environmental stressors. Environmentalists don't approve of this. > >Me, I'm for more people. Go people! This is a good idea *only* if the resources (economy) are increasing faster than the population. Otherwise, it is a prescription for wars. Keith From aware at awareresearch.com Fri May 1 22:32:57 2009 From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:32:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241213087_18138@s6.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> <1241213087_18138@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, hkhenson wrote: > I don't think anyone has made a cogent argument for group selection. ?I have > never seen one that can't be better understood with ordinary evolution. This looks like a good response to your question: Why Multilevel Selection Matters And we haven't even touched yet upon epigenetics. - Jef From spike66 at att.net Fri May 1 22:22:38 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:22:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <028D540D17874492953C86C844BDC583@spike> .... > > Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first > world societies? > > Developed societies are deciding that riches and a > comfortable lifestyle is preferable to the trouble and > expense of raising children. > > Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce > reproduction? > > BillK >>humans evidently have all these meta-memes which mess with our instincts. spike >Could you be more specific? I don't know what you might mean by this. Keith Keith and BillK, this gets to what I meant with the instincts comment. Humans don't act only on instinct. We think, we look at the bigger picture. If we operated on instinct, we would mate like crazy. Hmmm, we do mate like crazy. OK bad example. {8^D We wouldn't work in an office 9 to 5 that's for sure. We choose our mates partly based their wealth for instance, or perceived stability, instead of the more standard instinctive stuff like the size and shape of the body, or perceived fertility, the stuff that is so popular in the rest of the animal kingdom. Lucky for me. {8^D This makes us a difficult subject to study from an evolutionary point of view. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri May 1 22:11:36 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:11:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1AD4F6A677044EDC84C84FACF30A545D@MyComputer><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Stefano Vaj > ... > > In fact, were the earth more massive, it might even be > impossible, if I am not mistaken, to achieve escape velocity > with chemical-reaction rockets, given that any such fuel > would not contain enough energy to lift itself, let alone any > useful payload and the necessary vehicle... > > -- > Stefano Vaj No. Well, not exactly. If the earth were more massive, there is not a point where achieving escape becomes *impossible* but rather it does quickly approach impractical. The process is exponential, but with no brick wall stopping the whole parade. >...given that any such fuel would not contain enough energy to lift itself... Keep in mind that *the fuel* doesn't actually need to lift itself. I think you meant if the earth were very much larger, we couldn't build a first stage that could take off vertically. Even this isn't quite right, depending on how much one is willing to go to extraordinary lengths. If we were willing to fire up a Saturn V to get one kg to LEO, the earth could be more massive and we could still get there. The more interesting question, and perhaps the one you were getting to, was this: *Is it possible to do single stage to orbit?* That question is still open. My best answer is yes it is, but you hafta go without payload and no humans aboard, if you intend to recover the vehicle. Without needing to recover the bird, there is not much point in going single stage, ja? I started my career in aerospace weight engineering. The annual conventions back then had a side session where the smart guys would present designs for SSTO and argue if it is possible. They still repeat the same arguments 25 years later, and the numbers haven't changed appreciably in that time. My attitude has been SSTO is possible, but not practical, with chemical rockets. The earth is just big enough to spoil the fun. Lockheeed worked on it for a while, then abandoned it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 I intentionally stayed off the project, for I never could convince myself that the X-33 approach would work. In any case, this much I can assure you: NASA screwed this project, Lockheeed didn't. NASA refused to use known, practical technology, aluminum structure, opting instead to insist on a composite tank which I am confident wouldn't have worked. The reason I know (from bitter personal experience) is one must always take into account the following law of nature: composite tanks are always more problems than you anticipate. Even if you take law that into account and anticipate more problems than you anticipate, they are still more problems than you anticipate. Keith's pop up and push notion, where (one version) is a chemical propelled/laser ablation hybrid, might get us there. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 1 22:43:12 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 17:43:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241202415_18624@s1.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> <1241202415_18624@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501173010.022ba2c8@satx.rr.com> At 03:14 PM 5/1/2009 -0700, Keith wrote: >>[BillK:] >>Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first world societies? > >No. The only thing this shows is a temporary mismatch between the >environment (including culture as environmental element) and the genes. >> >>Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce reproduction? > >Never. By definition. And hence, by definition, an appeal to the "self interest" of genes alone is insufficient. Keith, you're a meme guy. Calling culture an "environmental element" is dangerously simplistic. Culture is a turbulent memetic structure instantiated inside the phenotypes that are the cutting surface of selection, and distributed across mutually reachable phenotypes. So a gene-set builds a brain that hosts and expresses a mishmash of memes at various levels of abstraction and power and persistence, and that creates a Baldwin effect that helps shape the genomes of subsequent generations, so we're always talking about *co*-evolutionary elements and sets. I wouldn't be surprised if something like Benford's datavores and kenes (see THE SPIKE) already traverse the computational cloud of contiguous minds that can communicate and manipulate and reward each other. "National character" might be a first crude approximation at identifying such hypermind entities, and scientific paradigms and warrior faiths might be two more classes. Just musing... Damien Broderick From aware at awareresearch.com Fri May 1 23:11:54 2009 From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:11:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501173010.022ba2c8@satx.rr.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> <1241202415_18624@s1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501173010.022ba2c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > At 03:14 PM 5/1/2009 -0700, Keith wrote: >> [BillK:] >> Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first world societies? > > No. ?The only thing this shows is a temporary mismatch between the > environment (including culture as environmental element) and the genes. >> >> Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce reproduction? > > Never. ?By definition. Actually, that depends entirely on whether we mean reduce the reproduction *rate*, which would seem to be the only sensible interpretation, since the alternative amounts to a tautology. And of course throttling the reproduction rate is not only good for the longer-term persistence of the gene, but quite quickly become necessary for any organism in any environment given the ruinous consequences of unthrottled doubling. - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 2 01:43:12 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 18:43:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <028D540D17874492953C86C844BDC583@spike> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> <028D540D17874492953C86C844BDC583@spike> Message-ID: <1241229051_17556@s5.cableone.net> At 03:22 PM 5/1/2009, spike wrote: >.... > > > > Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first > > world societies? > > > > Developed societies are deciding that riches and a > > comfortable lifestyle is preferable to the trouble and > > expense of raising children. > > > > Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce > > reproduction? > > > > BillK > > >>humans evidently have all these meta-memes which mess with our instincts. >spike > > >Could you be more specific? I don't know what you might mean by this. >Keith > >Keith and BillK, this gets to what I meant with the instincts comment. >Humans don't act only on instinct. We think, we look at the bigger picture. >If we operated on instinct, we would mate like crazy. Hmmm, we do mate like >crazy. OK bad example. {8^D We wouldn't work in an office 9 to 5 that's >for sure. Humans will do just about anything that gets them the wherewithal to live. I am sure people were trading things far, far back into prehistory and doing things like chipping rocks for tribe members not so skilled at that. >We choose our mates partly based their wealth for instance, or >perceived stability, instead of the more standard instinctive stuff like the >size and shape of the body, or perceived fertility, the stuff that is so >popular in the rest of the animal kingdom. Lucky for me. {8^D Ah, that's not exactly true. Men are attracted to signs of fertility, of course, but especially when it comes to long term relations, i.e., the possibility of children, both men and women rate smartness very highly. >This makes us a difficult subject to study from an evolutionary point of >view. Maybe so, but there are a load of people doing it. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 2 01:51:44 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 18:51:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> <1241213087_18138@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1241215177_19140@s1.cableone.net> At 03:32 PM 5/1/2009, you wrote: >On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > I don't think anyone has made a cogent argument for group > selection. I have > > never seen one that can't be better understood with ordinary evolution. > >This looks like a good response to your question: > >Why Multilevel Selection Matters > I read that paper when it came out. It is poorly written and full of BS. If you want me to go into detail, post the whole thing right here and I will tear it apart. I am not saying that there can't be group selection, it just that nobody has *ever* come up with an example that cannot be completely explained by a combination of memetics and biological evolution. Keith >And we haven't even touched yet upon epigenetics. > >- Jef >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 2 02:06:16 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 19:06:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501173010.022ba2c8@satx.rr.com> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> <1241202415_18624@s1.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501173010.022ba2c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1241216029_19172@s1.cableone.net> At 03:43 PM 5/1/2009, you wrote: >At 03:14 PM 5/1/2009 -0700, Keith wrote: >>>[BillK:] >>>Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first world societies? >> >>No. The only thing this shows is a temporary mismatch between the >>environment (including culture as environmental element) and the genes. >>> >>>Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce reproduction? >> >>Never. By definition. > >And hence, by definition, an appeal to the "self interest" of genes >alone is insufficient. Keith, you're a meme guy. Calling culture an >"environmental element" is dangerously simplistic. Culture is a >turbulent memetic structure It is now, but there have been *long* periods of human evolution where it was damn near a constant. For over a million years the "hand ax" (killer frisbie) was a cultural constant. >instantiated inside the phenotypes that are the cutting surface of >selection, and distributed across mutually reachable phenotypes. So >a gene-set builds a brain that hosts and expresses a mishmash of >memes at various levels of abstraction and power and persistence, >and that creates a Baldwin effect that helps shape the genomes of >subsequent generations, so we're always talking about >*co*-evolutionary elements and sets. Hey, *I* am the Dr. Clark fan. If you buy into his well supported model, then the culture set new selection conditions for genes, selecting a set of personality genes that were not favored in waring hunter gatherers. Definitely co-evolution. >I wouldn't be surprised if something like Benford's datavores and >kenes (see THE SPIKE) already traverse the computational cloud of >contiguous minds that can communicate and manipulate and reward each >other. "National character" might be a first crude approximation at >identifying such hypermind entities, and scientific paradigms and >warrior faiths might be two more classes. And that doesn't count the information that replicates in computer space. Talk about THE SPIKE, I seriously doubt physical state humans will be here by the end of the century. Keith >Just musing... > >Damien Broderick > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sat May 2 03:30:09 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 13:00:09 +0930 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905012030r774a4fa0i88d2a34265bc344d@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/2 Damien Broderick : > At 11:28 PM 4/30/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> ?> If a universal income made it really hard >> > to employ people to do this, then it would provide incentive to >> > private industry (or a free project!) to automate the job once and for >> > all. >> >> ### Since you would need to tax private industry into oblivion to >> provide an universal income guarantee, nothing would get automated. > > The thread-context has been lost, I think. My sense is that this thread > started as an enquiry into what happens as machines drive more and more > people out of work--can such people be retained, and for what jobs? Even so, > in my own long post summarizing early analyses of guaranteed income > proposals, I cited one economist's estimate that introducing such a scheme > in the 1960s or 1970s would have cost the equivalent of a small war. There > has been a number of wars since then, large and small, paid for by > taxpayers, yet private industry is still around (even if it's currently > battered by other failures, usually of its own making). > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Yes thread context lost. Reboot. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 2 04:39:52 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:39:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Global Warming Junk Science? In-Reply-To: References: <580930c20904201056n23a7bfcepae3cef50846f047@mail.gmail.com> <400DD6F6CAD341159389CC225A6CDD8E@MyComputer> <49ED20CD.4030608@comcast.net> <7641ddc60904202313i72f0b4dg42b6301482c05e6c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904220951h638df3e0m9ceed3134c1dde8f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904271932k71a8dd29gf68fe07130a2bb05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905012139l277fd2c9pb6043a4bb4c57698@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > Unless we do something like power satellites or a huge nuclear > construction program, it is easy to see the price of fuel going up by > an order of magnitude. ### No matter how I strain, I can't see it coming, unless you are talking about fuel prices increase caused by a global nuclear war or global environmental hysteria. Oil is cheap and plentiful, and even if it runs out in 50 or 100 years, it can be made cheaply from coal, or gas. Just run the numbers. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 2 05:19:47 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 01:19:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > The thread-context has been lost, I think. My sense is that this thread > started as an enquiry into what happens as machines drive more and more > people out of work--can such people be retained, and for what jobs? Even so, > in my own long post summarizing early analyses of guaranteed income > proposals, I cited one economist's estimate that introducing such a scheme > in the 1960s or 1970s would have cost the equivalent of a small war. There > has been a number of wars since then, large and small, paid for by > taxpayers, yet private industry is still around (even if it's currently > battered by other failures, usually of its own making). ### That economist may have been a commie. It's silly think that GI would cost as much as a small war! No, it would cost as much as a medium large never ending civil war. The real cost is not the piddling amount of money initially committed to the parasites. The real cost of such schemes is totally different from the primary initial costs and it is driven by secondary effects over long periods of time. For example, the monetary cost of Social Security increased by orders of magnitude due to various selection effects and political pressuring. At the same time Social Security reduced investment - people do not invest for retirement if they think the state will give them money later, and besides they have now less money to invest because the state is taxing it away to pay off previous "investors", just like Bernie Madoff. This contributed to the catastrophic slowing of long term economic growth which fell to as little as 3 - 4% a year from the 10% or more normally expected in a well-functioning industrial economy. Or take the War on Drugs - the cost of paying the narcs is a tiny fraction of the full cost of the war. You have to add the impact of inducing widespread corruption, strengthening of gangs, destruction of neighborhoods, inducing destruction of other countries, increasing revenues of terrorist organizations, direct and opportunity cost of keeping millions of people in prison, and soon you are talking about real money. Same with GI - the problem is in feeding the parasites and punishing workers over long time. At first just a few parasites, and not punishing much but as parasites breed, they vote for more money, so the burden on workers is higher, so there are fewer workers and more parasites, and the positive feedback effects feed on each other, until something breaks. Luckily, the black rain will kill us all way before so we don't really have to worry about the long run. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 2 06:05:13 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 01:05:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0904292352w114346f6y9894c64ed43491dc@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502005902.022f41e8@satx.rr.com> At 01:19 AM 5/2/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > I cited one economist's estimate that introducing such a scheme > > in the 1960s or 1970s would have cost the equivalent of a small war. There > > has been a number of wars since then, large and small, paid for by > > taxpayers, yet private industry is still around (even if it's currently > > battered by other failures, usually of its own making). > >### That economist may have been a commie. Milton Friedman was making the same case at the same time. I've never heard him described as a commie. Of course, in 1971 Rothbard wrote: "Milton Friedman is the Establishment's Court Libertarian." I guess that's like a commie. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 2 05:43:32 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 22:43:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is Global Warming Junk Science? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905012139l277fd2c9pb6043a4bb4c57698@mail.gmail.co m> References: <580930c20904201056n23a7bfcepae3cef50846f047@mail.gmail.com> <400DD6F6CAD341159389CC225A6CDD8E@MyComputer> <49ED20CD.4030608@comcast.net> <7641ddc60904202313i72f0b4dg42b6301482c05e6c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904220951h638df3e0m9ceed3134c1dde8f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904271932k71a8dd29gf68fe07130a2bb05@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905012139l277fd2c9pb6043a4bb4c57698@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1241243472_19126@S4.cableone.net> At 09:39 PM 5/1/2009, Rafal wrote: >On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > Unless we do something like power satellites or a huge nuclear > > construction program, it is easy to see the price of fuel going up by > > an order of magnitude. > >### No matter how I strain, I can't see it coming, unless you are >talking about fuel prices increase caused by a global nuclear war or >global environmental hysteria. Oil is cheap and plentiful, and even if >it runs out in 50 or 100 years, it can be made cheaply from coal, or >gas. Just run the numbers. I have. www.htyp.org/dtc If you have your version of the numbers up on the net somewhere, let me know. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 2 06:34:05 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 02:34:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502005902.022f41e8@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090502005902.022f41e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905012334i1bdf0570y1daec5bbdb806f25@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:19 AM 5/2/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> > I cited one economist's estimate that introducing such a scheme >> > in the 1960s or 1970s would have cost the equivalent of a small war. >> > There >> > has been a number of wars since then, large and small, paid for by >> > taxpayers, yet private industry is still around (even if it's currently >> > battered by other failures, usually of its own making). >> >> ### That economist may have been a commie. > > Milton Friedman was making the same case at the same time. I've never heard > him described as a commie. Of course, in 1971 Rothbard wrote: "Milton > Friedman is the Establishment's Court Libertarian." I guess that's like a > commie. > > > > ### Yeah, if you are a Murray N. Rothbard, or a Rafal M. Smigrodzki, almost everybody is almost a commie. And BTW, private industry doesn't have "failures" - only government does. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 2 06:41:12 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 02:41:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Global Warming Junk Science? In-Reply-To: <1241243472_19126@S4.cableone.net> References: <580930c20904201056n23a7bfcepae3cef50846f047@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904202313i72f0b4dg42b6301482c05e6c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904220951h638df3e0m9ceed3134c1dde8f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904271932k71a8dd29gf68fe07130a2bb05@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905012139l277fd2c9pb6043a4bb4c57698@mail.gmail.com> <1241243472_19126@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905012341w35b7bb71u91fc0d7b37445834@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:43 AM, hkhenson wrote: > At 09:39 PM 5/1/2009, Rafal wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Keith Henson >> wrote: >> >> > >> > Unless we do something like power satellites or a huge nuclear >> > construction program, it is easy to see the price of fuel going up by >> > an order of magnitude. >> >> ### No matter how I strain, I can't see it coming, unless you are >> talking about fuel prices increase caused by a global nuclear war or >> global environmental hysteria. Oil is cheap and plentiful, and even if >> it runs out in 50 or 100 years, it can be made cheaply from coal, or >> gas. Just run the numbers. > > I have. ?www.htyp.org/dtc ?If you have your version of the numbers up on the > net somewhere, let me know. ### Yeah, you describe dollar a gallon synthetic gasoline from syngas - so how does that support your contention that fuel prices are going to rise by an order of magnitude? Rafal From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 2 10:30:42 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 20:30:42 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/2 Rafal Smigrodzki : > Same with GI - the problem is in feeding the parasites and punishing > workers over long time. At first just a few parasites, and not > punishing much but as parasites breed, they vote for more money, so > the burden on workers is higher, so there are fewer workers and more > parasites, and the positive feedback effects feed on each other, until > something breaks. Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat May 2 12:58:01 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:58:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> <046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> Message-ID: <580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, spike wrote: >> Stefano Vaj: >> In fact, were the earth more massive, it might even be >> impossible, if I am not mistaken, to achieve escape velocity >> with chemical-reaction rockets, given that any such fuel >> would not contain enough energy to lift itself, let alone any >> useful payload and the necessary vehicle... > > No. ?Well, not exactly. ?If the earth were more massive, there is not a > point where achieving escape becomes *impossible* but rather it does quickly > approach impractical. ?The process is exponential, but with no brick wall > stopping the whole parade. Please forgive me if I am saying something stupid in terms of elementary physics, but let us say that chemical reaction x liberates energy y for any kilo of reagents. If you keep increasing gravity, the work required to lift any given quantity of reagents may well sooner or later exceed the work that can be obtained from the same quantity thereof, or not? In other terms, when the gravity is strong enough, a Saturn V does not take off at all, let alone gets to orbit, irrespective of its payload, right? I insist on this concept because I am afraid that on earth we are only marginally distant from this scenario. This is why I am attracted by Project Orion-like vehicles, in spite of their obvious inconvenients... But of course the ablation system sounds like a brilliant solution, at least on paper, since you would not have to bring all the energy along. -- Stefano Vaj From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat May 2 15:14:29 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 11:14:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1AD4F6A677044EDC84C84FACF30A545D@MyComputer><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9255572BBBFE4BB7AFF14ACFE6D64203@MyComputer> "Stefano Vaj" > natural fossil and other chemical fuels and > the possible scarcity thereof are really not > an issue when you have abundant, cheap > energy from another source. At the present time there are only 2 abundant sources of energy, solar and nuclear fission; neither is anywhere close to being cheap, especially solar, space based or otherwise. Environmentalists love to say otherwise, but they're kidding themselves and trying to kid us. >In fact, were the earth more massive, it might even be impossible No just impractical. John K Clark From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 2 15:35:32 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 17:35:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Il 02/05/2009 12.30, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/2 Rafal Smigrodzki: > >> Same with GI - the problem is in feeding the parasites and punishing >> workers over long time. At first just a few parasites, and not >> punishing much but as parasites breed, they vote for more money, so >> the burden on workers is higher, so there are fewer workers and more >> parasites, and the positive feedback effects feed on each other, until >> something breaks. > > Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population > realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those > countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every > country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low > government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. This is because so many countries have public education. To fill young head with trash about economy. Over this, many groups have interests in filling the head of people of strange ideas about economy. Nothing really new, as Bastiat wrote about this 200 years ago. Mirco From spike66 at att.net Sat May 2 15:10:11 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 08:10:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net><580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com><046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> <580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Stefano Vaj > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:58 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Power satellites > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, spike wrote: > >> Stefano Vaj: ... > > > > No. ?Well, not exactly. ?If the earth were more massive, > there is not > > a point where achieving escape becomes *impossible* but > rather it does > > quickly approach impractical. ?The process is exponential, > but with no > > brick wall stopping the whole parade. > > Please forgive me if I am saying something stupid in terms of > elementary physics, but let us say that chemical reaction x > liberates energy y for any kilo of reagents... Not stupid at all. The same argument was used for a long time by British physicists before the war to assure Churchill that the nazis couldn't use rockets to drop bombs on London. Then the nazis demonstrated the error of their ways in a most dramatic fashion, thru the magic of multiple staging. >... If you keep > increasing gravity, the work required to lift any given > quantity of reagents may well sooner or later exceed the work > that can be obtained from the same quantity thereof, or not?... Keep in mind the *work* that is needed. The overwhelming majority of the fuel and oxidizer aboard the Saturn V on the launch pad doesn't actually go all that high out of the gravity well. > > In other terms, when the gravity is strong enough, a Saturn V > does not take off at all, let alone gets to orbit, > irrespective of its payload, right?...Stefano Vaj Right, but if the gravity well were stronger, we wouldn't use a Saturn V. We would have a first stage that would spend itself sooner that the V does. Think of a Saturn V first stage but imagine it with ten nozzles instead of 5, so it makes a lot more initial thrust but spends itself much more quickly. Then the second stage with four nozzles instead of 2, then a third stage, which instead of making it to orbit only gets to 20 km up and 3 km per second. Then a fourth stage kicks in which takes you to 40 km and 5 km/sec, then a fifth stage about a quarter the mass of the fourth, and so on, until you finally make it to orbit velocity and altitude, but with perhaps a dozen stages and only a kg of payload. There is no absolute physical limit, but there are practical limits. As Eugen put it, the rocket equation is a cruel thing. Yes this is a big planet for chemical rockets. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 2 16:05:51 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 11:05:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: List Over Posting In-Reply-To: <1241215145_18153@s8.cableone.net> References: <49FB4DDD.5010509@lineone.net> <1241215145_18153@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <58ACDEAE1556495F977471BD17CF590C@DFC68LF1> Please watch the number of posts. Thank you. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 4:51 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Power satellites At 12:30 PM 5/1/2009, Ben Zaiboc wrote: snip >OK, I'm way behind on this list, so someone may have asked this >already, but I'm interested in the issue of NEOs as a source of raw >materials, and whether this is even remotely feasible. Sure. A reasonable mass budget for a processing plant is ~50,000 t or 5 million kg. At current launch prices, it would cost $1000 billion just to launch it. >I'm thinking NEOs, like most things in space, go fast, relative to the >earth. Really fast. Getting to them, extracting useful resources and >getting back with those resources isn't at all like drilling for oil or >digging up metal ore here on earth. I suspect it's possible that the >energy required to get there and get the hydrocarbons or ores or >whatever back, would far outweigh their value. >Anybody know some hard facts about this? In the context of a power sat construction project that is using a million tons per year of materials, it's just a matter of delta V and payback time. For example, GEO and asteroid 1986 DA are only 140 m/sec from each other. If the processing plant was turning out 2% of its mass per day, in say Invar, it would take 50 days for the investment in the processing plant to repay its mass. Simple math. It does take some design thought. My suggestion is an open ended induction furnace where the metal is drawn off in a fast moving rod. Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 2 16:15:57 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 18:15:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49FC71BD.9090603@libero.it> Il 01/05/2009 19.22, BillK ha scritto: > But, to summarize, I feel it is a very odd sort of law that has > unpredictable outcomes. Because 'all else is *never* equal' every > situation has to be examined on its merits. This would imply that there is no reason to do scientific experiments, as "all else is never equal". > As just one example, if GM cut the price of their cars by 10%, > consumers probably wouldn't rush to buy. Why not? Where has the 'law' > gone that says cut prices = sell more? It is because of expectations > that next month prices will be even cheaper. This show that you don't really understand the law. It say that if prices go down the number of car sold will not go down. They could stay the same or they could go up. And there is no prior way to know exactly how many more cars would be sold, as this depend on the preferences of the single persons. If GM sell 1M car at 20K $/car, slashing the price 10% will not guarantee that the number of car sold will grow, but only that the number of car sold will not reduce. > It might as well be random. It appear to be random if you don't understand what is happening. > I much prefer a 'law' that says if you do x, then y will *always* happen. > That's my kind of law. And the law tell you this. If you slash the prices you will never sell less (all other stay equal). Mirco From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat May 2 16:44:28 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 18:44:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <9255572BBBFE4BB7AFF14ACFE6D64203@MyComputer> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> <9255572BBBFE4BB7AFF14ACFE6D64203@MyComputer> Message-ID: <580930c20905020944g7852753esd4f811bfd75b9411@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:14 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Stefano Vaj" >> natural fossil and other chemical fuels and >> the possible scarcity thereof are really not >> an issue when you have abundant, cheap >> energy from another source. > > At the present time there are only 2 abundant sources of energy, solar and > nuclear fission; neither is anywhere close to being cheap, especially solar, > space based or otherwise. Environmentalists love to say otherwise, but > they're kidding themselves and trying to kid us. "When you have" meaning of course "If you had". As to the chances of the hypothetical ever becoming true, the best candidates for me are nuclear fusion, space power satellites, and deep geothermy. Nuclear fission is a so-so, and the rest is IMHO a joke, unless for very specific and limited purposes. -- Stefano Vaj From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com Sat May 2 16:53:32 2009 From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 2 May 2009 16:53:32 -0000 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net><580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com><046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> <580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> Message-ID: <20090502165332.5.qmail@syzygy.com> spike writes: >There is no absolute physical limit, but there are practical limits. As >Eugen put it, the rocket equation is a cruel thing. Yes this is a big >planet for chemical rockets. Well, actually there is an absolute physical limit. Get the mass of the 'planet' up high enough, and you get an event horizon. I'll admit, the limit is pretty far from where we are, but it is there. A question to Keith about 'pop up and push': With a fixed array of lasers on the ground, might it make sense to do the last bit of the pop up part by laser? The geometry may be such that you couldn't reuse the push lasers for this, which would limit the usefulness. If you're cranking out a production line of those lasers anyway, it could make sense to throw a set near the launch site, though. Maybe you eventually end up with a completely laser powered launch. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat May 2 17:01:25 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:01:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <20090502165332.5.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> <046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike> <580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> <20090502165332.5.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905021001w398be3b6j24335b329855a4c2@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Eric Messick wrote: > Well, actually there is an absolute physical limit. ?Get the mass of > the 'planet' up high enough, and you get an event horizon. ?I'll > admit, the limit is pretty far from where we are, but it is there. Yes, this also came to my mind. But even much below that limit, can we actually lift wood to orbit by making use of the energy that can be extracted by burning it, if we are not concerned with the relative size of the payload? :-/ -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sat May 2 17:05:32 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:05:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it><1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it><1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net><580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com><046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike><580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com> <399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike> Message-ID: <90CF41CCA74443018F615F380D8AB51E@spike> > ...On Behalf Of spike .... > > ...until you finally make it to > orbit velocity and altitude, but with perhaps a dozen stages > and only a kg of payload. > > There is no absolute physical limit, but there are practical > limits. As Eugen put it, the rocket equation is a cruel > thing. Yes this is a big planet for chemical rockets. > > spike Interesting aside: had we a much larger gravity well, we would have waited until better miniaturization technology was available to go into space. Consider that modern rocketry was developed to deliver bombs, and the really cool multistage stuff was for intercontinental nuke delivery. The miniaturization of nukes and re-entry bodies after the first ICBM was dramatic. The first ICBMs carried only one warhead, but the modern ones carry a dozen or more. Even that understates in a way because we now realize the most potent nukes are not the traditional mushroom cloud stuff but rather an electromagnetic pulse bomb which wipes out electronics while pretty much leaving the flora and fauna unharmed, for the time being. The EMPs are smaller still. Look at how much miniaturization has impacted us by comparing your laptop, or for that matter your phone, to the HP3000 I used in my misspent youth. Chemical rockets may even be sufficient for interstellar travel, assuming we get nanotechnology going in order to reduce the payload to a few grams class. Then our Atlas class rockets could accelerate that few grams to... let me calculate... 300 km per second-ish, a milli-c, get us to the neighbors' place in a little over 4000 years. Of course upon arrival it would likely find another earth-originated spacecraft already there, which was launched on a smaller rocket with a muuuch smaller payload than a few grams. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat May 2 17:29:56 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 13:29:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F4DC98.8030500@libero.it> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net><580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com><9255572BBBFE4BB7AFF14ACFE6D64203@MyComputer> <580930c20905020944g7852753esd4f811bfd75b9411@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "Stefano Vaj" > the best candidates for me are nuclear fusion We don't know how to do that. > space power satellites We don't know how to do that either. > and deep geothermy. That's not abundant. > Nuclear fission is a so-so But we do know how to do that. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 2 17:34:11 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 12:34:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <49FC71BD.9090603@libero.it> References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49FC71BD.9090603@libero.it> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502121929.025bc4f0@satx.rr.com> >>As just one example, if GM cut the price of their cars by 10%, >>consumers probably wouldn't rush to buy. Why not? Where has the 'law' >>gone that says cut prices = sell more? It is because of expectations >>that next month prices will be even cheaper. > >This show that you don't really understand the law. >It say that if prices go down the number of car sold will not go >down. They could stay the same or they could go up. And there is no >prior way to know exactly how many more cars would be sold, as this >depend on the preferences of the single persons. Actually "there is no prior way ever to know how many cars would be sold" just as there was no way at the end of the 19th century to know how many horses would be sold by 1950. It's quantification of guesswork. How many SUVs will be sold if the price of oil goes up intolerably? >If GM sell 1M car at 20K $/car, slashing the price 10% will not >guarantee that the number of car sold will grow, but only that the >number of car sold will not reduce. This explains why the number of buggy whips, manual typewriters and ice boxes sold each year has never fallen even though price has plummeted. (You might reply that demand for these items has been affected by more than price alone. That's true. Add another epicycle to that effect.) From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat May 2 17:49:13 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:49:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1240791741_8412@s1.cableone.net> <49F6011F.90406@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com> <49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net> <580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com> <9255572BBBFE4BB7AFF14ACFE6D64203@MyComputer> <580930c20905020944g7852753esd4f811bfd75b9411@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905021049w6dae4e25wbbff4210bf2fd4e3@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:29 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Stefano Vaj" >> the best candidates for me are nuclear fusion > We don't know how to do that. Right. And we might not for a long time, given the current investment level... >> space power satellites > We don't know how to do that either. Why, Keith appears to have something interesting to say on the subject. >> and deep geothermy. > That's not abundant. Wrong. Right objection is again "We don't know how to do that". >> Nuclear fission is a so-so > But we do know how to do that. Granted. -- Stefano Vaj From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat May 2 18:12:12 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:12:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905021112y79b134e2mefccdc3c7b9c0545@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/2 Rafal Smigrodzki : > >> Same with GI - the problem is in feeding the parasites and punishing >> workers over long time. At first just a few parasites, and not >> punishing much but as parasites breed, they vote for more money, so >> the burden on workers is higher, so there are fewer workers and more >> parasites, and the positive feedback effects feed on each other, until >> something breaks. > > Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population > realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those > countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every > country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low > government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. > ### Yeah, this happened and I was actually there - in Eastern Europe in the early 90's. Except it took not a few but between 40 and 70 years for the masses to snap out of it and demand real change (as opposed to Obama-change). And of course once the capitalist prosperity arrives it takes less than 30 years for the society as a whole to forget where it came from. They start thinking prosperity is something that just happens, and a birthright, too, so of course soon taxes and government power start growing again. And thus the never ending cycle continues, the yang of wisdom, capitalism, and progress is again smothered by the yin of stupidity and envy. Actually, the effective average tax rates on accumulated wealth in primitive societies are in excess 85% (according to Tyler Cowen), so today's 30 - 60% is some progress already - but it took 10,000 years to achieve. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Sat May 2 18:03:21 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 11:03:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Power satellites In-Reply-To: <580930c20905021001w398be3b6j24335b329855a4c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <547466.39250.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49F6011F.90406@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090427144609.05a85fd8@satx.rr.com><49F6359E.6090300@libero.it> <1240886493_3274@s5.cableone.net><580930c20905011314h48de2dcfkdd8de97b23bbd675@mail.gmail.com><046D94F45FCD4AEF9F4800338D648EED@spike><580930c20905020558r2915315clec1b293a54a32c31@mail.gmail.com><399D1D657B6B483D89F6CFB5923DD655@spike><20090502165332.5.qmail@syzygy.com> <580930c20905021001w398be3b6j24335b329855a4c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > Subject: Re: [ExI] Power satellites > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Eric Messick > wrote: > > Well, actually there is an absolute physical limit. ?Get > the mass of > > the 'planet' up high enough, and you get an event horizon. ?I'll > > admit, the limit is pretty far from where we are, but it is there. > > Yes, this also came to my mind. But even much below that > limit, can we actually lift wood to orbit by making use of > the energy that can be extracted by burning it, if we are not > concerned with the relative size of the payload? :-/ > > -- > Stefano Vaj Oh, ja if we are near black hole scales, we can't get there outta that gravity well. We can't even talk to the stellar neighbors, never mind visiting them. Can we make a wood burning rocket? Yes. You would take your logs, grind them to dust finer than flour, blow that into a heated pressurized chamber with only hydrogen present, then load that product aboard your rocket, pump it into your combustion chamber with LOX at about 6 atm, boom, up you go. Or just start with flour instead of wood, this being sufficiently similar chemically for this purpose. If you are asking could you use wood as a rocket fuel in the form of two by fours? Sure, take it up to almost orbit velocity in the traditional fashion, burn your two-bys in a chamber with pure oxygen, dump the heat into xenon or better yet radon as your propellant, pick up some delta vee. Or you could dump the hot CO2 and H2O out the back as your propellant too if you prefer. It would be far better to preprocess your wood on the ground however, put all that carbon to work carrying hydrogen. I pulled a fast one on you with that first idea. By grinding and adding hydrogen and energy, you functionally convert the wood to kerosene, which is what the Saturn first stage burns. Stefano, good thing for me you have a sense of humor. {8^D I love rocket jokes. Oy, I am such a geek. spike From hartmut.prochaska at gmail.com Fri May 1 14:21:51 2009 From: hartmut.prochaska at gmail.com (Hartmut Prochaska) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:21:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: A modest proposal for the Extropy-Chat list In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0904292242l733b443fl6e6d484d02677e2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200904282319.n3SNJSok001659@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0904292242l733b443fl6e6d484d02677e2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FB057F.9000901@gmail.com> Hi, > It'd be nice to use some kind of karma system, or something a bit more > crowd-sourcey, to replace moderation. Unfortunately, just about every > scheme I can think of would require a website (there are no feedback > buttons in an email). And this will always be an email list. they only way to get the karma system into the mails I could currently imagine is to enhance the signature with a links like http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat//karmaup or http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat//karmaargh with login on the website. So if the mail is realy very good or bad you will click on this link, log in and give karma points. This is a little bit inconvinient, so I guess it would realy only be used for the "extreme" cases and otherwise ignored. Also I guess some members of this list will argue againt cluttering the signature :) bye Hartmut From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 2 22:04:53 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 17:04:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance Message-ID: I thought you all might enjoy this: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4816051/12849087 Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 2 22:43:31 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 00:43:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Economic laws/was Re: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502121929.025bc4f0@satx.rr.com> References: <946178.5644.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49FC71BD.9090603@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090502121929.025bc4f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <49FCCC93.9050607@libero.it> Il 02/05/2009 19.34, Damien Broderick ha scritto: >> If GM sell 1M car at 20K $/car, slashing the price 10% will not >> guarantee that the number of car sold will grow, but only that the >> number of car sold will not reduce. > This explains why the number of buggy whips, manual typewriters and ice > boxes sold each year has never fallen even though price has plummeted. > (You might reply that demand for these items has been affected by more > than price alone. That's true. Add another epicycle to that effect.) "All other equal" is the game name. By the way, I'm sure enough that "buggy whips, manual typewriters and ice boxes" are more costly now than in the past, mainly because no one sell them any more as there is no one buying them any more. Mirco From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 3 00:05:42 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 17:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance Message-ID: <160899.61407.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> That was fantastic!!!? Now that's energy!!!? ? Anna? ? --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Natasha Vita-More wrote: From: Natasha Vita-More Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance To: "'ExI chat list'" , "'World Transhumanist Association Discussion List'" , extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com, ART-tac at yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 6:04 PM I thought you all might enjoy this: ? http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4816051/12849087 ? ?Natasha Vita-More ? -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun May 3 01:45:09 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:15:09 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com> That's awesome. 2009/5/3 Natasha Vita-More : > I thought you all might enjoy this: > > > http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4816051/12849087 > > > ?Natasha Vita-More > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 02:35:49 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 21:35:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >That's awesome. The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent choreography; pity the music is such kitsch. I'd love to watch it set to something less treacly. Philip Glass, maybe, or alternatively a rock band with some grit. Damien Broderick From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 3 02:54:21 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance Message-ID: <537521.78300.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I thought it was entertaining, well thought and stratigic. I thought the coordination with that many people at one time was fascinating as it takes so much energy for everyone to be on the same page. The lasting impression imo is the one of so many people appearing to be in a harmonius mood and enjoying the moment. Yeah probably doesn't have the grasp of Philip Glass but maybe he wasn't very much fun:) Anna --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > From: Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance > To: "ExI chat list" > Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 10:35 PM > At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn > wrote: > > > That's awesome. > > The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent choreography; > pity the music is such kitsch. I'd love to watch it set to > something less treacly. Philip Glass, maybe, or > alternatively a rock band with some grit. > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 03:00:54 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 22:00:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: <537521.78300.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <537521.78300.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502215908.026f2fc8@satx.rr.com> >I thought the coordination with that many people at one time was >fascinating as it takes so much energy for everyone to be on the same page. So much preparation, training and practice, I'd have thought, carefully masked by its gradual emergence. (If someone now reveals that there was only a handful of choreographed dancers, and the rest just copied them, I'll be utterly flabbergasted and *really* impressed.) Damien Broderick From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 3 02:35:15 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Memes, Genes and Chance Message-ID: <280462.19989.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >From science we know that memes and genes play a significant role in determining our make up. What they don't say is what our memes and genes know what we ourselves don't. Think about how genes have existed without our awareness. Suggested by Gregor Mendel only in the year 1822, we literally had no idea of the basic biology of the gene. Without our knowledge, generations of families where brought forth through genes that wanted to evolve, change or be produced. Memes on the other hand are handed down through generations of information, everything we read, see, hear, smell and touch such as religious beliefs, war like attitude behaviour and/or the glamour delusions. They are ideas that certain generations, cultures and/or races have brought forth to set minds with imitation beliefs. At one point people believed that the earth was flat. We now know it's not. Why do we know? We know because we have the means and knowledge today to set forth by trial and error and not repeat the same mistakes we once made. I am curious about the why's that some memes and genes last while others simply disappear. Do most believe that there may be some other alternative reasons as to why we exist or do most believe that we simply are in existence based on the chance that we where lucky enough to be born in the right place, with the right genes? What memes do most want to be passed along to future generations? How important is culture in a chosen society and what cultural traits would benefit societies? There must be some basis of group selection that benefits the society at large? Just a few basic questions on my mind if anybody has any good links or ideas... Thanks Anna __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun May 3 03:10:46 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 12:40:46 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/3 Damien Broderick : > At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn wrote: > >> That's awesome. > > The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent choreography; pity the music is > such kitsch. I'd love to watch it set to something less treacly. Philip > Glass, maybe, or alternatively a rock band with some grit. > > Damien Broderick It's not emergent, it's faux emergent faux flash mob http://www.google.com.au/search?q=do+re+mi+flash+mob&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a "In a promotional stunt for a Belgian television program, more than 200 dancers performed a version of ?Do Re Mi? ? Flash Mob- style ? in the Central Station of Antwerp. They were able to pull it off with just 2 rehearsals." -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 3 02:56:15 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance Message-ID: <585440.86212.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Funny I would make a mistake on strategic...lol --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Anna Taylor wrote: > From: Anna Taylor > Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance > To: "ExI chat list" > Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 10:54 PM > > I thought it was entertaining, well thought and > stratigic.? I thought the coordination with that many > people at one time was fascinating as it takes so much > energy for everyone to be on the same page.? The > lasting impression imo is the one of so many people > appearing to be in a harmonius mood and enjoying the > moment.? > > Yeah probably doesn't have the grasp of Philip Glass but > maybe he wasn't very much fun:) > > Anna > > > > --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Damien Broderick > wrote: > > > From: Damien Broderick > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance > > To: "ExI chat list" > > Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 10:35 PM > > At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn > > wrote: > > > > > That's awesome. > > > > The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent > choreography; > > pity the music is such kitsch. I'd love to watch it > set to > > something less treacly. Philip Glass, maybe, or > > alternatively a rock band with some grit. > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > ? ? ? > __________________________________________________________________ > Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new > Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for > Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 3 03:37:39 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 13:37:39 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/3 painlord2k at libero.it : >> Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population >> realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those >> countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every >> country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low >> government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. > > This is because so many countries have public education. > To fill young head with trash about economy. > Over this, many groups have interests in filling the head of people of > strange ideas about economy. > Nothing really new, as Bastiat wrote about this 200 years ago. In Eastern Europe for decades the people were fed propaganda and locked up (or worse) if they dissented; and still they saw that they were worse off than their neighbours and threw out the communists. Are you saying that the anti-capitalist propaganda and other impediments to political and economic change are even worse in modern democracies that in the Soviet Union? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 3 04:06:54 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:06:54 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905021112y79b134e2mefccdc3c7b9c0545@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905021112y79b134e2mefccdc3c7b9c0545@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/3 Rafal Smigrodzki : > ### Yeah, this happened and I was actually there - in Eastern Europe > in the early 90's. Except it took not a few but between 40 and 70 > years for the masses to snap out of it and demand real change (as > opposed to Obama-change). Are you saying it would have taken this long if people had been allowed free access to information, freedom of travel, freedom of expression, freedom to form political parties and free elections? If so, then communism in Eastern Europe wasn't nearly as bad as is often made out. > And of course once the capitalist prosperity > arrives it takes less than 30 years for the society as a whole to > forget where it came from. They start thinking prosperity is something > that just happens, and a birthright, too, so of course soon taxes and > government power start growing again. And thus the never ending cycle > continues, the yang of wisdom, capitalism, and progress is again > smothered by the yin of stupidity and envy. You don't need memory or economic savy. Even with no particular purpose in mind, levels of taxation and government services vary over time within a state and between states. The more successful systems will prevail, and this evolutionary process is only retarded, not stopped, by totalitarian government, as shown by the example of Eastern Europe. -- Stathis Papaioannou From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 3 03:58:06 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 20:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance Message-ID: <105399.90970.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> So I guess line dancing is out of the picture:) Anna --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > From: Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance > To: "ExI chat list" > Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 11:00 PM > > > I thought the coordination with that many people at > one time was fascinating as it takes so much energy for > everyone to be on the same page. > > So much preparation, training and practice, I'd have > thought, carefully masked by its gradual emergence. > > (If someone now reveals that there was only a handful of > choreographed dancers, and the rest just copied them, I'll > be utterly flabbergasted and *really* impressed.) > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 3 05:03:38 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 01:03:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905022203x73ef35c9l894a37f3a4dfeb68@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > In Eastern Europe for decades the people were fed propaganda and > locked up (or worse) if they dissented; and still they saw that they > were worse off than their neighbours and threw out the communists. Are > you saying that the anti-capitalist propaganda and other impediments > to political and economic change are even worse in modern democracies > that in the Soviet Union? ### Yes. Soviets were crude and brutal which detracted from their ability to sustain belief, and of course whenever people were allowed to visit a capitalist country, all the conditioning and propaganda tended to evaporate in confrontation with reality. US government and its propaganda outlets such as schools, universities, and media outfits staffed by alumni of state-funded schools are much more subtle. They feed into common human biases - the authoritarian bias, envy, make-work bias, anti-foreign bias, anti-market bias. It makes it easier to discredit freedom and convince the public that the oppressors are the solution rather than the disease, and of course you can't travel somewhere and see a capitalist society to get a comparison. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 05:15:32 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 00:15:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905022203x73ef35c9l894a37f3a4dfeb68@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905022203x73ef35c9l894a37f3a4dfeb68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503001206.023ba380@satx.rr.com> At 01:03 AM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > of course you >can't travel somewhere and see a capitalist society to get a >comparison. Why, given the overwhelming superiority of this kind of society? This is starting to sound like those claims that cheap fusion power and eternal light bulbs have been developed but ruthlessly suppressed by the International Bankers. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Sun May 3 05:53:38 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 22:53:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: > >> ...Are you saying that the anti-capitalist > propaganda and other impediments to political and economic > change are even worse in modern democracies that in the Soviet Union? > -- > Stathis Papaioannou Ja! In the last US presidential election, the news media were so one sided, it was obvious to even the Russians, who know a thing or two about propaganda. Consider only the vice presidential candidates. Sarah Palin ran such a clean gaffe-free campaign that the media complex needed to have a comedienne do an impression of her in order to produce phony gaffes. A study showed that the *majority* of the voters thought Palin said "I can see Russia from my house." It was Tina Fey doing Palin who actually said that. At the same time vice presidential nominee Joe Biden uttered some of the stupidest comments imaginable for such a candidate, such as saying Roosevelt went on television in 1929 and reassured the people, etc. This idiot makes Dan Quayle look brilliant by comparison. There were *hundreds* of reporters digging thru Palin's garbage, looking for *anything* scandalous, while no one even bothered to ask Obama where he got the money to snort that 100 dollar a gram cocaine while in high school, nor where all his money came from in the years following. These news people wonder why we aren't buying their products? spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun May 3 06:37:27 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 23:37:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com><49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:53 PM >A study showed that the *majority* of the voters thought Palin said "I can >see > Russia from my house." It was Tina Fey doing Palin who actually said > that. This is what Palin really said: "And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor. GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 3 07:19:20 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 17:19:20 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/3 spike : > >> >> ...Are you saying that the anti-capitalist >> propaganda and other impediments to political and economic >> change are even worse in modern democracies that in the Soviet Union? >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou > > > Ja! ?In the last US presidential election, the news media were so one sided, > it was obvious to even the Russians, who know a thing or two about > propaganda. ?Consider only the vice presidential candidates. ?Sarah Palin > ran such a clean gaffe-free campaign that the media complex needed to have a > comedienne do an impression of her in order to produce phony gaffes. ?A > study showed that the *majority* of the voters thought Palin said "I can see > Russia from my house." ?It was Tina Fey doing Palin who actually said that. > At the same time vice presidential nominee Joe Biden uttered some of the > stupidest comments imaginable for such a candidate, such as saying Roosevelt > went on television in 1929 and reassured the people, etc. ?This idiot makes > Dan Quayle look brilliant by comparison. > > There were *hundreds* of reporters digging thru Palin's garbage, looking for > *anything* scandalous, while no one even bothered to ask Obama where he got > the money to snort that 100 dollar a gram cocaine while in high school, nor > where all his money came from in the years following. ?These news people > wonder why we aren't buying their products? And what would the media have made of the candidate from the Socialist Party USA, had there in fact been one? -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 3 08:25:20 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 08:25:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: On 5/3/09, spike wrote: > Ja! In the last US presidential election, the news media were so one sided, > it was obvious to even the Russians, who know a thing or two about > propaganda. Spike, It wasn't the evil media. The Republicans *wanted* to lose the election. That's why they picked such poor candidates. They knew the economy was collapsing and whoever is in charge is going to get blamed for not fixing it. (And don't think it all over and getting better. There is much worse still to come). So now Obama is taking the fall for the years of economic depression and unemployment. It's called politics. BillK From eschatoon at gmail.com Sun May 3 09:07:15 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:07:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] More straw man attacks from eugenicist bioluddites Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90905030207p6a755ea5x1f90cf71e256f1a7@mail.gmail.com> Bioluddites like to accuse transhumanists of being "eugenicists", of course without bothering to substantiate their crap with any actual fact or quote. But sometimes they expose themselves for what they really are, and make fools of themselves: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/more_straw_man_attacks_from_eugenicist_bioluddites/ -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 3 12:24:37 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 07:24:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I prefer the simple sound track for the preformance. That is the beauty of it. Philippe Glass is not right for this piece, especially a number where people can learn the steps quickly. There was never any doubt that it was a planned sequence, in part. I loved that aspect of it. I also love the way the bystanders joined in. Just enjoy it. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:11 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance 2009/5/3 Damien Broderick : > At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn wrote: > >> That's awesome. > > The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent choreography; pity the > music is such kitsch. I'd love to watch it set to something less > treacly. Philip Glass, maybe, or alternatively a rock band with some grit. > > Damien Broderick It's not emergent, it's faux emergent faux flash mob http://www.google.com.au/search?q=do+re+mi+flash+mob&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t& rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a "In a promotional stunt for a Belgian television program, more than 200 dancers performed a version of "Do Re Mi" - Flash Mob- style - in the Central Station of Antwerp. They were able to pull it off with just 2 rehearsals." -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Sun May 3 14:59:54 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 07:59:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com><49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: Olga wrote: ... > > This is what Palin really said: > > "... > They're very, very important to us and they are our next door > neighbor. > > GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in > the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? > > PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually > see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Both of Palin's comments are perfectly true, unlike Biden's silly gaffes which he continues to spew almost daily even now. Gibson was a transparently hostile interrogator. He also asked Palin about the Bush doctrine. There wouldn't be one person in a hundred that could guess what he meant by that. Did Bush have only one doctrine? Palin didn't want to reveal sensitive information about international relationships, so she sidestepped the question. Likewise with the Couric interview: had she revealed her news sources (probably Fox) she would be giving an endorsement. To both lines of inquiry perhaps Palin should have said something like "I choose to not answer that." Now, imagine if someone had asked Obama the most obvious question, the one that is *still there* waiting for some reporter anywhere: where did you get your money? Let him reply "I choose to not answer that." What else could he say? >It wasn't the evil media. The Republicans *wanted* to lose the election. That's why they picked such poor candidates...BillK BillK I buy into half of that. The republicans did want to lose this one, and I can clearly see why. I kept getting that vibe from McCain, who was truly a dud, but the media played into it bigtime, and I haven't been able to figure out what was in it for them. Why would they want to protect the republicans? Why did they want to see the democrats take on a job they knew couldn't succeed? It is clear to me that the two major parties had converged to the point of indistingushability, where any real difference was meaningless, and now a duel to the death is taking place. Problem is this duel will do tragic damage to the nation. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 16:40:07 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 11:40:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503113631.025e34a8@satx.rr.com> At 07:59 AM 5/3/2009 -0700, spike wrote: >imagine if someone had asked Obama the most obvious question, the one >that is *still there* waiting for some reporter anywhere: where did you get >your money? Let him reply "I choose to not answer that." What else could >he say? Which money, exactly? His personal wealth? His campaign coffers? What do you suspect the evil covered-up truth to be? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 3 16:59:04 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 16:59:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503113631.025e34a8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503113631.025e34a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > Which money, exactly? His personal wealth? His campaign coffers? What do > you suspect the evil covered-up truth to be? > Spike may be referring to the internet rumors explained by Snopes BillK From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun May 3 16:55:41 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:55:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com><49FC6844.8040607@libero.it><8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > > Now, imagine if someone had asked Obama the most obvious question, the one > that is *still there* waiting for some reporter anywhere: where did you > get > your money? Let him reply "I choose to not answer that." What else could > he say? What are you implying? That Buffett gave Obama money? What? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090502/ap_on_bi_ge/us_berkshire_shareholders;_ylt=Anrfao0Eey0Tquj0VJEU09Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJyNHVzcWU3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTAyL3VzX2JlcmtzaGlyZV9zaGFyZWhvbGRlcnMEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwMxNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNidWZmZXR0c2F5c2c- OK, I'm biased ... but it seems to me that Obama has done more positive things in 100 days than Bush did in 8 years. Olga From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 17:49:14 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 12:49:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503113631.025e34a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503124529.0227c340@satx.rr.com> At 04:59 PM 5/3/2009 +0000, BillK wrote: >Spike may be referring to the internet rumors explained by Snopes > > That would be my guess. But hey, *who do you think bought all those books that made him so rich*??? Would real Americans actually pay good money to buy a book by a Muslim *who isn't even an American citizen*???!!! From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 3 17:54:48 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 13:54:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503001206.023ba380@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905022203x73ef35c9l894a37f3a4dfeb68@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503001206.023ba380@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031054l76c8d272v8f3078712f93e562@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:03 AM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> ?of course you >> can't travel somewhere and see a capitalist society to get a >> comparison. > > Why, given the overwhelming superiority of this kind of society? This is > starting to sound like those claims that cheap fusion power and eternal > light bulbs have been developed but ruthlessly suppressed by the > International Bankers. ### Ruthlessly suppressed by the Internationale, yes. Think about it this way: from our general knowledge of science and perusing the Tesla website we can be reasonably sure that you can build good electric cars (like the T roadster) but unfortunately there is not enough lithium available to make them cheap as well. Same with capitalism - we know from theory and from occasional lucky situations (Hong Kong, Singapore) that you can build a more capitalist society than the US is, and that it would be a much better society. Unfortunately, building a capitalist society takes a lot of things that are in short supply - intelligence, humility, freedom from natural human biases, and that's why it isn't happening. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 3 17:59:27 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 13:59:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:25 AM, BillK wrote: > > So now Obama is taking the fall for the years of economic depression > and unemployment. > > It's called politics. > ### According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to end in about 6 weeks (despite the best efforts of the idiots who run this country) and there was never a depression, not by a long shot. Pity that the pieces of garbage currently in power will get credit for that. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 3 18:05:18 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:05:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031105g2b15edc5w460b06dd5df6fcd6@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM, spike wrote: > > It is clear to me that the two major parties had converged to the point of > indistingushability, where any real difference was meaningless, and now a > duel to the death is taking place. ?Problem is this duel will do tragic > damage to the nation. > ### Duel? Nah, more like a courtly dance. The two nominal factions of the state need each other - you couldn't distract the proles if there was just one party which would get blamed for everything like the commies back home, who got blamed for low quality toilet paper (and yes, they actually deserved it). Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun May 3 18:12:33 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:12:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031112t5be42eebl77d1fa5d8491ac4@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > OK, I'm biased ... but it seems to me that Obama has done more positive > things in 100 days than Bush did in 8 years. ### Like giving trillions of dollars to his buddies at Goldman-Sachs and other corrupt businesses? So many ppl tend to believe state propaganda, and think that the candidates manufactured by the state differ substantially from each other. As if there was any major difference between Bush, Obama, Nixon, or Carter. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 18:25:57 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 13:25:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> At 01:59 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: >### According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to >end in about 6 weeks Could you elaborate on these economic indicators? (Not being snarky here, I'll really like to know.) Damien Broderick From sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com Sun May 3 12:37:20 2009 From: sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com (Belva Plain) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 06:37:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If you're into artificial, commercially-planned flash mob dancing, this one's better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0jcQ5OmdfE TomD _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun May 3 19:30:04 2009 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 13:30:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FDF0BC.1090107@comcast.net> Natasha, Yes, that was wonderful, I entered it as my 8th favorite short online video: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/35/12 One thing I despise about traditional musical performances, is the way the performers are up on a stage isolated form the audience. I always love it when the performers work to tear down that barrier. (performers going out into the audience, or bringing the audience up on stage, theater in the round....) but of course the ultimate perfection is what is occurring here. Everyone is the same, on the same level, and intermixing, and the more people join in and intermix the better. Sure, it is obvious that many of them have practiced, but this is hidden as much as possible so that it doesn't separate the practiced from everyone else. Thanks!! Brent Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I prefer the simple sound track for the preformance. That is the beauty of > it. Philippe Glass is not right for this piece, especially a number where > people can learn the steps quickly. > > There was never any doubt that it was a planned sequence, in part. I loved > that aspect of it. I also love the way the bystanders joined in. > > Just enjoy it. > > Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:11 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance > > 2009/5/3 Damien Broderick : > >> At 11:15 AM 5/3/2009 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >> >> >>> That's awesome. >>> >> The crowd kinetics is awesome, the emergent choreography; pity the >> music is such kitsch. I'd love to watch it set to something less >> treacly. Philip Glass, maybe, or alternatively a rock band with some grit. >> >> Damien Broderick >> > > It's not emergent, it's faux emergent faux flash mob > > http://www.google.com.au/search?q=do+re+mi+flash+mob&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t& > rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a > > "In a promotional stunt for a Belgian television program, more than 200 > dancers performed a version of "Do Re Mi" - Flash Mob- style - in the > Central Station of Antwerp. They were able to pull it off with just 2 > rehearsals." > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com > - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From max at maxmore.com Sun May 3 19:31:53 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 14:31:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians Message-ID: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Olga, you might want to read this: Obama's Vision Deficit: http://www.reason.com/news/show/133157.html Max >OK, I'm biased ... but it seems to me that Obama has done more positive >things in 100 days than Bush did in 8 years. > >Olga From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun May 3 19:35:22 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:35:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Strategically, do you think that it is a good idea > to prohibit reasoned attacks on religion, insults > of races, religions, or the Mayor's daughter? > Where do you draw the line? > > And beyond strategy, where in a free society do > you draw the line ethically? What can be said is that for any doom-monger's assumption that unless free speech is limited on a given subject society would collapse, it is easy enough to offer example where societies managed to a reasonable extent to thrive in spite of the fact that the "necessary" prohibition was not in place. All in all, I think that most limitations to free speech are very hard to justify on empirical grounds. Not to mention on political terms for any political regime that claims to be based on informed consensus. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun May 3 19:46:09 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:46:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905031246x67111d82y1639c9ccd74996d6@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Max More wrote: > Olga, you might want to read this: > > Obama's Vision Deficit: > http://www.reason.com/news/show/133157.html Interesting... It must be said that in Europe Obama has been getting such a huge credit across the *whole* political spectrum - from the far left to the far right to the establishment, from libertarians to third-worldist to clericalist to socialdemocrats, from sionists to anti-semites to immigrants, from insider traders to union leaders to intellectuals - that it is hard to imagine that he might be doing anything wrong at all. And let me confess that I have been having a few expectations for change myself... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 3 19:55:41 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:55:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Train Station Dance In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0905021845l34a336a6m9d1af3918550ea8b@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090502213106.0230ac98@satx.rr.com><710b78fc0905022010s1b97441q26339252a60d9a12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9D6B6214977D48D3B8BA78D526B0B2D0@DFC68LF1> I'm not sure one needs to be better than the other. Let's 1,000 dancers bloom - real, artificial, whatever. Who cares. It is just dance for goodness sakes. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Belva Plain Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:37 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] Train Station Dance If you're into artificial, commercially-planned flash mob dancing, this one's better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0jcQ5OmdfE TomD _____ HotmailR has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun May 3 20:10:30 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 13:10:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bye In-Reply-To: <49F74614.3050606@rawbw.com> References: <49F74614.3050606@rawbw.com> Message-ID: Reports of your "expulsion" and consequent permanent departure having been highly exaggerated, I expect you to report back for duty as soon as your time in the penalty box has expired. Your postings are annoying, tedious, and strikingly wrong-headed for the most part, but your unrelenting civility makes you the poster-child for free speech protection: the guy who challenges (if feebly) my smug self-assurance. Without memetic antigens we develop no antibodies to the dreaded Corbin-Creutzfeld disease. I've been offline for a couple of weeks, so this is the first I've heard of this kerfluffle. As always, I support and remain confident of your continued participation on the list. Hope you and yours are well, and that fortune favors you in your extropic endeavors. Best, Jeff On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Hi Extropy friends, or at least those who've been > active in the last month or so. > > Yesterday, I was placed on "moderation", and then > today, I was expelled from the Extropy list this > morning at 7:26am, having received my last Extropy > post at 7:18am. > > I'm not writing for sympathy, or to complain, but > to say goodbye, and to say sorry that I didn't get > around to replying to several posts in time, some > going back a week or more. > > And also, of course, to say thanks for the very > splendid conversations I've had with all of you, > and all the insights I've gained. > > It's been a fruitful 13 years, at least for me :-) > > Best wishes in all your endeavors, > > yours, > Lee > From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 3 21:21:49 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:21:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:59 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > > ### According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to > > end in about 6 weeks > > > > Could you elaborate on these economic indicators? (Not being snarky here, > I'll really like to know.) > As a general rule, the bust takes about the same amount of time as the boom. So. you get a quick boom, followed by a quick bust and then recovery. Unfortunately, this last boom was the biggest bubble ever, and in all the world economies at the same time, so we are now in unknown territory. As trillions of free money, in all currencies, has been produced out of thin air, I would expect this to have some effect. (Exactly what effect, nobody knows). But as I see it, a quite likely scenario is a mini-recovery accompanied by shouts of 'Free money!', then an absolutely horrendous crash. Mainly because none of the underlying problems have yet been fixed. I shall be most surprised if the solution to debt problems caused by spending money that you don't have is to spend trillions more money that you don't have. BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun May 3 21:25:07 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:25:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <49F59A67.5020704@libero.it> Message-ID: Whoaaa!!! Thanks for the context, John. Puts "fire in a crowded theater", EW Holmes, and the supreme court in a whole new light. Like Scalia's action-under-color-of-authority to stop the Florida recount in 2000. Another silly notion -- judicial integrity -- laid to rest. I've given up on the US. The experiment is over. The patient walks about in denial, as the end looms. But not to worry, the past is prologue. Life goes on, and the best of American values will live on -- somewhere else -- even as the hegemonic beast withers and dies from their repudiation. Best, Jeff Davis On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:40 AM, John K Clark wrote: > Wrote: > It was coined by Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in his Schenck v. > United States decision. It involved prosecuting a man who wrote against the > draft during World War 1. This is what Justice Holmes wrote in his decision > to put the man in prison: > > "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in > falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." > > And this is what Justice Holmes thought would cause a panic and justified > the imprisonment of Mr. Schenck the author: > > "Do not submit to intimidation, assert your rights. If you do not assert and > support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is > the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to > retain. To draw this country into the horrors of the present war in Europe, > to force the youth of our land into the shambles and bloody trenches of > war-crazy nations, would be a crime the magnitude of which defies > description. Words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded > ruthlessness deserves." From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 22:14:53 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:14:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> While I still regard some form of GI as a plausible mechanism to ease the transition from a toil economy to one based on cheap or free matter compilers, etc, I'm also struck (as someone who was powerfully moved by Heinlein and Rand as a teen and young adult) with the stern, resolute Protestant Ethic of Rothbard in his assault on Friedman Sr.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html <...the supply of welfare clients is inversely proportion to another vitally important factor: the cultural or value disincentive of going on welfare. If this disincentive is strong, if, for example, an individual or group strongly believes that it is evil to go on welfare, they will not do it, period. If, on the other hand, they do not care about the stigma of welfare, or, worse yet, they regard welfare payments as their right ? a right to exert a compulsory, looting claim upon production ? then the number of people on welfare will increase astronomically, as has happened in recent years. There are several recent examples of the "stigma effect." It has been shown that, given the same level of income, more people tend to go on welfare in urban than in rural areas, presumably as a function of the greater visibility of welfare clients and hence the greater stigma in the more sparsely populated region. More important, there is the glowing fact that certain religious groups, even when significantly poorer than the rest of the population, simply do not go on welfare because of their deeply held ethical beliefs. Thus, the Chinese-Americans, while largely poor, are almost never to be found on welfare. ... Another example is the Mormon Church, very few of whose members are on public welfare. For the Mormons not only inculcate in their members the virtues of thrift, self-help, and independence, they also take care of their own needy through church charity programs which are grounded on the principle of helping people to help themselves, and thereby getting them off charity as quickly as possible. Thus, the Mormon Church counsels its members that "to seek and accept direct public relief all too often invites the curse of idleness and fosters the other evils of dole. It destroys one?s independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect." Hence, the Church?s highly successful private welfare program is based on the principles that the Church has encouraged its members to establish and maintain their economic independence: it has encouraged thrift and fostered the establishment of employment-creating industries; it has stood ready at all times to help needy faithful members. And: Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self-respect be once more established among our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principles of the lives of our Church membership. . . . Faithful to this principle, welfare workers will earnestly teach and urge Church members to be selfsustaining to the full extent of their powers. No true latterday Saint will, while physically able, voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support. The Libertarian approach to the welfare problem, then, is to abolish all coercive, public welfare, and to substitute for it private charity based on the principle of encouraging self-help, bolstered also by inculcating the virtues of self-reliance and independence throughout society. But the Friedman plan, on the contrary, moves in precisely the opposite direction, for it establishes welfare payments as an automatic right, an automatic, coercive claim upon the producers. It thereby removes the stigma effect altogether, disastrously discourages productive work by steep taxation, and by establishing a guaranteed income for not working, which encourages loafing. In addition, by establishing an income floor as a coercive "right," it encourages welfare clients to lobby for ever-higher floors, thus continually aggravating the entire problem. > I haven't read much Rothbard in recent decades, so I find myself wondering: does he--and other libertarians who maintain this view--argue equally for the confiscation of inherited wealth? (Confiscation by whom? I realize this is a problem in even forming the question, since it seems so ineluctably... statist. Still.) After all, the offspring or other parasitical beneficaries of the dead wealthy are liable to immediate, continuing and soul-ablating ruin of the kind, as we have learned from Rothbard, that destroys the "the virtues of self-reliance and independence" in welfare recipients. This is a serious question. The usual responses, in my experience, ignore that issue and fiercely defend the "right" of all wealthy humans to dispose of their (lawfully-acquired) legacies in whatever way they choose. But do we want to see wealthy wastrels wrecking their own lives and squandering wealth that might have been invested wisely by those instilled with the virtues of self-reliance and independence? (Or is this loafing subset of society--the ParisHiltonariat--too small to bother worrying about?) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 22:22:28 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:22:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> Of course there's plenty on this topic on the web. For example: is a smorgasbord of different opinions. And inevitably: which doesn't touch the problem I raised of wastrel heirs ruined by their unearned dough. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 3 22:57:00 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:57:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> At 05:22 PM 5/3/2009 -0500, I wrote: > > >which doesn't touch the problem I raised of wastrel heirs ruined by >their unearned dough. One fiery rant from 1991 that does comments: Obviously this is not the case with some libertarians, such as Rafal who escaped from the Belly of the Beast with only the shirt on his back, and now drives a small starship on a freeway he built with his own bare hands. Damien Broderick From moulton at moulton.com Mon May 4 00:16:20 2009 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 17:16:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> Someone made an editing change to the material quoted which gives an impression that is not there is the original. Of course I am sure this was just a simple mistake and not a dishonest attempt to cast a false impression about Rothbard in particular or libertarians in general. Someone quoted: > The great > anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an > arch-fascist [LaRouche]... The original in the URL cited is: "The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the conservatarians." http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html Please note that there is no mention of or reference to LaRouche in the entire sentence. There is only one mention of LaRouche in the entire article which is a brief mention of LaRouche taking over the Chicago Democrats. And by pointing out the association of LaRouche with the Democratic Party I am not trying to imply that Democrats as a whole are affiliated with LaRouche. LaRouche and followers are just parasites that latched on to the Democrats as an unwilling host. And to state what I expect is already known to most people on this list the LaRouche group hates libertarians. And libertarians despise and loath LaRouche and followers. Much of the article appears to be bit of rant about the Libertarian Party. As we all should know if one is interested in libertarianism one should not waste time looking at the Libertarian Party. And then the author of the rant includes this: "The first Randians I ran into decided I wasn't good material for their cause on account of my habit of winding up dead drunk in the gutter in strange towns on weekends." Now I could make a snarky reply about how I (and I expect many others here) also was not born to wealth but that I never had a habit of winding up drunk in the gutter in a strange town; instead I did spent many weekends in work and study and this prepared me to be ready when good fortune and the good will and assistance of others presented itself. But that reply while correct might cause us to miss a point that I think is worth making so let me instead give the following reply: There are people who have experienced misfortune or have other difficulties. That is why I urge people to donate to charitable causes. I wrote a small piece about this in my blog a few months ago: http://blog.lightingonemorecandle.com/2009/02/charities.html How about sometime during the month of May everyone on this list who is able make a donation to a charity intended to assist those who need a helping hand. As I said in blog that now a lot of charities are hurting so a this is a good month to give. Fred From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 4 00:42:03 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 19:42:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503193750.023d9d88@satx.rr.com> At 05:16 PM 5/3/2009 -0700, Fred C. Moulton wrote: >Someone made an editing change to the material quoted which gives an >impression that is not there is the original. Of course I am sure this >was just a simple mistake and not a dishonest attempt to cast a false >impression about Rothbard in particular or libertarians in general. >Someone quoted: > > > The great > > anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an > > arch-fascist [LaRouche]... > >The original in the URL cited is: >"The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with >an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the >conservatarians." >http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html > >Please note that there is no mention of or reference to LaRouche in the >entire sentence. Perhaps I jumped erroneously to that conclusion. How is that possible? Because the Rothbard essay on Friedman I've been quoting is urled at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html and (again, maybe even more erroneously) I associate those two names. Careless of me. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 4 00:43:57 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 19:43:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503194222.0228dad8@satx.rr.com> At 05:16 PM 5/3/2009 -0700, Fred wrote: >The original in the URL cited is: >"The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with >an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the >conservatarians." >http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html Which arch-fascist do you think he meant? Is this a baseless calumny? From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 01:49:06 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:49:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:59 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> ### According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to >> end in about 6 weeks > > Could you elaborate on these economic indicators? (Not being snarky here, > I'll really like to know.) ### See here: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/04/did-jobless-claims-peak-in-early-april.html, and a bunch of more recent posts. Carpe Diem is very close to the top of my blog favorites tab, mainly because it consists to a large degree of charts and graphs. I carpe them posts every day. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 01:58:58 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:58:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031858o410de272h22fc34901a2e63e6@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM, BillK wrote: > As a general rule, the bust takes about the same amount of time as the boom. > > So. you get a quick boom, followed by a quick bust and then recovery. > > Unfortunately, this last boom was the biggest bubble ever, ### ???? ----------------------- and in all > the world economies at the same time, so we are now in unknown > territory. As trillions of free ?money, in all currencies, has been > produced out of thin air, I would expect this to have some effect. > (Exactly what effect, nobody knows). ### Everybody knows the effect of diluting currency - inflation. But don't worry, the US economy is bigger today than ever, so even the unusually large amount of poison injected during this round of stupidity is not likely to kill it. Yet. ------------------ But as I see it, a quite likely > scenario is a mini-recovery accompanied by shouts of 'Free money!', > then an absolutely horrendous crash. Mainly because none of the > underlying problems have yet been fixed. ### Unfortunately, you could be right here, although the misallocation of resources into home-building has somewhat abated. Really hard to tell what is gonna happen, which is the usual situation when it comes to predicting the future. We have to remember that capital productivity continues to increase, and so far has been keeping up with the feeding frenzy of voters and politicians. If scientific progress continues, we may live to see the black rain of the singularity with our bank accounts in good shape. Rafal P.S. Yes, I really think the singularity will kill us. Aren't you ppl worried about this? From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 4 01:58:36 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:58:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3 May, 2009, at 21:49, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > and a bunch of more recent posts. Carpe Diem is very close to the top > of my blog favorites tab, mainly because it consists to a large degree > of charts and graphs. > > I carpe them posts every day. > I find his logic unconvincing. In this particular instance, as in the 1930s, economic contraction is being driven by deflation and lack of real spending power (brought on, of course, by the stupidity of bankers and too much debt and blah blah blah.) The recovery will happen when there is sufficient demand to *grow* payrolls, not to prevent them from contracting. These data are collected - by the Labor Department as well as by private survey - so there's no excuse in not using both unemployment and payroll to make the judgement as to whether we're seeing a recovery. Just because he argues from a chart doesn't mean his argument isn't bullshit. :) B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 02:48:09 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 22:48:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905031948w19d12d49gbd9f3401451a55e6@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > This is a serious question. The usual responses, in my experience, ignore > that issue and fiercely defend the "right" of all wealthy humans to dispose > of their (lawfully-acquired) legacies in whatever way they choose. But do we > want to see wealthy wastrels wrecking their own lives and squandering wealth > that might have been invested wisely by those instilled with the virtues of > self-reliance and independence? (Or is this loafing subset of society--the > ParisHiltonariat--too small to bother worrying about?) ### The main problem is not depriving Paris Hilton of the chance to go whoring in style but rather the long term costs of constructing the organization and the system of expectations about the workings of the society that allow such interference in private affairs. Think about it: There is wealth that is not legitimately yours since it was created by Mr Hilton and therefore should remain his, as a reward for his efforts, and a signal to others that hard work will make them rich. Still, you want to "invest it wisely". How do you go about it? It seems that you need to create an organization capable of wresting the wealth away from workers like Mr Hilton. That organization should be wiser than Mr Hilton, unerringly capable of determining the right and the wrong uses of workers' monies (e.g. if giving money to your granddaughter who decides to out-slut others is wrong, is it also wrong to bequest a really nice car? A house? A penny more than the average? How about spending on a non-hybrid or God forbid, foreign car?) All kinds of questions will inevitably occur to the officers of this organization, and I have a hunch that they will favor one answer - Give us the cash, and shut up. The good Officers would have to be saintly devoted to investing for the benefit of us all, while wielding the guns, prisons, and other devices needed for separating men from their cash and giving nothing in return. And of course workers like Mr Hilton who see it happening will now think twice about trying to get rich, thus depriving us of, for example, the chance to check in to a well-run hotel at a reasonable price. Do you think it is possible to sculpt such an organization out of the crooked timber of humanity? I don't. Plus, I have no envy, I don't get upset when I see rich brats in Porches passing my humble Mustang. I am a consequentialist, which is where I differ from Rothbard, and I am convinced that giving the state the right to order us all about just to spite Paris Hilton is a really bad idea. Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 4 02:56:42 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:26:42 +0930 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/4 Max More : > Olga, you might want to read this: > > Obama's Vision Deficit: > http://www.reason.com/news/show/133157.html > > Max > >> OK, I'm biased ... but it seems to me that Obama has done more positive >> things in 100 days than Bush did in 8 years. >> >> Olga I'm not sure I understand what's so compelling about that Reason article. Yep, Obama is doing big centralized infrastructure spending. There's nothing wrong with that per se. The article seems to point that out, then fail to argue the case for it being bad. It just kind of says "Hey he's not being libertarian therefore he's terrible". Transport: the argument seems to be "oh trains are so last century or so". But really, isn't this an ideological squabble, between a centralized, state controlled kind of technology (trains) and a decentralized private industry approaches (deregulated airports, private roads, couldn't quite understand what was being proposed there actually). Actually I don't like trains much either, but I'd like to see personal rapid transit systems (seems to me they could combine the best of trains and cars if done right). Bailout: Well there's a vexed question, to bailout or not to bailout? Whichever way you go, people will scream at you. I can't say what's the best approach, and I'm glad it's not my job to make those decisions. Centralized spending on education; again, argue the detail. Centralized spending on "Alternative Energy", well, that stuff should just be "Energy" by now, it's about time. I love that this is being done. Comparing it to Jimmy Carter is meaningless to me, what's actually bad about it? Centralized spending on health is a really, really good idea. I don't know how US citizens don't freak out every day, dealing with the health system you've got. No wonder there's so much focus on getting rich; you have to, just in case you get sick. The national service thing, it's old fashioned conservative values there I would have thought. Once wouldn't have been to my taste, but I have a bit of sympathy for it. Overall, I can't see how he hasn't been true to his campaigning. He was never pretending to be Captain Future of the 24th century, where we'd all get flying cars. His message was always "let's cut the crap and get some sensible change going". Very pragmatic stuff, not going with the left or right party lines (from outside the US, this is the "right" or "far far right" party lines). Really, given the shit storm that hit late in the campaign (oops we broke the world), it's amazing that the new administration is running so true to the original campaign vision. They've really got some serious shit to handle. If you want a comparison, think about how McCain might have handled this. Or W, darwin save us all! -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 03:11:12 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:11:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032011j4c8ae9f3s6c3a6bb682dde1d9@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > Overall, I can't see how he hasn't been true to his campaigning. He > was never pretending to be Captain Future of the 24th century, where > we'd all get flying cars. His message was always "let's cut the crap > and get some sensible change going". Very pragmatic stuff, not going > with the left or right party lines (from outside the US, this is the > "right" or "far far right" party lines). ### Gee, you *are* a commie, and supporting a big-business candidate, of all things. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 03:14:53 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:14:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Brent Neal wrote: > > I find his logic unconvincing. In this particular instance, as in the 1930s, > economic contraction is being driven by deflation and lack of real spending > power (brought on, of course, by the stupidity of bankers and too much debt > and blah blah blah.) The recovery will happen when there is sufficient > demand to *grow* payrolls, not to prevent them from contracting. These data > are collected - by the Labor Department as well as by private survey - so > there's no excuse in not using both unemployment and payroll to make the > judgement as to whether we're seeing a recovery. ### He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 recessions - did you follow the link? (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html) Rafal From moulton at moulton.com Mon May 4 03:04:34 2009 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 20:04:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503194222.0228dad8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> <1241396180.6853.128.camel@hayek> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503194222.0228dad8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1241406274.6853.138.camel@hayek> On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 19:43 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:16 PM 5/3/2009 -0700, Fred wrote: > > >The original in the URL cited is: > >"The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with > >an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the > >conservatarians." > >http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html > > Which arch-fascist do you think he meant? Is this a baseless calumny? The author of that piece does not seem to have a good grasp on things so I am not going to try to guess what he was talking about. Even if we tracked him down and asked him it is likely that whatever answer we got would be as incoherent and poorly reasoned as what we have already seen. One thing I have noticed about the Internet is that you can find uninformed rants about almost anything and I have not found it to be profitable to try to decipher them. Fred From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 03:43:16 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:43:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> For people interested in the truth rather than slogans, here is the Congressional Budget Office: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1091929 Please direct your attention especially figure 1-2. Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 4 04:01:54 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:31:54 +0930 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905032011j4c8ae9f3s6c3a6bb682dde1d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032011j4c8ae9f3s6c3a6bb682dde1d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905032101u6c7b8edciaf9bf35abce9c948@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Emlyn wrote: > >> >> Overall, I can't see how he hasn't been true to his campaigning. He >> was never pretending to be Captain Future of the 24th century, where >> we'd all get flying cars. His message was always "let's cut the crap >> and get some sensible change going". Very pragmatic stuff, not going >> with the left or right party lines (from outside the US, this is the >> "right" or "far far right" party lines). > > ### Gee, you *are* a commie, and supporting a big-business candidate, > of all things. > > Rafal Wat yoo talkin bout, comrade? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 4 04:13:45 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 23:13:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> At 11:43 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: >http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1091929 > >Please direct your attention especially figure 1-2. This sort of thing? From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 04:14:27 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:14:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905032101u6c7b8edciaf9bf35abce9c948@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032011j4c8ae9f3s6c3a6bb682dde1d9@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0905032101u6c7b8edciaf9bf35abce9c948@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032114q473a6415x243c387128e1358@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Emlyn wrote: > 2009/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : >> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Emlyn wrote: >> >>> >>> Overall, I can't see how he hasn't been true to his campaigning. He >>> was never pretending to be Captain Future of the 24th century, where >>> we'd all get flying cars. His message was always "let's cut the crap >>> and get some sensible change going". Very pragmatic stuff, not going >>> with the left or right party lines (from outside the US, this is the >>> "right" or "far far right" party lines). >> >> ### Gee, you *are* a commie, and supporting a big-business candidate, >> of all things. >> >> Rafal > > Wat yoo talkin bout, comrade? ### The dude who excluded small business from ARRA funding, gives more cash taken from workers to multimillionaires, and is supporting large businesses with high barriers to entry, like railways, while trying to destroy small time operators, like truck drivers. But his dad was a card-carrying commie, his mom was as well, and he talks the talk, so he remains untouchable, no matter what he actually does, right? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 04:20:15 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:20:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:43 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1091929 >> >> Please direct your attention especially figure 1-2. > > This sort of thing? > > year to 19.9 percent in 2013 and remain at roughly 20 percent of GDP > thereafter. Much of that increase results from the growing impact of the > alter?native minimum tax (AMT) and, even more significant, the scheduled > expiration in December 2010 of provisions originally enacted in the Economic > Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and > Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), as well as tax > provisions enacted in ARRA. > > As a percent age of GDP, outlays in the baseline peak in 2009 at 27.4 > percent of GDP and then fall to 21.7 percent in 2012. They remain roughly > constant thereafter, at about 22 percent of GDP from 2013 to 2019.> > ### Damien, did you read what they mean by "baseline" in this context? Baseline is roughly what would have happened if Obama didn't exist. The predictions about Obama's impact are all referred to as "Presiden't" budget, spending or whatever. They are hair-rising scary, and he's hardly begun. Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 4 04:38:47 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 23:38:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> At 12:20 AM 5/4/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: >### Damien, did you read what they mean by "baseline" in this context? >Baseline is roughly what would have happened if Obama didn't exist. Ah. Christ, I'm really having a bad day with the munged quotes. But it would have helped the magpie mind if you'd cited Table 1-4 rather than Table 1-2. Damien Broderick From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 4 04:39:51 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:09:51 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905031948w19d12d49gbd9f3401451a55e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031948w19d12d49gbd9f3401451a55e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905032139g42c9322g613eaa28b29f4ac6@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > Plus, I have no envy, I don't get > upset when I see rich brats in Porches passing my humble Mustang. Not even downward envy? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 06:58:10 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 02:58:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905032139g42c9322g613eaa28b29f4ac6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031948w19d12d49gbd9f3401451a55e6@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0905032139g42c9322g613eaa28b29f4ac6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905032358h296d0389w312248c289653de4@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Emlyn wrote: > 2009/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : >> Plus, I have no envy, I don't get >> upset when I see rich brats in Porches passing my humble Mustang. > > Not even downward envy? ### What is downward envy? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 07:13:27 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 03:13:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:20 AM 5/4/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: > >> ### Damien, did you read what they mean by "baseline" in this context? >> Baseline is roughly what would have happened if Obama didn't exist. > > Ah. Christ, I'm really having a bad day with the munged quotes. But it would > have helped the magpie mind if you'd cited Table 1-4 rather than Table 1-2. > > of GDP, or nearly $1.4 trillion, CBO estimates--$241 billion more than the > deficit of $1.1 trillion that CBO projects under current laws and > policies... That difference is largely attributable to additional spending > for the government?s actions to stabilize financial markets ($125 billion); > defense spending, primarily for ongoing military opera?tions in Iraq and > Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism ($50 > billion); and various revenue reductions ($45 billion). In total, outlays > next year would measure 25.5 percent of GDP under the President?s poli?cies, > and revenues would amount to 15.9 percent. ### Or translated: A 21% increase (i.e. the "change") in budget deficit over politics as usual after only 100 days in power. And a projected deficit of 9.270 trillion (yes, trillion, not billion) by 2019. Nine trillion dollars is big money. Not exactly record-breaking as USG accounting trickery goes (the title here goes to unfunded SS liabilities, about 44 trillion dollars) but still impressive. Rafao From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 4 10:36:45 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 06:36:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3 May, 2009, at 23:14, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 recessions > - did you follow the link? > (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html) Yes. This recession is highly deflationary, much more so than the recessions from the 70s onward, making the necessary conditions for recovery different. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 4 10:41:54 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 06:41:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> On 4 May, 2009, at 3:13, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Or translated: A 21% increase (i.e. the "change") in budget > deficit over politics as usual after only 100 days in power. And a > projected deficit of 9.270 trillion (yes, trillion, not billion) by > 2019. > > Nine trillion dollars is big money. Not exactly record-breaking as USG > accounting trickery goes (the title here goes to unfunded SS > liabilities, about 44 trillion dollars) but still impressive. This may be exactly the right thing to do. In a deflationary cycle, you -want- an inflationary fiscal policy to prevent a downward wage- price spiral. No doubt, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if we'd managed to sock more money away in the Clinton-Bush years. You know, like good businesses/people/gov'ts ought to do - save during the fat years to prepare for the lean. But with Bush II dumping dollars into the desert like a madman, alas, it was not to be. We'll have to hope that the investments we're making now will pay off well enough to cover the bill later. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 4 10:49:47 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 06:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > Centralized spending on health is a really, really good idea. I don't > know how US citizens don't freak out every day, dealing with the > health system you've got. No wonder there's so much focus on getting > rich; you have to, just in case you get sick. > I simply do not see it this way. I've been very pleased with my health care. I've been able to choose my doctors, I've been able to get appointments when I needed them, service was speedy. And yes, there have been medical problems, illness which was hard to diagnose, frustrating to treat. My best friend dealt with the Veteran's Administration (gov't run) hospital service. Often I was his chauffeur and any appointment took the entire day - wait wait wait. Meds were delayed hours, and there were big waiting rooms just for the pharmacy. Each visit to the VA reinforced my joy and relief at dealing with the private sector. Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 4 10:55:16 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:55:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> Message-ID: On 5/4/09, Brent Neal wrote: > This may be exactly the right thing to do. In a deflationary cycle, you > -want- an inflationary fiscal policy to prevent a downward wage-price > spiral. No doubt, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if we'd managed to > sock more money away in the Clinton-Bush years. You know, like good > businesses/people/gov'ts ought to do - save during the fat years to prepare > for the lean. But with Bush II dumping dollars into the desert like a > madman, alas, it was not to be. We'll have to hope that the investments > we're making now will pay off well enough to cover the bill later. > That hope is exactly what has caused this economic collapse. 'Spend now, worry about paying the bills later', has been the way of life for the last ten or so years. Now that the house of cards has collapsed, people are saying that the motto now is 'Pay my debts off first, then try to save some rainy day money, then *if* cash is available, buy something'. Economists call this deflation. The people call it survival. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 4 11:49:00 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:49:00 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905031054l76c8d272v8f3078712f93e562@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905022203x73ef35c9l894a37f3a4dfeb68@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503001206.023ba380@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031054l76c8d272v8f3078712f93e562@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/4 Rafal Smigrodzki : > Think about it this way: from our general knowledge of science and > perusing the Tesla website we can be reasonably sure that you can > build good electric cars (like the T roadster) but unfortunately there > is not enough lithium available to make them cheap as well. Same with > capitalism - we know from theory and from occasional lucky situations > (Hong Kong, Singapore) that you can build a more capitalist society > than the US is, and that it would be a much better society. > Unfortunately, building a capitalist society takes a lot of things > that are in short supply - intelligence, humility, freedom from > natural human biases, and that's why it isn't happening. It doesn't matter what it takes, once everyone sees how good it is they will copy it or be left behind. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 4 13:35:09 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:35:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503165631.024b8a68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/4 Damien Broderick : > <...the supply of welfare clients is inversely proportion to another vitally > important factor: the cultural or value disincentive of going on welfare. If > this disincentive is strong, if, for example, an individual or group > strongly believes that it is evil to go on welfare, they will not do it, > period. If, on the other hand, they do not care about the stigma of welfare, > or, worse yet, they regard welfare payments as their right ? a right to > exert a compulsory, looting claim upon production ? then the number of > people on welfare will increase astronomically, as has happened in recent > years. This is an alien view of welfare for me. In the client group I deal with, the mentally ill, welfare payments are regarded unquestioningly as a right, but despite that, I don't know anyone who actually wants to *stay* on welfare if they are able to work. This is because they feel better about themselves and also make more money if they work. I can't say I've met many who could work but prefer not to because they can get welfare payments. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 4 13:54:26 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:54:26 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: 2009/5/4 MB : > >> >> Centralized spending on health is a really, really good idea. I don't >> know how US citizens don't freak out every day, dealing with the >> health system you've got. No wonder there's so much focus on getting >> rich; you have to, just in case you get sick. >> > > I simply do not see it this way. > > I've been very pleased with my health care. I've been able to choose my doctors, > I've been able to get appointments when I needed them, service was speedy. ?And yes, > there have been medical problems, illness which was hard to diagnose, frustrating to > treat. > > My best friend dealt with the Veteran's Administration (gov't run) hospital service. > ?Often I was his chauffeur and any appointment took the entire day - wait wait wait. > Meds were delayed hours, and there were big waiting rooms just for the pharmacy. > Each visit to the VA reinforced my joy and relief at dealing with the private > sector. An interesting compromise is publicly funded, privately provided health care, like in Australia. The government acts as a big health insurer, ensuring that everyone is covered and that less money is wasted through (I guess) inefficient competing private health funds. The per capita absolute spending on health care in Australia is about half that in the US, for about equal health outcomes. The main disadvantage is that if you are rich you pay a higher proportion of your income through the compulsory levy than you would if you only paid for private insurance. -- Stathis Papaioannou From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 4 13:54:40 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:54:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > On 3 May, 2009, at 23:14, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 recessions >> - did you follow the link? >> (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html) > > > Yes. This recession is highly deflationary, much more so than the recessions > from the 70s onward, making the necessary conditions for recovery different. > ### Do you have relevant references to published work by economists specializing in business cycle theory? Rafal From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 13:40:24 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 06:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <790144.86965.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 5/3/09, Damien Broderick wrote: [snip] > I haven't read much Rothbard in recent decades, so I find > myself wondering: does he--and other libertarians who > maintain this view--argue equally for the confiscation of > inherited wealth? No. One can find something morally repugnant and argue for people to voluntarily stop it while not calling for the use of force. The big problem in our world today as many accept initiating force. Often this is under the guise of morality/ethics, where people judge something wrong and then decide this means force should be used to stop it. (I believe this partly accounts for the usual polical divide between the species of fascists in America -- dubbed "liberals" (a misnomer, since the term original meant something very close to libertarian) and "conservatives." Both seem to accept that it's right to use force to impose morality or virtue via force -- whereas the only virtue that should be directly involved with force is justice. They just disagree over which morality should be enforced. Also, there is another distinction between those who hold the same, but then argue against morality as such: they accept that morality should be imposed, but just believe there is no morality or, at least, no objective morality. This leads to the view if there just were some true or objective morality, it could be beaten into people, but, sadly, there is none, so we must let everyone alone. Some libertarians seem to hold this view.) > (Confiscation by whom? I realize this is a > problem in even forming the question, since it seems so > ineluctably... statist. Still.) After all, the offspring or > other parasitical beneficaries of the dead wealthy are > liable to immediate, continuing and soul-ablating ruin of > the kind, as we have learned from Rothbard, that destroys > the "the virtues of self-reliance and independence" in > welfare recipients. > > This is a serious question. The usual responses, in my > experience, ignore that issue and fiercely defend the > "right" of all wealthy humans to dispose of their > (lawfully-acquired) legacies in whatever way they choose. > But do we want to see wealthy wastrels wrecking their own > lives and squandering wealth that might have been invested > wisely by those instilled with the virtues of self-reliance > and independence? (Or is this loafing subset of society--the > ParisHiltonariat--too small to bother worrying about?) Actually, it's not a right, according to libertarianism, of "all wealthy humans to dispose of their (lawfully-acquired) legacies in whatever way they choose," but a right of all individuals (wealthy or no) to dispose of their just property (some of which might be illegally acquired) as they choose (provided, of course, it violates no one else's rights*). Also, given the context of your statement, the difference between a GI, negative income tax, and other such public wealth transfers and all forms of private ones is that the former must violate property rights -- someone is forced to pay. In both cases, yes, free-loaders or dead beats might be created -- in the sense of people who might have otherwise been productive choosing instead to layabout** -- but in the former people are forced to pay others for this. This also leads to another point: when it's done publicly, it seems the natural limits on this problem are much higher. A wealthy person's fortune is soon gobbled up by her lazy family members; when the public coffers are empty from wealth transfers, all that need be done is increase the tax load, increase the public debt, or inflate (or some combination of all three***). Yes, there are limits even on this, but they are much more loose -- the difference between a tightly coupled and loosely coupled system of incentives. Finally, as an aside, I think a problem is that having forced wealth transfers will eventually have a cultural impact -- as some people will work (often with the best of intentions) to legitamize them and people who benefit directly or indirectly from them will work to make them seem less like force wealth transfers and more like "charity" or "entitlements." This is, in fact, just how American culture changed over the 20th century. As this happens, the scope of forced wealth transfers will widen -- because, as it becomes socially acceptable, ever more people will seek out such wealth. (And, naturally, those who are already wealthy tend to be very good at doing this; thus we have spectacle of the upper and upper middle classes having wealth transfers in their favor from the working poor and lower middle class. Think, e.g., of public colleges. The working poor's children are unlikely to go to college, but their taxes pay so that middle class kids can attend them -- training the next generation of the middle level elite who will lord over the working poor and, likewise, demand more wealth transfers, e.g., for things like light rails and playgrounds for their kids.) Regards, Dan, aspiring free loader * You can't, e.g., dispose of your garbage on someone else's lawn without her consent. ** By the way, if anyone wants to test this with me, please please please support me and my lifestyle. I will spend my day surfing the web, studying Latin poetry, watching DVDs, and the like. Again, please please please let's test this out. :) *** Notably, there are fads in this. At times, higher taxes are all the rage -- usually offered up as the need to keep debt down and balance the [government] budget. At others, taxes are anathema and borrowing or inflation become more popular. (Debt and inflation tend to be popular more often than taxes because the payments is put off to the future and it's harder to tell who will actually be left with the bill. With debt (assuming no inflation), e.g., taxes will have to be raised at some future time, but no one can divine who those taxes will be levied on. With an inflationary system, there's an indirect tax as the value of all inflated money declines, but that's hard to trace, so, even worse than debt, who pays becomes ever harder to know -- save for generalities such as big debtors will benifit first and at the expense of all others and people on fixed incomes will likely suffer more.)) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon May 4 14:33:08 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 00:03:08 +0930 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905040733w52ae0734h841174aa1e72a3ef@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/4 Stathis Papaioannou : > 2009/5/4 MB : >> >>> >>> Centralized spending on health is a really, really good idea. I don't >>> know how US citizens don't freak out every day, dealing with the >>> health system you've got. No wonder there's so much focus on getting >>> rich; you have to, just in case you get sick. >>> >> >> I simply do not see it this way. >> >> I've been very pleased with my health care. I've been able to choose my doctors, >> I've been able to get appointments when I needed them, service was speedy. ?And yes, >> there have been medical problems, illness which was hard to diagnose, frustrating to >> treat. >> >> My best friend dealt with the Veteran's Administration (gov't run) hospital service. >> ?Often I was his chauffeur and any appointment took the entire day - wait wait wait. >> Meds were delayed hours, and there were big waiting rooms just for the pharmacy. >> Each visit to the VA reinforced my joy and relief at dealing with the private >> sector. > > An interesting compromise is publicly funded, privately provided > health care, like in Australia. The government acts as a big health > insurer, ensuring that everyone is covered and that less money is > wasted through (I guess) inefficient competing private health funds. > The per capita absolute spending on health care in Australia is about > half that in the US, for about equal health outcomes. The main > disadvantage is that if you are rich you pay a higher proportion of > your income through the compulsory levy than you would if you only > paid for private insurance. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou You don't have to pay the levy if you have health insurance though, no? Or do you still pay the basic levy? -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 14:45:15 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:45:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: "Damien Broderick" > One of my biggest problems is with "inheritance." On the one hand I > do not support inheritance taxes as they strengthen the State. > On the other hand, I'm sick of hearing Libertarians and Objectivists > say how everything in life must be earned and then they look away > and whistle when I say, "True, but how about inheritance? > It's not earned." I must admit you may not be entirely wrong about that. I'm not a big fan of any tax but inheritance tax would be the LAST one I'd remove. I'd also say that Libertarians are right in advocating Ivy League universities stop their affirmative action admittance policy, but they should also get rid of their legacy admittance policy. John K Clark From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 14:48:23 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <337950.87574.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/4 Damien Broderick : > > > <...the supply of welfare clients is inversely > proportion to another vitally > > important factor: the cultural or value disincentive > of going on welfare. If > > this disincentive is strong, if, for example, an > individual or group > > strongly believes that it is evil to go on welfare, > they will not do it, > > period. If, on the other hand, they do not care about > the stigma of welfare, > > or, worse yet, they regard welfare payments as their > right ? a right to > > exert a compulsory, looting claim upon production ? > then the number of > > people on welfare will increase astronomically, as has > happened in recent > > years. > > This is an alien view of welfare for me. In the client > group I deal > with, the mentally ill, welfare payments are regarded > unquestioningly > as a right, but despite that, I don't know anyone who > actually wants > to *stay* on welfare if they are able to work. This is > because they > feel better about themselves and also make more money if > they work. I > can't say I've met many who could work but prefer not to > because they > can get welfare payments. Doesn't that fall under a "value disincentive" explanation? Yes, some might take the payments, but there's a strong disincentive for it under at least some conditions. Once their condition changes, they no longer take it -- whether that includes merely the availability of jobs to feel good about or because the income is higher. (Of course, on the latter, one might expect marginal effects -- as when someone might be disinclined to work merely to make a small improvement in income. In this case, what's small depends on the person. Were this, too, not the case with most people, I'd expect we'd see lots more people working ever longer hours to make ever more money. In fact, even people not on the dole often make a certain level of income and then prefer leisure or non-work to more money. I've found myself in this position often too.) Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 15:10:42 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <210452.59148.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > >> One of my biggest problems is with "inheritance." On >> the one hand I >> do not support inheritance taxes as they strengthen >> the State. >> On the other hand, I'm sick of hearing Libertarians >> and Objectivists >> say how everything in life must be earned and then >> they look away >> and whistle when I say, "True, but how about >> inheritance? It's not earned." > > I must admit you may not be entirely wrong about that. I'm > not a big fan of > any tax but inheritance tax would be the LAST one I'd > remove. I'd also say > that Libertarians are right in advocating Ivy League > universities stop their > affirmative action admittance policy, but they should also > get rid of their > legacy admittance policy. As a strict libertarian, in terms of justice, I'm only worried about what's justly acquired -- not necessarily earned. In this case, the person who justly acquired property has a right to give it to her heirs as she sees fit. No, as a person, I might find it repugnant when a person who worked hard all her life, spoils her kids and then leaves them a big fat inheritence. But I wouldn't initiate force to change her decision. Regarding inheritence in general, too, I think the outcome of enforcing taxes on it has been to increase the power of the state and dependency on it by making sure rival wealth centers either don't arise or are hampered. Instead of allowing people to build family fortunes -- and I find nothing wrong per se with building and maintaining such fortunes -- instead these are often destroyed, limited, or shifted into less productive areas (to protect them). As an aside, this actually prevents elite cycling -- where old elites are replaced -- as the established elites make it harder for different groups to move up the ladder. (Notably, the super-wealthy don't suffer much from such taxes. It's the people at the bottom or in the middle who tend to suffer the most, especially as they often lack the skills to maneuvere around arcane tax laws.) Finally, true libertarians would not be against, as libertarians, any admissions policies universities choose -- but they would be against anything that initiated force, such as public monies going to universities (which should all be privatized) or forcing them to have certain admissions policies. Thus, in a just world, universities would not be tax funded and could select their admissions policies. One might expect a diversity of policies with some being more prevalent -- instead of one policy for all public universities. Regards, Dan From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon May 4 14:59:35 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:59:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090503174815.024cec10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5CABDD3807744154B62C08F8A4882DFB@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "John K Clark" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 7:45 AM > I must admit you may not be entirely wrong about that. I'm not a big fan > of > any tax but inheritance tax would be the LAST one I'd remove. I'd also say > that Libertarians are right in advocating Ivy League universities stop > their > affirmative action admittance policy, but they should also get rid of > their > legacy admittance policy. Ah, yes ... legacy admittance policy, one of the many benefits (there have been others, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/28KOTZL.html) bestowed on certain Americans "when affirmative action was white?" ;)). Olga From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 4 17:01:14 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:01:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4 May, 2009, at 9:54, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Brent Neal > wrote: >> On 3 May, 2009, at 23:14, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> >>> ### He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 >>> recessions >>> - did you follow the link? >>> (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html) >> >> >> Yes. This recession is highly deflationary, much more so than the >> recessions >> from the 70s onward, making the necessary conditions for recovery >> different. >> > ### Do you have relevant references to published work by economists > specializing in business cycle theory? > > Rafal >> > I'm sure I can dig them out. This isn't something that should be a surprising revelation to anyone following the news. Check out, e.g., the PPI data over the past six months relative to other downward cycles. B > > -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From brentn at freeshell.org Mon May 4 17:21:31 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:21:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4 May, 2009, at 13:01, Brent Neal wrote: >>> >> > > I'm sure I can dig them out. This isn't something that should be a > surprising revelation to anyone following the news. Check out, e.g., > the PPI data over the past six months relative to other downward > cycles. This represents about 30 seconds of Googling. Unless you think that the von Mises Institute is too left wing for you, of course. :) > http://mises.org/story/2948 This shows that in only 2 of the past 8 recessions were deflationary pressures felt. The PPI data for the past 6 months shows our current deflationary situation. The question at hand is the one being talked about in the GI thread, though. It is entirely feasible that these are the growing pains towards an economy that where the wage-income link is weakened, something that the folks mired in industrial age economics can't wrap their heads around. As we begin to understand that ideas and memes will often be more valuable than stuff, there will inevitably be some rough spots as we transition from an economy based on atoms, arranged just so and moved from point A to point B , to an economy based on bits, arranged just so and moved from point A to point B. (Where they would then be "minted" into the right sort of atoms, perhaps. Or perhaps not.) B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 19:38:21 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:38:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <210452.59148.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7694E9EC93EE4D129C0B0089E8456EEF@MyComputer> "Dan" > Regarding inheritence in general, too, I think the outcome of enforcing > taxes on it has been to increase the power of the state and dependency on > it Well sure, but that's in the nature of all taxes and in the real world we're not likely to see the elimination of all taxes anytime soon; but we might be able to get rid of some of them and inheritance taxes would not be on my list of taxes that need to be eliminated immediately. > As a strict libertarian, in terms of justice I'm a Libertarian too and I like justice as well as the next man, but given the choice between justice and a decision in my favor there is simply no contest; don't look at me like that, at least I'm willing to admit it. When was the last time you heard a baseball player screaming at a umpire "What do you mean I'm safe, are you blind, clearly I was out!". And if any list member is a billionaire and also wants to mention me in his will I promise I won't flame you about it, in fact I promise to say only good things about you. Not only that but I'll be glad to pack your parachute for your next skydive too. John K Clark From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 19:58:32 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <140672.11828.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" >> Regarding inheritence in general, too, I think the >> outcome of enforcing >> taxes on it has been to increase the power of the >> state and dependency on it > > Well sure, but that's in the nature of all taxes and in the > real world we're > not likely to see the elimination of all taxes anytime > soon; but we might be > able to get rid of some of them and inheritance taxes would > not be on my > list of taxes that need to be eliminated immediately. I'm not sure how I'd rank which taxes to get rid of first. There was some economist a while back -- he was completely anti-tax (in other words, consistent, logical, and sane) -- but argued that certain taxes were worse than others, but his ranking was based on the scope of taxation -- that is, whether a tax affected a narrower or greater range of activities. I forget exactly how he weighed in or his reasoning, though his ultimate aim was elimination of all taxes (and the state with it; again, the consistent, logical, and sane position). >> As a strict libertarian,? in terms of >> justice > > I'm a Libertarian too and I like justice as well as the > next man, but given > the choice between justice and a decision in my favor there > is simply no > contest; don't look at me like that, at least I'm willing > to admit it. When > was the last time you heard a baseball player screaming at > a umpire > "What do you mean I'm safe, are you blind, clearly I was > out!". Then, to that degree, you are not a libertarian. You will set aside your libertarian views when it suits you. How this any different than a person who admits he's not a libertarian, emphatically states he's not one, and just says, "Well, I won't initiate forces most of the time, but when it's to my benefit I will."? > And if any list member is a billionaire and also wants to > mention me in his > will I promise I won't flame you about it, in fact I > promise to say only > good things about you. > > Not only that but I'll be glad to pack your parachute for > your next skydive too. This reminds me of a private poker game I attended a few years ago. I asked the person running the game if he trusted the dealer. He told me, "Yeah, but only about 80% of the time." I quipped, "Then you don't trust the dealer." Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 20:18:05 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" Message-ID: <644945.87757.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 5/3/09, BillK wrote: > On 5/3/09, Damien Broderick wrote: >> At 01:59 PM 5/3/2009 -0400, Rafal wrote: >>> ### According to many economic indicators, the >>> recession is going to >>> end in about 6 weeks >> >>? Could you elaborate on these economic >> indicators? (Not being snarky here, >> I'll really like to know.) > > As a general rule, the bust takes about the same amount of > time as the boom. I'd like to see some evidence for this. Prima facie, I think the relationship would be accidental. In fact, my guess would be the duration of the bust or recession -- where the markets attempt to get to a more realistic price and production structure -- would depend not only on how deep the boom was -- that is, how much it messed up relative prices and the structure of production -- but what remedies are attempted. I'd also guess that busts can be over relatively quickly if there's little interference -- i.e., prices are allowed to adjust because, say, there are no attempts to prop up prices, bail out firms, or other further interfere in the market. The 1920-1 recession seems a good example of how quick a bust can be over -- and, if one judges the boom to have been from 1917 to 1920, then the recession was around three years, while the recession was about half that. > So. you get a quick boom, followed by a quick bust and then > recovery. > > Unfortunately, this last boom was the biggest bubble ever, > and in all > the world economies at the same time, so we are now in > unknown > territory. As trillions of free? money, in all > currencies, has been > produced out of thin air, I would expect this to have some > effect. And a lot of this new money was created after the recession started -- in an attempt to "reflate." > (Exactly what effect, nobody knows). But as I see it, a > quite likely > scenario is a mini-recovery accompanied by shouts of 'Free > money!', > then an absolutely horrendous crash. Mainly because none of > the > underlying problems have yet been fixed. I agree here, though my powers of economic forecasting leave a lot to be desired. :/ > I shall be most surprised if the solution to debt problems > caused by > spending money that you don't have is to spend trillions > more money > that you don't have. Well, if that worked (rhetorical question), why the original recession? If merely creating new money to pay off real debts worked, then one would never expect to see the business cycle. Regards, Dan From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 20:53:14 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:53:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <140672.11828.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Dan" > he was completely anti-tax in other words, consistent, logical, and sane That is redundant. > You will set aside your libertarian views when it suits you. Fuck libertarian, I will set aside absolutely anything when it suits me, and the liberty I feel when I do that is breathtaking. I love it! > you are not a libertarian Buddy, I believe I could dance libertarian circles around you; at least nobody has beaten me on the libertarian matter on this list in the last 15 years. Think I'm talking bullshit, well then challenge me! John K Clark From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 4 21:17:32 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" > > > he was completely anti-tax in other words, consistent, > logical, and sane > > That is redundant. And? >> You will set aside your libertarian views when it >> suits you. > > Fuck libertarian, I will set aside absolutely anything when > it suits me, and > the liberty I feel when I do that is breathtaking. I love > it! And how is this any different from any non-libertarian -- say, for example, a gangster or a fascist? >> you are not a libertarian > > Buddy, I believe I could dance libertarian circles around > you; at least > nobody has beaten me on the libertarian matter on this list > in the last 15 > years. Think I'm talking bullshit, well then challenge me! My point was not meant to insult you; didn't mean for you to take this personally. I certainly don't mean for you to get upset. I was merely stating this: if you profess to be a libertarian and then proclaim you would set aside all things libertarian in a pinch, then you're not really a libertarian after all. This is not a matter of whether you might be able to do libertarian analysis better than many (or even me) or whether you might work out where libertarian principles lead. (E.g., I'm an atheist, but I've debated with Biblical literalists the meaning of this or that theological point. Being able to do so doesn't require me to believe in God -- much less to become a Biblical literalist.) Regards, Dan From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 22:13:56 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:13:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8A1800A1413D4D559420D46AE3CF4EC2@MyComputer> "Dan" >> > he was completely anti-tax in other words, consistent, logical, and >> > sane Me: >> That is redundant. You: > And? And after saying that somebody is completely anti-tax it is redundant to say they are logical. > My point was not meant to insult you; didn't mean for you to take this > personally. I certainly don't mean for you to get upset. OK maybe I overreacted, it's just that I get defensive whenever anybody claims they are a better liberation that me; because the fact of the matter is it can't be denied that MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!! Sorry sorry, ignore that last, I overreacted yet again. John K Clark From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 4 22:08:30 2009 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 22:08:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Paris Hilton's inheritance (was Re: Friedman and negative income tax) Message-ID: <438933.95419.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Actually, Paris Hilton may not be the best example for your inheritance examples. The founder of the Hilton hotel chain grew up seeing his dad nearly run a hotel into the ground. He tried to do better, and in the wake of the Great Depression he was able to sell his ideas on how to improve hotels to bankers who'd give him mortgages on hotels that were available at knockdown prices following the crash. When he built his fortune, he was worried that leaving too much to his kids might spoil them, so he didn't leave much in the will. His son challenged the will and got a huge chunk of money, leading to his family being loaded and Paris being free to spend her money on designer dresses, partying and cryonics. Chalk this one up as a victory for American justice for people who don't think Daddy left them enough. Inheritance taxes do leave room for some interesting economic stimuli - by taxing money left to people but letting charitable donations be tax-free, it allows people to weigh up how much to give their folks (and give the govt a chunk) or whether to blow it all on their favourite cause, just to deny the taxman his share. In the UK, a few things get special treatment for Inheritance tax - shares of at least 25% in a family firm (encourages their continuation, not necessarily economically efficient but voters feel comfortable with it), farms (the family farm being an instituion seen as worth preserving), and forestry - as deciduous trees can take longer to mature than an investor has to live, people wouldn't grow them without a tax break. Did Australia abolish its inheritance tax a few years back? I remember reading that one state abolished it locally, and the government was considering scrapping it nationally. I'm sure one of our list Aussies can give the example from their home country. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 4 22:57:48 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:57:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <8A1800A1413D4D559420D46AE3CF4EC2@MyComputer> References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8A1800A1413D4D559420D46AE3CF4EC2@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090504175044.023144e0@satx.rr.com> At 06:13 PM 5/4/2009 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >I get defensive whenever anybody >claims they are a better liberation that me Rather than defensive, I get baffled. What could they possible *mean* by claiming to be "a better liberation"? Wait--could this be a typo? A better libation? A better libration? A better librarian? A better Liberian? No no no... it's on the tip of my-- Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 4 22:20:18 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 15:20:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> This entire topic as well as most in the past few days have little to do with extropian or transhumanis thinking. Someone has to *die* for someone else to get an inheritance. In a post nanotech world death should be rare indeed, especially if you are using a backup service. Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 23:25:24 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:25:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8A1800A1413D4D559420D46AE3CF4EC2@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20090504175044.023144e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9D57F09BDDBB4E80B8CC6FA438CAC742@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" thespike at satx.rr.com: > what could they possible *mean* > by claiming to be "a better liberation"? I'm not the one to ask. I have no idea. John K Clark From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon May 4 23:30:44 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:30:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: "hkhenson" > In a post nanotech world death should be rare indeed Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in time? John K Clark From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon May 4 23:41:51 2009 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:41:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "hkhenson" > >> ?In a post nanotech world death should be rare indeed > > Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in time? If you are *not* signed up for cryonics, why not? Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 4 23:35:50 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:35:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1241480613_1507@S4.cableone.net> At 04:30 PM 5/4/2009, John K Clark wrote: >"hkhenson" > >> In a post nanotech world death should be rare indeed > >Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in time? If you are *not* signed up for cryonics, why not? Keith From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 00:22:34 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:22:34 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905040733w52ae0734h841174aa1e72a3ef@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <710b78fc0905040733w52ae0734h841174aa1e72a3ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Emlyn : >> An interesting compromise is publicly funded, privately provided >> health care, like in Australia. The government acts as a big health >> insurer, ensuring that everyone is covered and that less money is >> wasted through (I guess) inefficient competing private health funds. >> The per capita absolute spending on health care in Australia is about >> half that in the US, for about equal health outcomes. The main >> disadvantage is that if you are rich you pay a higher proportion of >> your income through the compulsory levy than you would if you only >> paid for private insurance. >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou > > You don't have to pay the levy if you have health insurance though, > no? Or do you still pay the basic levy? Everyone except very low income earners pays the basic levy of 1.5%. High income earners also pay a surcharge of 1%, unless they have private health insurance. http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 00:52:44 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:52:44 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <337950.87574.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <337950.87574.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Dan : > Doesn't that fall under a "value disincentive" explanation? ?Yes, some might take the payments, but there's a strong disincentive for it under at least some conditions. ?Once their condition changes, they no longer take it -- whether that includes merely the availability of jobs to feel good about or because the income is higher. ?(Of course, on the latter, one might expect marginal effects -- as when someone might be disinclined to work merely to make a small improvement in income. ?In this case, what's small depends on the person. ?Were this, too, not the case with most people, I'd expect we'd see lots more people working ever longer hours to make ever more money. ?In fact, even people not on the dole often make a certain level of income and then prefer leisure or non-work to more money. ?I've found myself in this position often too.) Yes, and that's fine. It would only be a problem if there were a disincentive for anyone to work, although then wages would probably rise to compensate. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 03:31:55 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:31:55 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Paris Hilton's inheritance (was Re: Friedman and negative income tax) In-Reply-To: <438933.95419.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <438933.95419.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Tom Nowell : > Did Australia abolish its inheritance tax a few years back? I remember reading that one state abolished it locally, and the government was considering scrapping it nationally. I'm sure one of our list Aussies can give the example from their home country. No tax on inheritance in Australia. No tax when you win gambling, either. -- Stathis Papaioannou From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 5 03:54:42 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) Message-ID: <192961.89957.qm@web110409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark wrote: > Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in > time? I hope so or at least it's worth trying:) Anna __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From scerir at tiscali.it Tue May 5 06:03:30 2009 From: scerir at tiscali.it (scerir at tiscali.it) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:03:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" Message-ID: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Rafal: He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 recessions - did you follow the link? (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html ) # The best paper about all that (to my knowledge) is the following http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Aftermath.pdf The Aftermath of Financial Crises Carmen M. Reinhart University of Maryland. NBER and CEPR Kenneth S. Rogoff Harvard University and NBER January 2009 ABSTRACT This paper examines the depth and duration of the slump that invariably follows severe financial crises, which tend to be protracted affairs. We find that asset market collapses are deep and prolonged. On a peak-to-trough basis, real housing price declines average 35 percent stretched out over six years, while equity price collapses average 55 percent over a downturn of about three and a half years. Not surprisingly, banking crises are associated with profound declines in output and employment. The unemployment rate rises an average of 7 percentage points over the down phase of the cycle, which lasts on average over four years. Output falls an average of over 9 percent, although the duration of the downturn is considerably shorter than for unemployment. The real value of government debt tends to explode, rising an average of 86 percent in the major post?World War II episodes. The main cause of debt explosions is usually not the widely cited costs of bailing out and recapitalizing the banking system. The collapse in tax revenues in the wake of deep and prolonged economic contractions is a critical factor in explaining the large budget deficits and increases in debt that follow the crisis. Our estimates of the rise in government debt are likely to be conservative, as these do not include increases in government guarantees, which also expand briskly during these episodes. Arriva Tiscali Mobile! Acquista la tua SIM Tiscali a soli ?5 e scopri la semplicit? e la convenienza del nuovo servizio per il tuo cellulare. Passa a Tiscali Mobile http://abbonati.tiscali.it/promo/tiscalimobile/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 5 06:10:43 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 23:10:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241215177_19140@s1.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <43EB0C5358A04EFBAEABD26D8D52E9AA@spike> <956A3E442C544284AC0562796AEA2565@spike> <1241213087_18138@s6.cableone.net> <1241215177_19140@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <49FFD863.4080601@rawbw.com> Keith wrote >> Why Multilevel Selection Matters >> > > I read that paper when it came out. It is poorly written and full of > BS. If you want me to go into detail, post the whole thing right here > and I will tear it apart. > > I am not saying that there can't be group selection, it just that nobody > has *ever* come up with an example that cannot be completely explained > by a combination of memetics and biological evolution. Yes, but what may be bothering other people---and as I explained in my last post bothers me---is that the most reductionistic explanation isn't always the best. Let's consider the relatively simple example first discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection Some mosquito-transmitted rabbit viruses, for instance, are only transmitted to uninfected rabbits from infected rabbits which are still alive. This creates a selective pressure on every group of viruses already infecting a rabbit not to become too virulent and kill their host rabbit before enough mosquitoes have bitten it. In natural systems such viruses display much lower virulence levels than do mutants of the same viruses that in laboratory culture readily out-compete non-virulent variants (or than do tick-transmitted viruses?ticks, unlike mosquitoes, bite dead rabbits). Of course we can force a reductionistic Dawkins style explanation: What do you see now? Oh, you see lower virulence? Well, see, the genes ended up doing what was best for their survival. So long as we keep in mind the reductionistic basis underlying any given phenomenon, is there really anything so awful about describing the foregoing as "group selection"? If the phenomenon is to be described in terms of reified qualities (and we all do this all the time), then one ought to be willing to say that "the less virulent group outcompeted the virulent group". And this by no means commits us to the common errors illustrated by, for example, many of Wynne-Edwards' claims. Any description in complete defiance of the reductionistic, gene-centered view, has to be wrong. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 5 05:48:26 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 22:48:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Group Selection Advances In-Reply-To: <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> References: <49FA76FA.8000104@rawbw.com> <1241198068_18421@s1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <49FFD32A.5000901@rawbw.com> hkhenson wrote: > At 09:13 PM 4/30/2009, Lee quoted from: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection >> >> "The problem with group selection is that for a whole group to get a >> single trait, it must spread through the whole group first by regular >> evolution. But, as J. L. Mackie suggested, when there are many >> different groups, each with a different Evolutionarily Stable Strategy >> (ESS), there is selection between the different ESSs, since some are >> worse than others[20]. For example, a group where altruism arose would >> outcompete a group where every creature acted in its own interest." > > The last sentence is not true, because creatures *DO NOT* act in their > own self interest. They act in the self interest of their genes. Good spot. It's very easy to become confused (or at least to confuse others) when trying to explain a phenomenon taking place at the individual level (e.g. altruistic behavior of an individual). But do you really wish to endorse the statement "individuals act only in the interest of their genes"? The context is important, of course. Focus in this particular post prevents me, unfortunately, trying to penetrate the real differences between Dawkins and Sober & Wilson, for example. > Most of the time that *looks* like self interest. Then > along comes a situation where it is clear that the > interest of the creature and its genes have diverged > ---and the genes dictate the response. Quite right. Spike wrote (in the first reply to my original post) > Your first comment was "...I naturally believed > in group selection..." Why? "...Darwin did too..." > Why? I know Dawkins makes a strong case, but why > do we naturally believe in group selection before > we read Dawkins and Gould? Because the general Darwinian principle is so easy to understand, and applies to so many things. For example, when one reads that Indo-European speakers displaced other languages groups, a kind of Darwinian selection immediately comes to mind. And this is quite independent of whether conquest occurred, or the non- Indo-European speakers were simply assimilated and changed their habits, or whatever. One very valid description obviously is that the groups of Indo- European speakers survived or replaced other groups. People can pick at your example, "farmers displacing hunter gatherers", but the descriptions "farming groups outcompeted hunter groups" remains valid. What is really going on is the difference between descriptions at different levels. To say that there are chemical principles, such as "Le Chatelier's" or thermodynamic principles, such as "The Second Law" in no way means that something extra has to be added to fundamental physical laws. One just has to be careful not to read into a higher order principle more than is intended. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 5 06:45:33 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 23:45:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300035u7bd39ebyad0d91eb520e4f39@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300043n749e8778ne4e5893a6e48b38c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Stathis wrote: > 2009/5/2 Rafal Smigrodzki : > >> Same with GI - the problem is in feeding the parasites and punishing >> workers over long time. At first just a few parasites, and not >> punishing much but as parasites breed, they vote for more money, so >> the burden on workers is higher, so there are fewer workers and more >> parasites, and the positive feedback effects feed on each other, until >> something breaks. > > Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population > realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those > countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every > country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low > government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. Peoples' belief systems play too strong a role for this to happen as expeditiously as we'd like, or rather, as you are implying would be the case. For example, any German who looks into it becomes well aware of the differences between the American economy and his own. Everyone knows about the differences in productivity and unemployment. Yet, typically, a non-libertarian German will just retort that "American conditions" are too high a price to pay for a better economic situation. Most want to keep their job security and social welfare safety net measures, and so on. So---if you are right, and the allure of greater economic prosperity in the end always dominates ---one might envision a completely fanciful development one hundred years from now in which (somehow) everything else has remained the same, but the U.S. economy has grown at a rate one or two percent higher than the German economy. But you may be wrong: even though in this scenario, vast, vast differences would be all too obvious, there is no guarantee that the economically superior system would be admired by all. Lee From brian at posthuman.com Tue May 5 06:52:11 2009 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 01:52:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> Rafal, see pg. 18 of the following paper. The current market rally, "green shoots" etc. are likely just a small brief blip of moderation in the downward slide you can see in this model's predictive charts for 2009. This model has an historical r^2 around .75 for explaining employment changes 12 months into the future. And as you can see on the out of sample prediction on pg. 18 the actual data so far is tracking below what the model predicts. Even if this tightens up and improves a bit above the model's average estimate then the recession is not over. The paper was written about in the WSJ and various blogs a few weeks back if you want to read more about it. Credit Market Shocks and Economic Fluctuations: Evidence from Corporate Bond and Stock Markets http://people.bu.edu/sgilchri/research/GYZ_30Mar2009.pdf -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 5 07:13:39 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 00:13:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> Stefano wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Strategically, do you think that it is a good idea >> to prohibit reasoned attacks on religion, insults >> of races, religions, or the Mayor's daughter? >> Where do you draw the line? >> >> And beyond strategy, where in a free society do >> you draw the line ethically? > > What can be said is that for any doom-monger's assumption that unless > free speech is limited on a given subject society would collapse, it > is easy enough to offer examples where societies managed to a > reasonable extent to thrive in spite of the fact that the "necessary" > prohibition was not in place. Good point. In other words, the burden of proof seems to fall on those who would ban speech. What historical examples are there where "it's a damned good thing that people were prohibited from saying X"? I appeal, of course, to our shared values. Consider the converse: "when was it a damned bad idea to suppress people saying X"? There are many, many thousands of examples! To produce as many as you'd like, simply consider the prohibitions invariably produced by totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships, or ruling oligarchies. > All in all, I think that most limitations to free speech are very hard > to justify on empirical grounds. Not to mention on political terms for > any political regime that claims to be based on informed consensus. The only cases I can think of where prohibitions on free speech make sense fall into a category that I call "justified elitism". At a given elementary school, for example, the adults---who really are much wiser than the children---may prohibit one group of children from calling another group of children names. I also think that in the back of the minds of those who call for prohibitions on free speech lurks exactly the same kind of elitism. "You never know," I can almost hear them saying, "how such memes may spread when picked up by the ignorant masses, and what woeful effects will result". I am---by the way---thereby raising the question of just how much elitism by people on this list or people in western societies who are well educated is justified. Lee From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 5 09:34:13 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 05:34:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Boy oh boy I hope you're right. John K Clark From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 10:15:21 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 20:15:21 +1000 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <210452.59148.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <210452.59148.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Dan : > As a strict libertarian, in terms of justice, I'm only worried about what's justly acquired -- not necessarily earned. ?In this case, the person who justly acquired property has a right to give it to her heirs as she sees fit. ?No, as a person, I might find it repugnant when a person who worked hard all her life, spoils her kids and then leaves them a big fat inheritence. ?But I wouldn't initiate force to change her decision. It depends on your definition of "justice". Some people think taxation is theft, others don't. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 5 10:33:55 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:33:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905050333r788ddd0ekbf35b1f8f993faef@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Good point. In other words, the burden of proof seems > to fall on those who would ban speech. What historical > examples are there where "it's a damned good thing that > people were prohibited from saying X"? > > I appeal, of course, to our shared values. Even without that last qualification, one has to wonder whether in the long term such prohibitions worked in average so well for their partisans themselves... > I also think that in the back of the minds of those > who call for prohibitions on free speech lurks > exactly the same kind of elitism. "You never know," > I can almost hear them saying, "how such memes may > spread when picked up by the ignorant masses, and > what woeful effects will result". > > I am---by the way---thereby raising the question > of just how much elitism by people on this list > or people in western societies who are well educated > is justified. Indeed. In fact, the argument requires are three distinct claims: - "we know better (what is right/true/correct/better to believe in any event"; - "to let those with different opinions speak, and/or to let other people form their own view on it would be too dangerous"; - "the danger can effectively be avoided by the attempt of enforcing a prohibition". Unless evidence to one's satisfaction can be offered on all three of them, limitations to free speech do not seem such a good idea. Moreover, as I am preaching that all discussions should be kept as much as possible on-topic, I should submit that the transhumanist discourse is itself exposed to a few risks of formal and informal censorship in a number of contexts, while it is very hard to see where, when and why it would ever profit from free-speech limitations. -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 5 10:52:08 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:52:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 5/5/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > The only cases I can think of where prohibitions on > free speech make sense fall into a category that I > call "justified elitism". At a given elementary school, > for example, the adults---who really are much wiser > than the children---may prohibit one group of children > from calling another group of children names. > > I also think that in the back of the minds of those > who call for prohibitions on free speech lurks > exactly the same kind of elitism. "You never know," > I can almost hear them saying, "how such memes may > spread when picked up by the ignorant masses, and > what woeful effects will result". > I would lump this under 'etiquette' or 'how to behave properly in company'. What sort of a society do you want to live in? Do you want to live in a society where people behave like savages? Swearing, farting, belching, peeing in public, rudely commenting on women present, grabbing the best party food first, disparaging other people, etc. etc. Free speech is fine. But discuss your views only with people who want to listen. Forcing your 'free speech' on unwilling listeners is initiating aggression towards them. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue May 5 11:30:54 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:30:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> References: <789426.33168.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1241476081_2878@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20905050430v2a47dbf8ne6adf1ce2582387@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:20 AM, hkhenson wrote: > This entire topic as well as most in the past few days have little to do > with extropian or transhumanis thinking. Now, I do not know whether this is true, but as in other circumstances I have to remark that nobody is discussing "what would be more consistent with transhumanist thinking?", "what solution would be more favourable to the success of extropian views?", "what would be conducive to a posthuman change?", and everybody is engaged in a more general discussion which might took place anywhere and everywhere. I do not suppose for a moment that somebody could or should think along those lines on a full-time basis. But it should perhaps be clarified whether this is a list *on* extropian ideas or simply *of* more-or-less extropists whe are happy to get together here rather than elsewhere to discuss whatever subject might come up, from culinary tastes to the best painters of Italian renaissance to... immigration. Just to know... Max? Natasha? -- Stefano Vaj From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 13:08:56 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 06:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Silly Message-ID: <44433.38460.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, hkhenson wrote: > From: hkhenson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) > To: "ExI chat list" > Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 7:35 PM > At 04:30 PM 5/4/2009, John K Clark > wrote: > >"hkhenson" > > > >>? In a post nanotech world death should be > rare indeed > > > >Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in > time? > > If you are *not* signed up for cryonics, why not? Will cryonics even work? And even if it does, it depends on everything going right until you get revived. If, say, the laws are changed to completely confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal death -- so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the political or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- then you might be left to rot. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 13:39:18 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 06:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <217012.32935.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" >> My point was not meant to insult you; didn't mean for >> you to take this >> personally. I certainly don't mean for you to get >> upset. > > OK maybe I overreacted, it's just that I get defensive > whenever anybody > claims they are a better liberation that me; That was not my statement. My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a libertarian.* That is not meant as an insult either. It's meant as an observation -- and it's backed by your statements and the reasoning I presented earlier. > because the > fact of the matter > is it can't be denied that MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!! That's an empirical claim and that can be easily settled. :) > Sorry sorry, ignore that last, I overreacted yet again. Regards, Dan * Sure, you might be sympathetic to libertarian views and, on occasion apply libertarian principles in your life and thinking. You might also even be very good at drawing conclusions from these principles -- much as, I pointed out yesterday, an atheist can draw conclusions from theological principles she believes are partly or completely false. Again, no insult intended. The ability to draw conclusions about some point of view does not mean one is an adherent of that point of view. From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 13:53:50 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 06:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/5 Dan : > > > Doesn't that fall under a "value disincentive" > explanation? ?Yes, some might take the payments, but > there's a strong disincentive for it under at least some > conditions. ?Once their condition changes, they no longer > take it -- whether that includes merely the availability of > jobs to feel good about or because the income is higher. > ?(Of course, on the latter, one might expect marginal > effects -- as when someone might be disinclined to work > merely to make a small improvement in income. ?In this > case, what's small depends on the person. ?Were this, too, > not the case with most people, I'd expect we'd see lots more > people working ever longer hours to make ever more money. > ?In fact, even people not on the dole often make a certain > level of income and then prefer leisure or non-work to more > money. ?I've found myself in this position often too.) > > Yes, and that's fine. It would only be a problem if there > were a > disincentive for anyone to work, although then wages would > probably > rise to compensate. Might or might not. There's no a priori reason to expect that to happen -- and there seems a large amount of data on people who will stayed unemployed for a lifetime provided they have enough financial support to do so. And I don't mean people who get grants and write operas or have a go at deciphering the Indus Valley symbols. (I've lived in neighborhoods full of able-bodied pre-retired people who just collected check.) Of course, you were talking about people with a specific problem who get support as part of the package to help with that, correct? That might be far from the general case. (It's also true that in a free society, such people could be taken care of through private charity rather than coerced support.) Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 13:55:21 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 06:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Silly Message-ID: <240743.48539.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/4/09, Anna Taylor wrote: > --- On Mon, 5/4/09, John K Clark > wrote: > > > Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it > in > > time? > > I hope so or at least it's worth trying:) Reminds me of the joke: I'm going to live forever -- or die trying! Regards, Dan From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:12:49 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:12:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Lee Corbin : >> Something breaks when, after a few years of this, the population >> realises they are becoming increasingly worse off relative to those >> countries that have better economic systems. So in the end every >> country in the world should converge towards low taxes and low >> government spending, if that does indeed lead to better outcomes. > > Peoples' belief systems play too strong a role > for this to happen as expeditiously as we'd like, > or rather, as you are implying would be the case. > > For example, any German who looks into it becomes > well aware of the differences between the American > economy and his own. Everyone knows about the > differences in productivity and unemployment. > > Yet, typically, a non-libertarian German will just > retort that "American conditions" are too high a > price to pay for a better economic situation. Most > want to keep their job security and social welfare > safety net measures, and so on. > > So---if you are right, and the allure of greater > economic prosperity in the end always dominates > ---one might envision a completely fanciful > development one hundred years from now in which > (somehow) everything else has remained the same, > but the U.S. economy has grown at a rate one or > two percent higher than the German economy. > > But you may be wrong: even though in this scenario, > vast, vast differences would be all too obvious, > there is no guarantee that the economically superior > system would be admired by all. It isn't just economic growth that is important, it's quality of life. That includes not only per capita income, but also how equitably that income is distributed, job security, working hours, whether your boss is a bastard, and so on. Part of the reason the US has a slightly higher GDP per capita than some Western European countries is that working hours are longer in the US. The Europeans have decided that they like it better their way. Nevertheless, per capita GDP is a very important component in the quality of life equation, and a GDP growth differential of even a small amount sustained over decades will make a big difference; for example, a differential of 1.5% will cause the GDP of one country to double relative to that of the slower-growing one in 50 years. But this is not what has happened in Western Europe compared to the US, even though most Western European states have had what by US standards are socialist governments for the last 50 years. For example, Sweden has had explicitly and proudly socialist governments for the best part a century, and in this time it has gone from one of the poorest and most backward countries in Europe to one of the wealthiest. In the early nineties Sweden went through a severe recession, following a real estate bubble similar to the one leading to the recent financial crisis. During the recovery phase the currency was devalued and government welfare spending was cut, as it was heading towards an unmanageable level. But this is the point I was making: if an economic policy has the effect of making people worse off, then people notice and the policy is adjusted. Not even a totalitarian government controlling information and suppressing dissent can prevent this happening in the long run. -- Stathis Papaioannou From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 14:07:20 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <206907.9320.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/5 Dan : > >> As a strict libertarian, in terms of justice, I'm only >> worried about what's justly acquired -- not necessarily >> earned. ?In this case, the person who justly acquired >> property has a right to give it to her heirs as she sees >> fit. ?No, as a person, I might find it repugnant when a >> person who worked hard all her life, spoils her kids and >> then leaves them a big fat inheritence. ?But I wouldn't >> initiate force to change her decision. > > It depends on your definition of "justice". Some people > think taxation is theft, others don't. The statement was made and applies to the libertarian notion of justice -- not to non-libertarian notions of such. To wit, the libertarian view of force is it can't be justifiably initiated. You might respond, well, some people think it can be. Yes, well, true, but those people are not libertarians; they disagree with the defining principle of libertarianism.* As a side note, too, I wonder if those arguing against inheritance -- or for heavily taxing it -- would recognize any general limit on interference in other people's lives or property, especially when those other people are doing things you strongly disagree with. If not, then what sort of world do you hope to live in? Naturally, I'd expect, one where your desires trump everyone else's, but imagine what's more likely: no limits on interferences in life and property -- pretty much what we have now. Are Extropians and transhumanists likely to benefit on net from this? Or would they benefit more from living in a more or less libertarian world, where, yes, some rich idiots might support families of lay-abouts, but everyone else's rights are generally respected? Regards, Dan * This, of course, does not justify or validate the libertarian view of justice or of initiating force. My only point was to explicate the libertarian view here: not to ground it in something deeper. (This doesn't mean I think such a grounding is impossible.) From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue May 5 14:36:57 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:36:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: From: "Stathis Papaioannou" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:12 AM > It isn't just economic growth that is important, it's quality of life. > That includes not only per capita income, but also how equitably that > income is distributed, job security, working hours, whether your boss > is a bastard, and so on. Part of the reason the US has a slightly > higher GDP per capita than some Western European countries is that > working hours are longer in the US. The Europeans have decided that > they like it better their way. Stathis, I am glad you are pointing out the "quality of life" aspect. This article about Finland also touches on the subject (and doesn't pussyfoot around in saying there are tradeoffs): http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090501/cm_csm/ycorson Olga From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:40:31 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:40:31 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Dan : > Might or might not. ?There's no a priori reason to expect that to happen -- and there seems a large amount of data on people who will stayed unemployed for a lifetime provided they have enough financial support to do so. ?And I don't mean people who get grants and write operas or have a go at deciphering the Indus Valley symbols. ?(I've lived in neighborhoods full of able-bodied pre-retired people who just collected check.) I suppose it depends on your definitions. If people retire at 65 and collect a government pension, even though they are still able-bodied, is that wrong? > Of course, you were talking about people with a specific problem who get support as part of the package to help with that, correct? ?That might be far from the general case. Yes, I was referring to those on a disability pension. There are also payments for the aged and the unemployed. It's difficult to fake being old but it probably isn't too hard to fake being unemployed: welfare recipients may work covertly or they may present themselves in job interviews (they have to show evidence of looking for work) in such a way as to ensure that they won't be hired. (It's also true that in a free society, such people could be taken care of through private charity rather than coerced support.) I would feel very bad accepting private charity, but I would feel quite comfortable accepting government welfare if I were eligible. Government welfare is like collecting the insurance if my house burns down: I pay the premiums and if I need it, that's part of the deal. The deal with government welfare is that if I work, I pay taxes. I'm forced to pay my taxes, but I'm also forced to pay professional indemnity insurance by my employer. If I don't want to pay either I don't have to work. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 5 15:18:24 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 01:18:24 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Olga Bourlin : > Stathis, I am glad you are pointing out the "quality of life" aspect. > > This article about Finland also touches on the subject (and doesn't > pussyfoot around in saying there are tradeoffs): > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090501/cm_csm/ycorson I wouldn't say Finland is an economic slouch, either. More evidence that socialist policies do not necessarily adversely affect technical innovation and industrial efficiency: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.htm -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 5 15:21:42 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:21:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <217012.32935.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Dan" > My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a libertarian [.] The > ability to draw conclusions about some point of view does not mean one is > an adherent of that point of view. So according to you to be a supporter of an idea a belief in good results derived from that idea is not sufficient to become a true adherent. You think there must be something else, something more important than the conclusions derived from a point of view. I can't imagine what that something else could be except faith. I don't have faith in anything and think it's a vice not a virtue. If I come to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive as a competing idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in one second flat. If somebody has a better argument than I have I will drop my old point of view and embrace the new one as my own. I'm a libertarian but even that doesn't get a free pass, it has to earn its way. John K Clark From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 15:12:54 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/5 Dan : > >> Might or might not. ?There's no a priori reason to >> expect that to happen -- and there seems a large amount of >> data on people who will stayed unemployed for a lifetime >> provided they have enough financial support to do so. ?And >> I don't mean people who get grants and write operas or have >> a go at deciphering the Indus Valley symbols. ?(I've lived >> in neighborhoods full of able-bodied pre-retired people who >> just collected check.) > > I suppose it depends on your definitions. If people retire > at 65 and > collect a government pension, even though they are still > able-bodied, > is that wrong? Oh no, my experience was not of people that old. I was talking about people who were well under 65, able-bodied, and not working at all. That's why I added in "pre-retired." >> Of course, you were talking about people with a >> specific problem who get support as part of the package to >> help with that, correct? ?That might be far from the >> general case. > > Yes, I was referring to those on a disability pension. > There are also > payments for the aged and the unemployed. It's difficult to > fake being > old but it probably isn't too hard to fake being > unemployed: welfare > recipients may work covertly or they may present themselves > in job > interviews (they have to show evidence of looking for work) > in such a way as to ensure that they won't be hired. It's also not hard to fake certain types of disability -- or to play them up. (I speak from experience here, so don't interpret this the wrong way.) >> (It's also true that in a free society, such people >> could be taken care of through private charity rather >> than coerced support.) > > I would feel very bad accepting private charity, but I > would feel > quite comfortable accepting government welfare if I were > eligible. This actually tells us why private charity would be better: it's inherently much more self-limiting. Those who really need it -- and, to be honest, I've relied on it in my life (and I've also helped others) -- will accept it, while those who don't (and this is subjective, of course) will be less likely to accept it. > Government welfare is like collecting the insurance if my > house burns > down: I pay the premiums and if I need it, that's part of > the deal. > The deal with government welfare is that if I work, I pay > taxes. I'm > forced to pay my taxes, but I'm also forced to pay > professional > indemnity insurance by my employer. The key point is: it's forced. The whole system is based on coercion and on perpetuating coercion: you were robbed, so you're entitled. Where does your entitlement come from? Well, from robbing others to keep the system going. From an Extropian perspective, is this the kind of thinking and system we want to perpetuate? > If I don't want to pay either I > don't have to work. That's sort of like saying, "If I don't want to pay the local crime syndicate, I can just avoid having a business in town." Regards, Dan From aware at awareresearch.com Tue May 5 15:06:31 2009 From: aware at awareresearch.com (Aware) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 08:06:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <206907.9320.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <206907.9320.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Dan wrote: > ...then what sort of world do you hope to live in? ?Naturally, I'd expect, one where your desires trump everyone else's, but imagine what's more likely: no limits on interferences in life and property... Dan, I've long appreciated your sharp mind and crystalline concepts. Your skill at reducing an issue to its bare essentials is exemplary. You highlight the cold calculus by which success or failure is determined, and by which the rational actor exercises his will upon a literally uncaring world. The absence of anthropomorphizing, wishing-makes-it-true, and muddle-headed mysticism or vague uncertainty is both refreshing and exhilarating. Over the top, I admit. But entirely true--within context. - Jef From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 16:12:57 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The What and the Why/was Re: libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <190053.56640.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" > >> My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a >> libertarian [.] The >> ability to draw conclusions about some point of view >> does not mean one is >> an adherent of that point of view. > > So according to you to be a supporter of an idea a belief > in good results > derived from that idea is not sufficient to become a true > adherent. You > think there must be something else, something more > important than the > conclusions derived from a point of view. I can't imagine > what that > something else could be except faith. Not at all. A libertarian is someone who believes in and follows (as much as possible) libertarian principles -- with the defining principle being non-initiation of force. To be a libertarian is to fit that definition. Now, why one is a libertarian is another matter all together. One might be one, for instance, because one is basically a neo-Aristotelean (e.g., Eric Mack) or an Objectivist (e.g., George H. Smith) or a neo-Kantian (e.g., early Robert Nozick) and has worked out philosophical reasoning for this. (Reasoning from principles does NOT mean one ignores experience or consequences. Neo-Aristoteleans and Objectivists would call that a false dichotomy between reason and experience or theory and fact. Neo-Kantians might offer that all experience has to be funneled through pre-experiential intuitions or models.) Or one might be religious or even just accept the principles out of habit. But my point is you've already told us you would lay aside these principles and under what circumstances -- particularly, that you'd murder someone if enough money were involved. How is that different from someone saying, "Well, I'm no libertarian at all. I won't use force in most cases, but when it suits me -- if, say, enough money is involved or I just don't like the shirt you're wearing -- I'll initiate force."? > I don't have faith in anything and think it's a vice not a > virtue. If I come > to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive > as a competing > idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in > one second flat. > If somebody has a better argument than I have I will drop > my old point of > view and embrace the new one as my own. I'm a libertarian > but even that > doesn't get a free pass, it has to earn its way. See above. I believe you're making a category error: confusing the reason for adhering to a principle with the actual adherence to it -- conflating the What with the Why... Perhaps an analogy might prove helpful here. Imagine someone were to be a Neptunist -- basically, the view that rocks formed by crystalizing from seawater -- not just some, but all. One might hold that view because one has looked over a lot of evidence and heard and seriously believed the arguments. This wouldn't be irrational. After all, Neptunists one time held sway in geology AND their evidence and reasoning was not off the wall: it fit a lot of the known facts. Now, imagine this Neptunist stumbles on to more modern theories and more recent evidence. She becomes convinced that Neptunism really doesn't explain much; at best, it only works for sedimentary rock. Now, is she still a Neptunist? Or has she moved on and become a non-Neptunist? In your case, you've already admitted moving on. Whether this was the right thing to do is open to debate, but why maintain that you're still a libertarian? Regards, Dan From brentn at freeshell.org Tue May 5 16:41:15 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:41:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: References: <217012.32935.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5 May, 2009, at 11:21, John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" > >> My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a libertarian [.] The >> ability to draw conclusions about some point of view does not mean >> one is >> an adherent of that point of view. > > So according to you to be a supporter of an idea a belief in good > results > derived from that idea is not sufficient to become a true adherent. > You > think there must be something else, something more important than the > conclusions derived from a point of view. I can't imagine what that > something else could be except faith. > > I don't have faith in anything and think it's a vice not a virtue. > If I come > to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive as a > competing > idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in one > second flat. > If somebody has a better argument than I have I will drop my old > point of > view and embrace the new one as my own. I'm a libertarian but even > that > doesn't get a free pass, it has to earn its way. I think the more salient issue at hand is that Dan's argument is predicated on some Platonic ideal of a libertarian, or perhaps some ideal purity of libertarianism. Having been to LP meetings in my sordid youth and then looking at the standard deviation of the mean in a wide variety of ideologies and beliefs, I will assert that there is no good objective litmus test for libertarianism. Or fascism. Or Extropianism, for that matter. People have the capability of defining themselves and the right to do so as they see fit. Penis-measuring about who is more libertarian than whom is ultimately the same sort of logic that ends with fundamentalism in other religions. :) Brent -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From brentn at freeshell.org Tue May 5 16:45:14 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:45:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> On 5 May, 2009, at 9:53, Dan wrote: > (I've lived in neighborhoods full of able-bodied pre-retired people > who just collected check.) Can you give an example, with specifics? Not that I don't believe you, mind, but I'm curious what bound this neighborhood together. I quite honestly don't know anyone, that given a chance to work on their own projects regardless of income wouldn't jump at the chance. Not "just lay around", but volunteer with various groups, sing, play music, learn a new skill, etc. And primarily, these are people who are no more than lower middle class socioeconomically, not just the overeducated uppermiddle class brainiac types. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 5 17:03:19 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 12:03:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The What and the Why/was Re: libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <190053.56640.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <190053.56640.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090505115924.0242f7c8@satx.rr.com> At 09:12 AM 5/5/2009 -0700, Dan wrote: >But my point is you've already told us you would lay aside these >principles and under what circumstances -- particularly, that you'd >murder someone if enough money were involved. I wondered if anyone else had noticed that quite astounding and sickening claim. Of course it was only a grim joke. Well, I *hope* it was. Damien Broderick From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 5 17:09:41 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Brent Neal wrote: > On 5 May, 2009, at 9:53, Dan wrote: > >>? (I've lived in neighborhoods full of able-bodied >> pre-retired people who just collected check.) > > Can you give an example, with specifics? Not that I don't > believe you, mind, but I'm curious what bound this > neighborhood together. I quite honestly don't know anyone, > that given a chance to work on their own projects regardless > of income wouldn't jump at the chance. Not "just lay > around", but volunteer with various groups, sing, play > music, learn a new skill, etc. And primarily, these are > people who are no more than lower middle class > socioeconomically, not just the overeducated uppermiddle > class brainiac types. For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor neighborhoods around the US. And by poor, I mean many if not most people were on some form of public assistance. Regards, Dan From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 5 17:13:54 2009 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:13:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: References: <217012.32935.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A0073D2.4020702@mac.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Dan" > >> My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a libertarian [.] The >> ability to draw conclusions about some point of view does not mean one is >> an adherent of that point of view. Quite correct. That one can run a political/philosophical memeset to draw consistent conclusions does not mean that you chose to consistently act from that memeset. > > So according to you to be a supporter of an idea a belief in good results > derived from that idea is not sufficient to become a true adherent. No, many people act contrary to what they believe is good or leads to good results or drop such under a bit of pressure. > You think there must be something else, something more important than the > conclusions derived from a point of view. I can't imagine what that > something else could be except faith. Then you are suffering from a lack of imagination it would seem. > > I don't have faith in anything and think it's a vice not a virtue. If I > come > to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive as a competing > idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in one second flat. Productive? Within what standards of valuing? How to you measure "productive", "better" or "worse"? > If somebody has a better argument than I have I will drop my old point of > view and embrace the new one as my own. I'm a libertarian but even that > doesn't get a free pass, it has to earn its way. Well sure. Such memesets should not be free floating abstractions. - samantha From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue May 5 18:36:59 2009 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:36:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bizarro Message-ID: <29666bf30905051136p276a3b4l7fa4abefb4d27f78@mail.gmail.com> Gotta love Dan Piraro: http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/2009/04/standing-tall.html PJ From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 5 20:06:20 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:06:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <217012.32935.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0073D2.4020702@mac.com> Message-ID: Me: >> If I come to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive as >> a competing idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in >> one second flat. "samantha" > Productive? Within what standards of valuing? You seem to want a definition of "productive"; I'm a little surprise, I hadn't realized the word was exotic and assumed it was widely know. I fear there is little point in supplying a definition because it would be made of words and I'm sure you would demand another definition of at least one of those words. > How to you measure "productive" Superbly, if I do say so myself! > you are suffering from a lack of imagination it would seem. No, just lack of faith. John K Clark ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance > John K Clark wrote: >> "Dan" >> >>> My statement was and remains that you're _not_ a libertarian [.] The >>> ability to draw conclusions about some point of view does not mean one >>> is >>> an adherent of that point of view. > > Quite correct. That one can run a political/philosophical memeset to draw > consistent conclusions does not mean that you chose to consistently act > from that memeset. > >> >> So according to you to be a supporter of an idea a belief in good results >> derived from that idea is not sufficient to become a true adherent. > > No, many people act contrary to what they believe is good or leads to > good results or drop such under a bit of pressure. > > >> You think there must be something else, something more important than the >> conclusions derived from a point of view. I can't imagine what that >> something else could be except faith. > > Then you are suffering from a lack of imagination it would seem. > >> >> I don't have faith in anything and think it's a vice not a virtue. If I >> come >> to the conclusion that one of my ideas is not as productive as a >> competing >> idea I have absolutely no loyalty and will switch sides in one second >> flat. > > Productive? Within what standards of valuing? How to you measure > "productive", "better" or "worse"? > >> If somebody has a better argument than I have I will drop my old point of >> view and embrace the new one as my own. I'm a libertarian but even that >> doesn't get a free pass, it has to earn its way. > > Well sure. Such memesets should not be free floating abstractions. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue May 5 20:00:33 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:00:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians References: <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: From: "Stathis Papaioannou" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:18 AM >> This article about Finland also touches on the subject (and doesn't >> pussyfoot around in saying there are tradeoffs): >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090501/cm_csm/ycorson > > I wouldn't say Finland is an economic slouch, either. More evidence > that socialist policies do not necessarily adversely affect technical > innovation and industrial efficiency: > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.htm Agree. And then there's this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/27/7330 Olga From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 5 21:45:44 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:45:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/5/09, John K Clark wrote: > Boy oh boy I hope you're right. > What you need is: Nation Ready To Be Lied To About Economy Again May 4, 2009 | Issue 45?19 Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demanded that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about. "I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up." "From now on, just tell me the bullshit I want to hear," Pletcher added. "Tell me my savings are okay, everybody has a job, and we're No. 1 again. Please, just lie to my face." "Please, treat me like a child. Treat me like a five-year-old," Sacramento resident David Cooke, 64, wrote in a letter to Congress. "I lost everything when the Dow tanked, and I'm too old to start working again, so why punish me further by explaining in detail the clever ways these investment firms ripped me off and how they're all going to get away with it?" Thus far, many policymakers in Washington have responded favorably to their constituents' requests, saying they respect and understand the public's need for dishonesty. "I think we can accommodate the American people on this," Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters. ------------- BillK :) From max at maxmore.com Tue May 5 23:53:26 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 18:53:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Upcreation Message-ID: <200905052353.n45NrYE6000806@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Stimulating and extropic new blog post by Kevin Kelly: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/05/upcreation.php Max From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 5 23:27:09 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:27:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly In-Reply-To: <44433.38460.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <44433.38460.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1241566494_6905@s7.cableone.net> At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: >--- On Mon, 5/4/09, hkhenson wrote: > > > From: hkhenson > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Silly (was libertarians and inheritance) > > To: "ExI chat list" > > Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 7:35 PM > > At 04:30 PM 5/4/2009, John K Clark > > wrote: > > >"hkhenson" > > > > > >> In a post nanotech world death should be > > rare indeed > > > > > >Yea but the clock is ticking. Will you or I make it in > > time? > > > > If you are *not* signed up for cryonics, why not? > >Will cryonics even work? And even if it does, it depends on >everything going right until you get revived. If, say, the laws are >changed to completely confiscated all your funds and wealth after >legal death -- so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the >political or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- then >you might be left to rot. Dan, the archives both here and Cryonet, are full of discussion on this topic. Or you can start here: http://www.alcor.org/AboutCryonics/index.html There was a time when a considerable majority of extropians were signed up for cryonics, most of them with Alcor. I doubt that is the case on this list, though I know some of you are. This thread was a discussion of inheritance, which is a none issue in a post nanotech world. As we who are signed up say, being frozen is the second worse thing that can happen to you. If you have a better idea for getting into the deep future for people who are beyond current medical options, then please state it. Keith From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 6 01:20:27 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:20:27 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Dan : >> I would feel very bad accepting private charity, but I >> would feel >> quite comfortable accepting government welfare if I were >> eligible. > > This actually tells us why private charity would be better: it's inherently much more self-limiting. ?Those who really need it -- and, to be honest, I've relied on it in my life (and I've also helped others) -- will accept it, while those who don't (and this is subjective, of course) will be less likely to accept it. Would it be better if insurance companies only had to pay out if they felt kindly towards you, even though you have have a contract? >> Government welfare is like collecting the insurance if my >> house burns >> down: I pay the premiums and if I need it, that's part of >> the deal. >> The deal with government welfare is that if I work, I pay >> taxes. I'm >> forced to pay my taxes, but I'm also forced to pay >> professional >> indemnity insurance by my employer. > > The key point is: it's forced. ?The whole system is based on coercion and on perpetuating coercion: you were robbed, so you're entitled. ?Where does your entitlement come from? ?Well, from robbing others to keep the system going. ?From an Extropian perspective, is this the kind of thinking and system we want to perpetuate? I wasn't robbed, I paid for a service. True, I had to pay for the service if I wanted to work, but that's the case with thousands of commercial transactions. I have to pay for professional indemnity insurance; I have to pay for renovations to the building in which I own an apartment, or I can be sued and ultimately imprisoned; I have to pay for insurance in case the plane crashes as part of the price of the ticket whenever I fly, even if I'd rather pay less and take a risk. I can look for a different job, apartment or airline, but this might be inconvenient and costly, if not impossible. I have the same choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: I could change the way I work or I could move, although that might be inconvenient, costly or impossible. >> If I don't want to pay either I >> don't have to work. > > That's sort of like saying, "If I don't want to pay the local crime syndicate, I can just avoid having a business in town." The crime syndicate is not chosen and supported by the citizens who live there. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 6 01:23:39 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:23:39 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Dan : > For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, I mean many if not most people were on some form of public assistance. And it would have been better if they had been allowed to starve, denied education and health care etc.? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 6 01:35:56 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:35:56 +1000 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Olga Bourlin : > Agree. And then there's this: > > http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/27/7330 "Not surprisingly, in a land where literacy and numeracy are considered virtues, teachers are revered. Teenagers ranked teaching at the top of their list of favorite professions in a recent survey. Far more graduates of upper schools in Finland apply for admission to teacher-training institutes than are accepted. The overwhelming majority of those who eventually enter the classroom as a teacher make it a lifelong career, even though they are paid no more than their counterparts in other European countries." Teenagers rank teaching as their favourite profession? What sort of topsy-turvy country is that?! -- Stathis Papaioannou From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 01:59:18 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:59:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905051859q71b7a6d3mb18be3b11f02a05f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > On 4 May, 2009, at 3:13, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Or translated: A 21% increase (i.e. the "change") in budget >> deficit over politics as usual after only 100 days in power. And a >> projected deficit of 9.270 trillion (yes, trillion, not billion) by >> 2019. >> >> Nine trillion dollars is big money. Not exactly record-breaking as USG >> accounting trickery goes (the title here goes to unfunded SS >> liabilities, about 44 trillion dollars) but still impressive. > > > This may be exactly the right thing to do. In a deflationary cycle, you > -want- an inflationary fiscal policy to prevent a downward wage-price > spiral. No doubt, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if we'd managed to > sock more money away in the Clinton-Bush years. You know, like good > businesses/people/gov'ts ought to do - save during the fat years to prepare > for the lean. But with Bush II dumping dollars into the desert like a > madman, alas, it was not to be. We'll have to hope that the investments > we're making now will pay off well enough to cover the bill later. ### Has anybody ever shown a deflationary wage-price spiral in real life? This is some sort of Keynesian bugaboo they cooked up from theory, never seen in practice, and said it'd be really bad. Pouring value tokens into an economy does not create value, and if value of some products goes down and therefore their price (ceteris paribus) goes down as well, artificially propping up prices of valueless items only ensures further misallocation of resources into provision of those items. What makes you think that if the government lead by one either faction was pumping money into the desert over 15 years or so (I am referring to the artificial stimulation of home building which took place frequently in the deserts of Nevada, or in the swamps of Florida) is now going to magically switch to supporting valuable spending? Keynesianism is so incredibly bizarre it's hard to argue against but somehow seemingly smart people like Krugman see to believe in it. Rafal From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed May 6 02:01:53 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:31:53 +0930 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905051901x51b04bb0jb4126988e57bbf96@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/6 Stathis Papaioannou : > 2009/5/6 Olga Bourlin : > >> Agree. And then there's this: >> >> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/27/7330 > > "Not surprisingly, in a land where literacy and numeracy are > considered virtues, teachers are revered. Teenagers ranked teaching at > the top of their list of favorite professions in a recent survey. Far > more graduates of upper schools in Finland apply for admission to > teacher-training institutes than are accepted. The overwhelming > majority of those who eventually enter the classroom as a teacher make > it a lifelong career, even though they are paid no more than their > counterparts in other European countries." > > Teenagers rank teaching as their favourite profession? What sort of > topsy-turvy country is that?! Maybe related, from this article on top IT locations: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/140574,top-10-it-locations.aspx "Okay, so the weather may be terrible and the food not much better, but Finland has still carved out a niche as one of the better places to be a geek. Sweden has beautiful women women, Norway has death metal bands and Finland has computer geeks. Scandinavia is divided up much like a high school cafeteria in that sense." -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 02:10:37 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 22:10:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] supply and demand Message-ID: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> I noticed that some posters, when writing about the "law of supply and demand", were referring to notions and issues that really have little to do with the law of supply and demand as discussed by economists, and then concluded that the law doesn't work in real life, because whatever they were writing about wasn't making sense. In the interest of avoiding discussions involving non-shared meanings of words, I suggest that anybody who wants to take on supply and demand would first read an introduction to the matter (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand). A grasp of the notion of a supply curve, elasticity, curve shift, is truly indispensable in any reasonable treatment of this subject. Rafal From moulton at moulton.com Wed May 6 02:33:25 2009 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 19:33:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] supply and demand In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> The correct URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Can I suggest that people avoid putting commas, periods, parentheses, brackets, etc next to URLs since this often leads to the punctuation getting included in the URL. Fred On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:10 -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I noticed that some posters, when writing about the "law of supply and > demand", were referring to notions and issues that really have little > to do with the law of supply and demand as discussed by economists, > and then concluded that the law doesn't work in real life, because > whatever they were writing about wasn't making sense. In the interest > of avoiding discussions involving non-shared meanings of words, I > suggest that anybody who wants to take on supply and demand would > first read an introduction to the matter (e.g. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand). A grasp of the notion > of a supply curve, elasticity, curve shift, is truly indispensable in > any reasonable treatment of this subject. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 6 03:04:29 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 22:04:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] supply and demand In-Reply-To: <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> References: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090505220308.022f5ec0@satx.rr.com> At 07:33 PM 5/5/2009 -0700, Fred wrote: >Can I suggest that people avoid putting commas, periods, parentheses, >brackets, etc next to URLs since this often leads to the punctuation >getting included in the URL. In my experience, the best way is this: especially if the url is several lines long, and you can't be bothered changing it to a tinyurl. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 03:08:00 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:08:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Brent Neal wrote: > This represents about 30 seconds of Googling. Unless you think that the von > Mises Institute is too left wing for you, of course. :) > >> > http://mises.org/story/2948 ### Very nice article. How does it relate to the question of when the present recession would end? The author does not even once mention the specifics of today's problems, and devotes the article entirely to the question of whether recessions in general are deflationary or inflationary. ----------------- > > The question at hand is the one being talked about in the GI thread, though. > It is entirely feasible that these are the growing pains towards an economy > that where the wage-income link is weakened, something that the folks mired > in industrial age economics can't wrap their heads around. As we begin to > understand that ideas and memes ?will often be more valuable than stuff, > there will inevitably be some rough spots as we transition from an economy > based on atoms, arranged just so and moved from point A to point B , to an > economy based on bits, arranged just so and moved from point A to point B. > (Where they would then be "minted" into the right sort of atoms, perhaps. Or > perhaps not.) > ### How does that relate to the short-term economic forecast? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 03:33:04 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:33:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052033t35c0e7e5gc6067c9a360dd97c@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:03 AM, scerir at tiscali.it wrote: > Rafal: > > He is pointing to the observations from the previous 6 recessions > - did you follow the link? > (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/another_green_s.html ) > > # ?The best paper about all that (to my knowledge) is the following > http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Aftermath.pdf > ### Excellent article. I would point your attention to fig. 4. The distribution is dominated by a few crises with very long durations, although the median seems to be a bit more than a year. Now, are you going to base your bets on the mean or the median? Imagine we had a bet for, oh, let's say $1000, the issue being whether the recession (measured by per capita GDP) ends before the end of 2009 or not? How would you bet? Of course I don't know how long the recession will last. On this list I merely pointed to some reasonable analyses done by smart people, who expect a recovery soon. I do not have the skills to achieve a justifiably confident prediction myself. On the other hand, I am reasonably certain nobody here can make such justifiably confident prediction either. So far the article that Brent linked to didn't provide much relevant information, and scerir's link could actually be interpreted as a basis for optimism, since the predicted duration of decline in per capita GDP would suggest recovery is just about the corner. But, as I said, I don't know. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 03:59:11 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:59:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Brian Atkins wrote: > Rafal, see pg. 18 of the following paper. The current market rally, "green > shoots" etc. are likely just a small brief blip of moderation in the > downward slide you can see in this model's predictive charts for 2009. > > This model has an historical r^2 around .75 for explaining employment > changes 12 months into the future. And as you can see on the out of sample > prediction on pg. 18 the actual data so far is tracking below what the model > predicts. Even if this tightens up and improves a bit above the model's > average estimate then the recession is not over. ### Very cool stuff. If true, we should expect a massive worsening of the recession in about 4 months. This prediction is at odds with other models (based on manufacturing data, service indices, transportation indices) but it has to be taken quite seriously. Need to wait and see what happens. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:09:26 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:09:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052109j2eac0125hfb375d5b09c9cb5a@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I have the same > choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: I could > change the way I work or I could move, although that might be > inconvenient, costly or impossible. ### Sure. But, is it good? I am sure you don't think that intentionally limiting choices available to people is generally a good idea. Taxation is a net reduction of choices: compared to a voluntary system, it is almost impossible to use taxation to achieve a net increase in the range of choices available to participants. Taxes almost always make the taxed worse off - yet you seem to attribute legitimacy to them, you seem to identify with their imposition, although you reject other limitations of your choices (e.g. imposed by "crime syndicates"). Both taxes and "protection" paid to crime bosses make you worse off - yet you support the former and reject the latter. Why? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:16:10 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:16:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> References: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052116o71eb991fic88b829c96c18039@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Brent Neal wrote: I quite honestly > don't know anyone, that given a chance to work on their own projects > regardless of income wouldn't jump at the chance. Not "just lay around", but > volunteer with various groups, sing, play music, learn a new skill, etc. ### Yeah, sure, ppl like to play at "working". Say, build the biggest and baddest punkin' chunkin' cannon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuzMygEVOgM). Or whatever. This is the kind of stuff that gets done when people are not working for money. But what's in it for me? Or you? Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:19:58 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:19:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/6 Dan : > >> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, I mean many if not most people were on some form of public assistance. > > And it would have been better if they had been allowed to starve, > denied education and health care etc.? ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, don't do drugs, keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, over and over and over again, and, well, screw you. Rafal PS. Keeping your nose clean is important. Otherwise pores get bigger and the nose-hair can scare little children. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:27:02 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:27:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052127s3b02ec98vf291c835fe8f74bb@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > It isn't just economic growth that is important, it's quality of life. ### Only economic growth in the long term is important, since it is almost the only humanly modifiable determinant of average quality of life. Really. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:34:46 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:34:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE08D.6020801@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052134v6d0c7959x9934b831cc32b5c8@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/6 Olga Bourlin : > >> Stathis, I am glad you are pointing out the "quality of life" aspect. >> >> This article about Finland also touches on the subject (and doesn't >> pussyfoot around in saying there are tradeoffs): >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090501/cm_csm/ycorson > > I wouldn't say Finland is an economic slouch, either. More evidence > that socialist policies do not necessarily adversely affect technical > innovation and industrial efficiency: > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.htm > ### The US is only 6 points ahead of Finland on the EFI (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx). US=capitalism, Finland=socialism? No. Just different flavors of socialism. Socialist policies always negatively affect economic growth. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 04:37:39 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 00:37:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] supply and demand In-Reply-To: <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> References: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052137h2284ca2ai14904a53cc70eefe@mail.gmail.com> Your client doesn't parse the link? Guess we should paste in a separate line to avoid problems. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > The correct URL is: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand > > Can I suggest that people avoid putting commas, periods, parentheses, > brackets, etc next to URLs since this often leads to the punctuation > getting included in the URL. > > Fred > > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:10 -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> I noticed that some posters, when writing about the "law of supply and >> demand", were referring to notions and issues that really have little >> to do with the law of supply and demand as discussed by economists, >> and then concluded that the law doesn't work in real life, because >> whatever they were writing about wasn't making sense. In the interest >> of avoiding discussions involving non-shared meanings of words, I >> suggest that anybody who wants to take on supply and demand would >> first read an introduction to the matter (e.g. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand). A grasp of the notion >> of a supply curve, elasticity, curve shift, is truly indispensable in >> any reasonable treatment of this subject. >> >> Rafal >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 05:09:02 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 01:09:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The What and the Why/was Re: libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <190053.56640.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <190053.56640.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905052209g792f94dck4f8ba1e47de6f852@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan wrote: > Not at all. A libertarian is someone who believes in and follows (as much as possible) libertarian principles -- with the defining principle being non-initiation of force. ### I tend to define a libertarian as somebody who does not recognize the legitimacy of any duties towards in-group members, except the duty of non-initiation of force. This is a bit tricky definition, and the terms "legitimacy", "force" and "duty" are traps for the unwary. If anybody is interested I could expound on the subject more but for now I have a different issue: When does it make sense to stop being libertarian? It's useful to point out additional complications in the term "libertarian". After many years of musing on the subject I came to the conclusion that the set of possible societies comprehensively following the above principle of duty not to initiate force would be most congenial for me, would most comprehensively satisfy my needs and the needs of almost all nice people, would be on average much better than the set of societies where violence is encouraged (like ours), and generally would be really cool and stuff. So in this way I am a political-theory libertarian. The only reason to stop being a theory-libertarian is if new data or new analysis showed that coercion can actually make me better off. On the other hand, there is a bit more practical meaning to libertarianism - the idea of being personally nice (i.e. non-aggressive) towards others. Of course, if you are a serious theory-libertarian, it would make sense to be a practical libertarian as well. Yet, sometimes there are situations where being nice is extremely damaging on the individual level - for example in a civil war (where not being with "us" means being with "them"). You know that a civil war is rather stupid but you can't do anything about it, so you play along. I do think that you can call yourself a libertarian even when you engage in un-libertarian activities, at least up to a point. I fully intend to live it up on my Social Security money if I were to retire before the singularity. I won't give this ill-gotten cash back to the poor young slobs being fleeced for my SS check. I will take taxed-away funds, if I can. Sure, it's nasty, and saying that "they (the previous generations) did it to me before, so now I want payback" is a poor excuse. But I'd do it. If the society collapsed and everybody was running in gangs fighting for the last scraps of food, I'd join a gang (if any gang was stupid enough to want a guy like me). But I would still believe that making a non-violent society is a much better idea, wherever possible. In conclusion, as long as you don't actively and strategically oppose the formation of a libertarian society, you could call yourself a libertarian, even as you feast on monies earned from a licensure-restricted occupation, or otherwise benefit from violent oppression of suckers, err, I mean, citizens. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Wed May 6 07:45:20 2009 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 00:45:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] supply and demand In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052137h2284ca2ai14904a53cc70eefe@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905051910y516412b0n1f423a87376dccb2@mail.gmail.com> <1241577205.6853.191.camel@hayek> <7641ddc60905052137h2284ca2ai14904a53cc70eefe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1241595920.6853.210.camel@hayek> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 00:37 -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Your client doesn't parse the link? Guess we should paste in a > separate line to avoid problems. The problem is that the ")" It is the difference between http://moulton.com/test and http://moulton.com/test) Those are two different URLs. Fred > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Fred C. Moulton wrote: > > The correct URL is: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand > > > > Can I suggest that people avoid putting commas, periods, parentheses, > > brackets, etc next to URLs since this often leads to the punctuation > > getting included in the URL. > > > > Fred > > > > > > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:10 -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> I noticed that some posters, when writing about the "law of supply and > >> demand", were referring to notions and issues that really have little > >> to do with the law of supply and demand as discussed by economists, > >> and then concluded that the law doesn't work in real life, because > >> whatever they were writing about wasn't making sense. In the interest > >> of avoiding discussions involving non-shared meanings of words, I > >> suggest that anybody who wants to take on supply and demand would > >> first read an introduction to the matter (e.g. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand). A grasp of the notion > >> of a supply curve, elasticity, curve shift, is truly indispensable in > >> any reasonable treatment of this subject. > >> > >> Rafal > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > From brian at posthuman.com Wed May 6 08:21:39 2009 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 03:21:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### Very cool stuff. If true, we should expect a massive worsening of > the recession in about 4 months. This prediction is at odds with > other models (based on manufacturing data, service indices, > transportation indices) but it has to be taken quite seriously. > > Need to wait and see what happens. > The "model" you initially referred to in order to call an end to the recession is simply saying "look: new unemployment claims have recently leveled off and improved slightly, this must be the ultimate peak in them for this recession." Yet we really can't know for some time afterwards whether they really have ultimately peaked. If you look back at various recessions including the Great Depression you will see often there are one or more false peaks in this data, only later to be surpassed by even worse data months later. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brentn at freeshell.org Wed May 6 10:15:31 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 06:15:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <466AEA7E-FA3B-4E7F-86D6-B1DF6921E9BB@freeshell.org> On 5 May, 2009, at 23:08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Brent Neal > wrote: > >> This represents about 30 seconds of Googling. Unless you think that >> the von >> Mises Institute is too left wing for you, of course. :) >> >>> >> http://mises.org/story/2948 > > ### Very nice article. How does it relate to the question of when the > present recession would end? It doesn't. It relates to your challenge about deflationary pressures during recessions. You asked for "proof." I spent 30 seconds Googling it. > >> >> The question at hand is the one being talked about in the GI >> thread, though. >> It is entirely feasible that these are the growing pains towards an >> economy >> that where the wage-income link is weakened, something that the >> folks mired >> in industrial age economics can't wrap their heads around. As we >> begin to >> understand that ideas and memes will often be more valuable than >> stuff, >> there will inevitably be some rough spots as we transition from an >> economy >> based on atoms, arranged just so and moved from point A to point >> B , to an >> economy based on bits, arranged just so and moved from point A to >> point B. >> (Where they would then be "minted" into the right sort of atoms, >> perhaps. Or >> perhaps not.) >> > ### How does that relate to the short-term economic forecast? > Because I think we're seeing what many folks (including Damien) have predicted - an economic disruption based on or exacerbated by the fact that people don't need more manufactured stuff than they already have and in fact are increasingly realizing that they will pay some marginal amount for LESS stuff. The short term economic forecast, as has been claimed before, is linked to a fall in aggregate demand. There are two routes that can be taken based on this - either try to prop up the manufacturing sector or to transition to a different type of economy. We're, alas, doing the former, which I intuit will make the short term outlook much poorer. But, to economists and pundits completely immersed in industrial age economics, it appears to be the only option, so they are making a rational choice, in some sense. I disagree with that route though - I think that breaking the wage- income link more, recognizing that networks of people have an economic potential that is synergistically larger than the aggregate economic potential of their individual units, and using something like a reverse income tax - I prefer to think of it as a dividend, since I think it is more accurate - to compensate them for that value created will ultimately be the better solution to the current problem. Its also, I think, a precondition for the Singularity, but that requires more explanation. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 6 12:57:40 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Silly Message-ID: <310444.43819.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, hkhenson wrote: > At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: >> Will cryonics even work?? And even if it does, it >> depends on everything going right until you get >> revived.? If, say, the laws are changed to completely >> confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal death -- >> so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the political >> or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- then >> you might be left to rot. > > Dan, the archives both here and Cryonet, are full of > discussion on this topic. [big snip] I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this dude: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 6 13:43:06 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 06:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The choice wasn't death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/6 Dan : > >> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor >> neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, I mean many if >> not most people were on some form of public assistance. > > And it would have been better if they had been allowed to > starve, denied education and health care etc.? I don't believe that was the alternative. The people I knew were, as I pointed out (at least as far I could tell or as they reported to me), able-bodied. It seemed to me they chose the dole over work -- not that they chose the dole over death. (Regarding the latter, I don't think I'd fault someone for choosing the dole over death.) Also, I'm not sure how they were denied education or health care. In the places I lived, education was mandatory, usually up to the age of 16 -- though I was specifically talking about able-bodied adults. Also, healthcare was provided through Medicaid and similar programs -- so it was free. I wasn't talking about that either. I wasn't talking about people who were working and choose to accept government education and healthcare. I was talking about people who were NOT working, who could work, and opted for the easy payment of a government check over finding and keeping a job. (I also knew people who were poor and worked in addition to people who did both -- collected the dole and worked "under the table" or "off the books.") My general point was merely what I saw when people had the alternative not to work. Many of them chose not to work. They didn't do so so that they could continue their education, pursue some artistic project, or something along those lines. Regards, Dan From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 13:44:32 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:44:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Brian Atkins wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> >> ### Very cool stuff. If true, we should expect a massive worsening of >> the recession in about 4 months. This prediction is at odds with >> other models (based on manufacturing data, service indices, >> transportation indices) but it has to be taken quite seriously. >> >> Need to wait and see what happens. >> >> > The "model" you initially referred to in order to call an end to the > recession is simply saying "look: new unemployment claims have recently > leveled off and improved slightly, this must be the ultimate peak in them > for this recession." ### Predictions based on e.g. the Baltic Dry Goods index are more than that. --------------------------------- > > > Yet we really can't know for some time afterwards whether they really have > ultimately peaked. If you look back at various recessions including the > Great Depression you will see often there are one or more false peaks in > this data, only later to be surpassed by even worse data months later. ### Sure. This is why I said we need to wait and see what happens, and I didn't offer you a bet. I am not confident that the recession will end before the end of the year - but I didn't fully buy the credit-spread model either. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 6 14:16:26 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 09:16:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> At 07:44 AM 5/6/2009 -0600, Rafal wrote: >### Sure. This is why I said we need to wait and see what happens, >and I didn't offer you a bet. I am not confident that the recession >will end before the end of the year A modest enough position to take. Rather more so, I think, than the impression conveyed by your initial post: "According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to end in about 6 weeks (despite the best efforts of the idiots who run this country) and there was never a depression, not by a long shot." Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 6 14:14:29 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 07:14:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly In-Reply-To: <310444.43819.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <310444.43819.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1241619735_11365@s6.cableone.net> At 05:57 AM 5/6/2009, you wrote: >--- On Tue, 5/5/09, hkhenson wrote: > > At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: > >> Will cryonics even work? And even if it does, it > >> depends on everything going right until you get > >> revived. If, say, the laws are changed to completely > >> confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal death -- > >> so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the political > >> or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- then > >> you might be left to rot. > > > > Dan, the archives both here and Cryonet, are full of > > discussion on this topic. >[big snip] > >I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this dude: > >http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust Perhaps. Those posts are ten years ago. At that particular time I had enough trouble I might not have been reading Cryonet. If you are signed up and have been following the cryonics saga that long, why the hypothetical gloom? Alcor and CI have both faced serious political problems and they are still in business. It's not like they have to stay in business that long. Way things are going I suspect most of those signed up today will not need to be frozen. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 14:38:24 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:38:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905060738t78c2b94q2b8adc7a0eb14081@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:44 AM 5/6/2009 -0600, Rafal wrote: > > ### Sure. This is why I said we need to wait and see what happens, and I >> didn't offer you a bet. I am not confident that the recession will end >> before the end of the year >> > > A modest enough position to take. Rather more so, I think, than the > impression conveyed by your initial post: > > "According to many economic indicators, the recession is going to > end in about 6 weeks (despite the best efforts of the idiots who run > this country) and there was never a depression, not by a long shot." > ### Is there a contradiction between the two paragraphs? Many indicators say the recession will end soon, others say it won't, I am not smart enough to tell which one is right. And as an aside the current crisis is not a depression. All fits together (unless you read too much confidence into the first paragraph). Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 6 14:38:38 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Finnish Miracle?/was Re: retrainability of plebeians Message-ID: <367405.61326.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > 2009/5/6 Olga Bourlin : > > > >> Stathis, I am glad you are pointing out the > "quality of life" aspect. > >> > >> This article about Finland also touches on the > subject (and doesn't > >> pussyfoot around in saying there are tradeoffs): > >> > >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090501/cm_csm/ycorson > > > > I wouldn't say Finland is an economic slouch, either. > More evidence > > that socialist policies do not necessarily adversely > affect technical > > innovation and industrial efficiency: > > > > http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p01s03-woeu.htm > > > ### The US is only 6 points ahead of Finland on the EFI > (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx). > US=capitalism, > Finland=socialism? > > No. Just different flavors of socialism. Well, it depends on how one defines socialism. I'd define it as government ownership of the means of production -- at least that's state socialism. And I'd call Finland a mixed economy -- just like the US. Both nations share the major features of fascism -- with the government controlling many aspects of the economy, but nominally allowing private ownership. > Socialist policies always > negatively affect economic growth. I agree that _interventionist_ policies always negatively affect economic growth (and culture*). I'm not sure I'd classify Finland as socialist, but it is heavily interventionist -- as are all nation states today; they only differ in degree and the particulars of interventions. Regarding the particulars, this matters a lot for understanding how interventions impact a society. I'm not as familiar with the Finnish case, so I'm not sure how Finland's particular interventions affect its people. Tracing some aspects of an economy to certain policies would require a lot more, in my view, than merely reading a few articles lauding Finland. At a minimum, it'd require a better grounding in economic theory -- real, valid theory, not the nonsensical modeling used by mainstream economics** -- and economic history. Else, as with evolutionary explanations, one just ends up reciting one's favorite "just so" story about an economy. Regards, Dan * At the very least, any intervention is coercing innocent people to do things they otherwise would not do. In this sense, this diminishes a culture -- all else being equal -- because coercion is a decivilizing force. That coercion might have some good outcomes -- e.g., taxing the working poor in the US to pay for public colleges does get some middle class kids a college education (and maybe some of them actually contribute rather than merely further parasitizing society as they find cushy make work jobs in the bureaucratic and corporate elites, where they're basically insulated from market forces) -- but this comes at someone else's expense and is an example of the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window In my view, Extropians and transhumanists should study that fallacy -- not with an eye toward using it as a rhetorical trick, but actually understanding it and removing such fallacies from their thinking. It's one meme (the actual fallacy) that desparately needs to be stopped. ** A recent diatribe -- "Should People Just Ignore Economists?" -- on this hobby horse of mine is at: http://www.mises.org/story/3436 From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 14:34:12 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:34:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <466AEA7E-FA3B-4E7F-86D6-B1DF6921E9BB@freeshell.org> References: <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> <466AEA7E-FA3B-4E7F-86D6-B1DF6921E9BB@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905060734l601c9930k7124ccf3585be2d7@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > > On 5 May, 2009, at 23:08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Brent Neal wrote: >> >> This represents about 30 seconds of Googling. Unless you think that the >>> von >>> Mises Institute is too left wing for you, of course. :) >>> >>> >>>> http://mises.org/story/2948 >>> >> >> ### Very nice article. How does it relate to the question of when the >> present recession would end? >> > > It doesn't. It relates to your challenge about deflationary pressures > during recessions. You asked for "proof." I spent 30 seconds Googling it. ### But the article insists that recessions are inflationary. --------------------------------------- > > Because I think we're seeing what many folks (including Damien) have > predicted - an economic disruption based on or exacerbated by the fact that > people don't need more manufactured stuff than they already have and in fact > are increasingly realizing that they will pay some marginal amount for LESS > stuff. The short term economic forecast, as has been claimed before, is linked to a > fall in aggregate demand. ### This is completely off, I mean, Keynesianism lifting its head from the grave. People always want to have more stuff, or more services, or more of both. Desire is never a limiting factor on economic activity. Only the ability to satisfy desires is a limitation. Here we have a crisis due in part to misallocation of resources (speculative homebuilding and homebuying) associated with misjudgement of the validity of risk-prediction and mitigation methods (S&P credit ratings, mortgage securitization, credit default swaps) and exacerbated by massive levels of consumer fraud. There was no primary problem with the manufacturing sector at all here - this is a construction, real estate and financial crisis through and through. -------------------------------- > There are two routes that can be taken based on this - either try to prop > up the manufacturing sector or to transition to a different type of economy. > We're, alas, doing the former, which I intuit will make the short term > outlook much poorer. But, to economists and pundits completely immersed in > industrial age economics, it appears to be the only option, so they are > making a rational choice, in some sense. ### I agree with you here - politicians selected economists who support the most idiotic way of dealing with the problems but increase the power of politicians, that's why the apologist economists are elevated as court economists, and reasonable economists are reduced to blogging. Yet you are making a correct conclusion (gov't economists are wrong) from incorrect premises (Keynesian economics mixed with some New Age postindustrial stuff). ------------------------------- > I disagree with that route though - I think that breaking the wage-income > link more, recognizing that networks of people have an economic potential > that is synergistically larger than the aggregate economic potential of > their individual units, and using something like a reverse income tax - I > prefer to think of it as a dividend, since I think it is more accurate - to > compensate them for that value created will ultimately be the better > solution to the current problem. ### Reverse income tax? :) Sounds like something fun to rip into, once you explain what you mean. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 6 14:45:55 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Cryo-optimism/was Re: Silly Message-ID: <495352.67822.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, hkhenson wrote: > At 05:57 AM 5/6/2009, you (Dan Ust) wrote: > > >--- On Tue, 5/5/09, hkhenson > wrote: > > > At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: > > >> Will cryonics even work?? And even if it > does, it > > >> depends on everything going right until you > get > > >> revived.? If, say, the laws are changed > to completely > > >> confiscated all your funds and wealth after > legal death -- > > >> so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in > the political > > >> or corporate elites) decide where your wealth > goes -- then > > >> you might be left to rot. > > > > > > Dan, the archives both here and Cryonet, are full > of > > > discussion on this topic. > >[big snip] > > > >I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this > dude: > > > >http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust > > Perhaps.? Those posts are ten years ago.? At that > particular time I > had enough trouble I might not have been reading Cryonet. > > If you are signed up and have been following the cryonics > saga that > long, why the hypothetical gloom?? Alcor and CI have > both faced > serious political problems and they are still in business. > > It's not like they have to stay in business that > long.? Way things > are going I suspect most of those signed up today will not > need to be frozen. I'm not gloomy, but I am questioning your being overly optimistic. Death has not been conquered yet -- if it ever will be conquered. And cryonics has yet to be proved. So, it's a bit early to be touting cryonics or any similar thing as a proven solution to dying. That doesn't mean I'm against it; I was trying to inject some reasonableness into the discussion. Recall, earlier, you wrote: "In a post nanotech world death should be rare indeed." Well, we don't live in that world yet and many us might not -- even with cryonics -- make it to that world. So don't celebrate victories until the battle is won. (And believe you me, I hope it is won -- and won during all of our lifetimes.) Regards, Dan From MERCERC at ecu.edu Wed May 6 07:21:50 2009 From: MERCERC at ecu.edu (Mercer, Calvin) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 03:21:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religion Conference In-Reply-To: <8B64F13AC76B24408CDE98820A058C8C11EECE21E4@ecumb2.intra.ecu.edu> References: <8B64F13AC76B24408CDE98820A058C8C11EECE21E4@ecumb2.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <8B64F13AC76B24408CDE98820A058C8C11EEA0AFD2@ecumb2.intra.ecu.edu> Some weeks ago, this list saw a call for papers I issued for a ?Transhumanism and Religion? session at the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in Montreal November 7-10. The call for papers generated interesting discussion on this list about what the religion scholars were up to. Our session steering committee has now completed its blind review of the proposals. For those interested in a follow up, here below find the session paper abstracts for the November meeting. ?calvin mercer [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Saturday - 1:00 pm-3:30 pm Calvin Mercer, East Carolina University, Presiding Jeffrey Bishop, Vanderbilt University [cid:image002.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Ontotheology and the Post-human God Proponents of transhumanist philosophy claim for themselves the twin philosophies of liberalism and humanism. After a brief genealogy of transhumanism, I shall show, using Heidegger?s critiques of onto-theology and technology, that transhumanism remains part of Western metaphysics. The two prongs of Western metaphysics are matter?ontology-and will?theology. Technology mediates between these two prongs in the chain of being. I shall show how transhumanism and the meta-narrative of the post-human future remains tied to onto-theology. I shall claim that the deployment of technology is no neutral process, with technology acting as neutral tool, with the world?matter?awaiting human management?will. Transhumanist technology deploys its metaphysics of efficient control. In doing so, it also deploys an ethics, a politics, and an economics, all of the same cloth as Western onto-theology. And in manipulating human material it hopes to create a post-human god in a post human future. Brian Green, Graduate Theological Union [cid:image002.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Would Aristotle Be a Transhumanist? [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Would Aristotle be a transhumanist? Certainly the desire to enhance natural human capacities and help humans become more virtuous would be commendable from an Aristotelian perspective. Aristotle specifically encourages humans to pursue superiority and even ?immortality.? But what would Aristotle think of the most radical transhumanist departures from human nature, such as mind uploading and disembodied existence? This paper will propose an Aristotelian response to two major strands of transhumanism?embodied and disembodied?and show how Aristotelianism can both critique transhumanism and assist our understanding of it. M. Dominic Eggert, Vanderbilt University [cid:image002.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Omnilibertarianism: How Human Beings Can Become Virtual Gods Through Technology [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Transhumanism is the attempt to achieve traditional religious aspirations by naturalistic (usually technological) means. 'Omnilibertarianism' is a species of transhumanism, specifically of libertarian transhumanism, which can be interpreted as a secular religion that advocates a kind of self-deification. This paper attempts to refute Nozick's arguments against the desirability of living in an 'experience machine' by calling into question our confidence in knowing how to distinguish between reality and a simulation. I argue that consistent libertarians should want to become 'Maximally Autonomous Rational Agents' (MARAs) or 'virtual gods' who have complete control over what they experience. In so doing, I endorse a conception of negative liberty that recognizes that natural laws can be just as oppressive as human ones. Stephen Garner, University of Auckland [cid:image002.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Image-bearing Cyborgs?: Hybridity and Hope in the Landscapes of Transhumanism [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] The cyborg occupies a place where traditional categories, such as organic and inorganic, animal and plant, human and machine, and male and female, have shifted and blurred. The Judeo-Christian theological motif, where human beings are bearers of the image and likeness of God, is realized in hybridity, and as such, it is able to engage with the cyborg and its associated transhumanist landscape. This engagement is supplemented by other theological motifs of hybridity, and themes of social justice, embodiment and redemption, resourcing wise-living in contemporary technoculture. Robert Ross, Graduate Theological Union [cid:image002.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Singularities: Crypto-Religious Models of Human Transformation through Technology [cid:image001.gif at 01C9CDA2.6A6F39C0] Singularities: Crypto-Religious Models of Human Transformation through Technology AI developer Ray Kurzweil articulates the vision of a world in which geometrically accelerating technological progress enables humans to transcend the limits of their biological substrate. The paper sketches Kurzweil?s major technical proposals, assessing their ethical implications, then identifies three crypto-religious conceptual models underlying his judgments about technological advances: (1) an anthropology which assumes an imperfect/incomplete human nature in its current state that needs to be perfected through technological intervention; (2) an eschatology, expressed through his concept of singularity, that invokes the notion of some limit of humanness that is surpassed, but, at the same time unreachable; (3) an idea of transcendence that sees meaning in the universe a consequence of human purposiveness. The paper concludes by considering how religious models provide structure to human thinking about their place in the universe in such a way to function as more real, more powerful than the data of actual experience. Business Meeting: Calvin Mercer, East Carolina University Calvin Mercer, Ph.D. Co-Director, Religious Studies Program East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 USA 252 328 4310 (off & vm) 252 328 6301 (fax) mercerc at ecu.edu www.ecu.edu/religionprogram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 62 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 61 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 6 14:57:34 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 22:57:34 +0800 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905060738t78c2b94q2b8adc7a0eb14081@mail.gmail.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905060738t78c2b94q2b8adc7a0eb14081@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/6/09, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Is there a contradiction between the two paragraphs? Many indicators say > the recession will end soon, others say it won't, I am not smart enough to > tell which one is right. And as an aside the current crisis is not a > depression. All fits together (unless you read too much confidence into the > first paragraph). > The reason for speculating about the future (apart from fun chat) is for a guide to behavior. If you think this is a quick recession which will end in a few weeks, then you should be buying 'cheap' stocks in anticipation of a glorious future. If you think this is a temporary upward blip in the downward progression of a huge long-term depression, then you should be selling stocks before the collapse. If the collapse occurs, then it is better to be in cash. After prices get near the bottom, you can allocate the cash to assets that you expect to hold value. (China appears to be buying all the gold it can get at present. But that's no recommendation. Look at all the junk bonds they bought). BillK From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed May 6 15:45:03 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:45:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905060738t78c2b94q2b8adc7a0eb14081@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905060845w34fbe23fx66bbb93324f1151d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:57 AM, BillK pharos at gmail.com> wrote: The reason for speculating about the future (apart from fun chat) is for a guide to behavior. If you think this is a quick recession which will end in a few weeks, then you should be buying 'cheap' stocks in anticipation of a glorious future. If you think this is a temporary upward blip in the downward progression of a huge long-term depression, then you should be selling stocks before the collapse. If the collapse occurs, then it is better to be in cash. After prices get near the bottom, you can allocate the cash to assets that you expect to hold value. (China appears to be buying all the gold it can get at present. But that's no recommendation. Look at all the junk bonds they bought). ### You are right. Problem is, I have neither the cash to spend nor the stock to sell nor the confidence to decide. By the time I am done paying off the blood money to my hopefully soon to be ex wife, the recession will be definitely over. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 6 15:54:40 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:54:40 +0800 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905060845w34fbe23fx66bbb93324f1151d@mail.gmail.com> References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <49FFE21B.7080501@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905052059i6577afb0t58149a29cc86d030@mail.gmail.com> <4A014893.2070700@posthuman.com> <7641ddc60905060644o7daf1ef0r239f29a565c9386c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090506091147.0281f2f8@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905060738t78c2b94q2b8adc7a0eb14081@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905060845w34fbe23fx66bbb93324f1151d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/6/09, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### You are right. Problem is, I have neither the cash to spend nor the > stock to sell nor the confidence to decide. By the time I am done paying off > the blood money to my hopefully soon to be ex wife, the recession will be > definitely over. > Oh well. If an ex-wife is involved, then that's definitely depression time! BillK :) From scerir at libero.it Wed May 6 17:23:11 2009 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:23:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" References: <3208155.70281241503410315.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <7641ddc60905052033t35c0e7e5gc6067c9a360dd97c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01c9ce6f$5d81d010$b30a4797@archimede> Refal: Imagine we had a bet for, oh, let's say $1000, the issue being whether the recession (measured by per capita GDP) ends before the end of 2009 or not? How would you bet? # Wasn't this (so they were saying) the worst recession in the last 70 years? I would say that if this recession will be over in 6 months it wasn't so bad :-) But there are chances the recovery will be slow, and there are chances the inflation will be much higher in the future (this seems quite obvious to me, since governments have injected trillions of dollars into the systems), and there are chances the oil will be more expensive again, and there are chances our economies will be more dependent of China, etc. So, the stock market has bet - since March, 9 - for the recession to be over in few months, but I think the dynamics could be chaotic. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 6 16:35:16 2009 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 09:35:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Proactionary was Cryo-optimism/was Re: Silly In-Reply-To: <495352.67822.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <495352.67822.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1241628182_10466@s8.cableone.net> At 07:45 AM 5/6/2009, Dan wrote: snip >I'm not gloomy, but I am questioning your being overly >optimistic. Death has not been conquered yet -- if it ever will be >conquered. And cryonics has yet to be proved. So, it's a bit early >to be touting cryonics or any similar thing as a proven solution to dying. It is the nature of cryonics that when it is proven to work, the knowledge will have no value, because surely it will be more difficult to revive the cryonics patients than keeping people from dying in the first place. We are, as Dr. Ralph Merkel points out, running an experiment where those who get frozen are the experimental group and those who die and are not preserved are the control group. It's not that we experimental subjects are particularly optimistic, it's just that at present we lack alternate courses of action. >That doesn't mean I'm against it; I was trying to inject some >reasonableness into the discussion. I was trying to point out that a discussion on inheritance isn't an extropian topic. >Recall, earlier, you wrote: "In a post nanotech world death should >be rare indeed." Well, we don't live in that world yet and many us >might not -- even with cryonics -- make it to that world. So don't >celebrate victories until the battle is won. (And believe you me, I >hope it is won -- and won during all of our lifetimes.) There are two main models of the world future, the limits to growth model and the singularity model. The latter is based on long range trends of increases in computer power and the assumption that AI will emerge when hardware is powerful enough to permit it and that human level computation rates are enough are enough (by example) to support an AI. This date centers in the mid 2040s. The limits to growth model predicts a population crash starting much sooner and based to a substantial extent on failing energy supplies. The diversion of food (corn, soybean oil) into bio fuels may bring the crash closer by a number of years. The proactionary principle says extropians should be concerned about this. Do you have any suggestions? Keith From mlatorra at gmail.com Wed May 6 17:36:02 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:36:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] New Scientist: Quack remedies spread by virtue of being useless Message-ID: <9ff585550905061036n51b48d6di6307d45b6a23b86d@mail.gmail.com> Quack remedies spread by virtue of being useless 01 May 2009 by Ewen Callaway Eating a vulture won't clear a bad case of syphilis nor will a drink made of rotting snakes treat leprosy, but these and other bogus medical treatments spread precisely because they don't work. That's the counterintuitive finding of a mathematical model of medical quackery. Ineffective treatments don't cure an illness, so sufferers demonstrate them to more people than those who recovery quickly after taking real medicines. ... *Read full article at*: http://tinyurl.com/dyluw6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Wed May 6 17:53:01 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 13:53:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905060734l601c9930k7124ccf3585be2d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905031849p19cc7919ibc55bb171ba10370@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> <466AEA7E-FA3B-4E7F-86D6-B1DF6921E9BB@freeshell.org> <7641ddc60905060734l601c9930k7124ccf3585be2d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0562A09B-6F0A-4046-BAE7-959D2FDC24AA@freeshell.org> On 6 May, 2009, at 10:34, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Brent Neal > wrote: > > On 5 May, 2009, at 23:08, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### But the article insists that recessions are inflationary. Exactly! You claimed in your original post (which, incidentally, I interpreted the same way Damien did as being very confident. The article you quoted and the argument you used as reference essentially said "look at the past 6 downturns and you will conclude that this will be over quickly. My argument, which was essentially the same as this article's, is that the current downturn is deflationary, which makes it different from most of the last downturns and will mean vastly different market behaviors. > > --------------------------------------- > > Because I think we're seeing what many folks (including Damien) have > predicted - an economic disruption based on or exacerbated by the > fact that people don't need more manufactured stuff than they > already have and in fact are increasingly realizing that they will > pay some marginal amount for LESS stuff. The short term economic > forecast, as has been claimed before, is linked to a fall in > aggregate demand. > > ### This is completely off, I mean, Keynesianism lifting its head > from the grave. People always want to have more stuff, or more > services, or more of both. Desire is never a limiting factor on > economic activity. Only the ability to satisfy desires is a > limitation. Here we have a crisis due in part to misallocation of > resources (speculative homebuilding and homebuying) associated with > misjudgement of the validity of risk-prediction and mitigation > methods (S&P credit ratings, mortgage securitization, credit default > swaps) and exacerbated by massive levels of consumer fraud. There > was no primary problem with the manufacturing sector at all here - > this is a construction, real estate and financial crisis through and > through. I disagree. Your statement that people always want more stuff is not necessarily true. When it costs too much to get it, people make a rational decision to forgo that consumption. Unfortunately, our consumer-driven economy can't handle consumers making a rational decision to forgo consumption, because we have ASSUMED that people will always buy more stuff and when they don't, due to the effects of overleveraging or due to a lack of confidence in their future income streams, the system starts to break down. Which, in turn, leads to a wage-price downward spiral. As I wrote this, I started having flashbacks to macroeconomics class, way on back when. > > -------------------------------- > > There are two routes that can be taken based on this - either try to > prop up the manufacturing sector or to transition to a different > type of economy. We're, alas, doing the former, which I intuit will > make the short term outlook much poorer. But, to economists and > pundits completely immersed in industrial age economics, it appears > to be the only option, so they are making a rational choice, in some > sense. > > ### I agree with you here - politicians selected economists who > support the most idiotic way of dealing with the problems but > increase the power of politicians, that's why the apologist > economists are elevated as court economists, and reasonable > economists are reduced to blogging. Yet you are making a correct > conclusion (gov't economists are wrong) from incorrect premises > (Keynesian economics mixed with some New Age postindustrial stuff). There is nothing particularly right or wrong about Keynesian economics nor monetarism. They have both shown to be efficacious in understanding behaviors of markets in certain situations. I recognize your irrational ideological bias, but being a physicist, I tend to be a little more pragmatic about using theories when they suit and ignoring the insistence on a foolish consistency in their application. :) Remember, economics is fundamentally driven by two things - psychology and information. > ------------------------------- > > I disagree with that route though - I think that breaking the wage- > income link more, recognizing that networks of people have an > economic potential that is synergistically larger than the aggregate > economic potential of their individual units, and using something > like a reverse income tax - I prefer to think of it as a dividend, > since I think it is more accurate - to compensate them for that > value created will ultimately be the better solution to the current > problem. > > ### Reverse income tax? :) > > Sounds like something fun to rip into, once you explain what you mean. > > The reverse income tax is what some call Milton Friedman's guaranteed income scheme, which has been discussed in another thread. B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From mlatorra at gmail.com Wed May 6 17:59:50 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:59:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] NEW SCIENTIST on Singularity & Immortality Message-ID: <9ff585550905061059x2c95454cra5a7081777ed180@mail.gmail.com> Ray Kurzweil: A singular view of the future 06 May 2009 by Liz Else Q: When will the Singularity arrive? A: By 2045, give or take. We are already a hybrid of biological and non-biological technology. A handful of people have electronic devices in their brain, for example. The latest generation allows medical software to be downloaded to a computer inside your brain. But if you consider that 25 years from now these technologies will be 100,000 times smaller and a billion times more powerful, you get some idea of what will be feasible. And even though most of us don't have computers in our bodies, they are already part of who we are. Q: What about people who don't want to be "trans-human" and merge with technology? A: How many people completely reject all medical and health technology, don't wear glasses or take any medicine? People say they don't want to change themselves, but then when they get a disease they will do whatever they can to overcome it. We're not going to get from here to the world of 2030 or 2040 in one grand leap; we're going to get there through thousands of little steps. Put these steps together and ultimately the world is a different place. . . . Read entire interview at: http://tinyurl.com/dh4ym6 Watch the NEW SCIENTIST video interviews with Anders Sandberg, Aubrey de Grey and Nick Bostrom at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTqXL0d9Ls -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 6 18:19:10 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <324783.79122.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/5/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/6 Dan : >> This actually tells us why private charity would be >> better: it's inherently much more self-limiting. ?Those who >> really need it -- and, to be honest, I've relied on it in my >> life (and I've also helped others) -- will accept it, while >> those who don't (and this is subjective, of course) will be >> less likely to accept it. > > Would it be better if insurance companies only had > to pay out if they felt kindly towards you, even > though you have have a contract? The analogy you're seem to be attempting has, for me, a flaw. If you're trying to say the government has a contract with you to support you (under certain circumstances), the problem is it uses force against third parties to support you. That'd make the contract invalid. Insurance companies as insurance companies would not be using force as such to fulfill their contracts. In fact, insurance companies who don't fulfill their contracts -- as in they really do owe you (in the liberetarian just sense) a payment and decide they're not feeling kind toward the payee -- would be initiating force, specifically, using indirect force to keep what justly belongs to someone else. Why you would attempt this analogy is strange. Do you believe that the libertarian view is buyers should pay sellers because they should be kind? (All of this is not to say charity isn't a virtue. Unlike justice (in the libertarian sense), however, coercion can't be used to correct a lack of charity.) >> The key point is: it's forced. ?The whole system is >> based on coercion and on perpetuating coercion: you were >> robbed, so you're entitled. ?Where does your entitlement >> come from? ?Well, from robbing others to keep the system >> going. ?From an Extropian perspective, is this the kind of >> thinking and system we want to perpetuate? > > I wasn't robbed, I paid for a service. I'm not so sure about that. Did you have the option not to pay and continue to do whatever activity was involved? > True, I had to pay for the > service if I wanted to work, but that's the case with > thousands of > commercial transactions. I have to pay for professional > indemnity > insurance; I have to pay for renovations to the building in > which I > own an apartment, or I can be sued and ultimately > imprisoned; I have > to pay for insurance in case the plane crashes as part of > the price of > the ticket whenever I fly, even if I'd rather pay less and > take a > risk. I can look for a different job, apartment or airline, > but this > might be inconvenient and costly, if not impossible. I have > the same > choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: > I could > change the way I work or I could move, although that might > be > inconvenient, costly or impossible. I think you're confusing choices that have to be made in life regardless of state (or other) coercion and coerced choices imposed by the state. Of course, there's a lot of mixing here; we live in societies dominated by nation states that attempt to micro-manage many choices. Under such conditions, coercion enters almost every choice. But there's a difference between say, "If you want to do business with me, you must do X, Y, and Z" and "If you want to do business with me, even though it'd harm no one else (in a libertarian rights sense not in the idiotic, meaningless sense of anything anyone does affects everyone else) and both of us agree that the government requires you to do X, Y, and Z (because some bureaucrats or a session of the legislators decided that you must)." (Or if you please, let's say the local mob boss requires you to do X, Y, and Z. Thus, to avoid the shallow reply that I'm merely anti-statist or I'm ignoring non-state coercion.*) In the former case, you might still find someone else to do business with -- someone who doesn't require X, Y, and Z. Or you might not. Or you might find someone who will only work with you if you X and Y, but not require Z. And so on. But in the latter case -- where the government requires X, Y, and Z -- you don't even have the choice to seek out or persuade others. (Admittedly, you can petition the state to change the policy, but that's a huge barrier to leap for most people. Why make it hard to change here? Why bake in to the system some beaucrats' or legislators' whims and make it hard for the people on the ground -- the one's who have to wear the yoke -- to find better ways of doing things?) >>> If I don't want to pay either I >>> don't have to work. >> >> That's sort of like saying, "If I don't want to pay >> the local crime syndicate, I can just avoid having a >> business in town." > > The crime syndicate is not chosen and supported by the > citizens who live there. True, but democracy is to a large extent merely a propaganda method used to legitamize the elite and rule of the many by the few. You get to select your master. Well, actually you don't. The majority of voters get to select it. So, at least some of the voters lose. But let's follow the analogy a little further. Imagine the local crime syndicate decides to run elections. Let's say the alternative is no elections, but the syndicate keeps doing whatever it does -- e.g., breaking knees, stealing from local businesses, and the like. So, now life is so much better. You get to have your vote added into with thousands or millions of others and there might be a tiny chance your vote will make a difference. Of course, to be certain, the candidates offered are pre-selected so that no one too radical -- say, like no one who'd push for the crime syndicate to stop stealing or stop breaking knees. The point is that just because you have some voice in the overall coercive system -- be it a local crime syndicate or a national one (a nation state) -- does make it non-coercive. In fact, the only way to make it non-coercive would be for all subjected to its activities (citizens is a loaded term; it makes it seem like governments only rule over their citizens and not uncounted others) expressly consented to it. (In the same way, if someone asks three people for a dollar and two agree (a clear majority!:) to five him one, this doesn't entitle him to the holdout's dollar. Were he to take it from the holdout, he would be coercing that person. But if he gets all three to consent, then there's no coercion involved.) Regards, Dan * It should also be noted that organized crime (aside from government itself) thrives under government. Were it not for outlawing various so called vices in the US (e.g., illegal drugs, prositution, and gambling), I think most organized crime would disappear. Yeah, there'd still be some of it around, but it'd be a pale shadow of its former self. I don't expect that minimizing or abolishing the state will make the world perfect, just much better under most circumstances. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 19:25:42 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:25:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Debt tsunami In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905051859q71b7a6d3mb18be3b11f02a05f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905032043r7165ffdav254a34f6845bd1dd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503231241.022c5c08@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905032120s4cf22e0bp33a8596aa0d15714@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503233009.022c09e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905040013n31317284tdd579da684f783b@mail.gmail.com> <3265ADB5-6698-4001-87DE-E0F395895CE2@freeshell.org> <7641ddc60905051859q71b7a6d3mb18be3b11f02a05f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090506192542.GB23175@ofb.net> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:59:18PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Or translated: A 21% increase (i.e. the "change") in budget > >> deficit over politics as usual after only 100 days in power. And a > >> projected deficit of 9.270 trillion (yes, trillion, not billion) by > >> 2019. It does not say a projected annual deficit of $9 trillion. That's a "total deficit" over ten years, what's normally called debt. As for the horrible crisis, raising taxes to the effect of another 5% of GDP would give is surpluses. > ### Has anybody ever shown a deflationary wage-price spiral in real > life? This is some sort of Keynesian bugaboo they cooked up from Great Depression. Japan. Krugman's babysitting co-op http://www.slate.com/id/2202165/ -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 19:11:38 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:11:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090506191138.GA23175@ofb.net> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:12:54AM -0700, Dan wrote: > > Government welfare is like collecting the insurance if my house > > burns down: I pay the premiums and if I need it, that's part of the > > deal. The deal with government welfare is that if I work, I pay > > taxes. I'm forced to pay my taxes, but I'm also forced to pay > > professional indemnity insurance by my employer. > The key point is: it's forced. The whole system is based on coercion There's a thing called the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's sort of solvable by tit-for-tat. Then there's the multiperson prisoner's dilemma. Coercion, whether by government or very powerful social norms, seems the only way of solving it. Yes, choice is reduced, because free individual choice leads to us all following our individual self-interest to an outcome that makes us all worse off; only uniform and enforced commitment lets the cooperative option be stable. Thus taxes (and possibly draft) for defense, and law enforcement, and welfare, and social insurance, and insurer-of-last-resort, and pollution control functions. > and on perpetuating coercion: you were robbed, so you're entitled. > Where does your entitlement come from? Well, from robbing others to > keep the system going. From an Extropian perspective, is this the Or from a social contract: people finding a compact that guarantees a minimum more attractive than a compact that guarantees a lack of explicit coercion but otherwise provides no security. Or from the fact that the unequal distribution of property is pretty morally tainted if you look at the history, and ongoing redistributive taxes are less disruptive than a sweeping act of reform, which might well destabilize by the next generation anyway. > kind of thinking and system we want to perpetuate? I quote a friend of mine: === I sometimes make the argument that the world *is* a libertarian "paradise". There is, after all, no world government. You want to talk about "private" police forces and infrastructure companies? We call them "nations". There are many, and they offer a variety of "packages". Some do well and others do not. "What," I say to the spluttering Libertarian, "You want to talk about hegemony, bundling, required contracts, the importance of colocation, and natural monopoly? Those aren't very Libertarian points to make." I then argue that apparently nation-states are the equilibrium result of anarchy. Good news: Libertarianism "works"! (Well, insofar as our nation-states "work".) "You're absolutely right; people will, and have, self-organized to the degree they see necessary. Now what's your point, again?" === -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 19:33:58 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:33:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <790144.86965.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <790144.86965.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090506193358.GC23175@ofb.net> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:40:24AM -0700, Dan wrote: > Also, given the context of your statement, the difference between a > GI, negative income tax, and other such public wealth transfers and > all forms of private ones is that the former must violate property > rights -- someone is forced to pay. In both cases, yes, free-loaders But how are property rights distributed? If someone owns land, they can basically be the government, a veritable king, on that land. "Pay me rent! Obey my rules or I evict you!" Not a huge problem with many competitive small landowners -- though shared norms against blacks or gays can make life hard for those renters -- but if someone owned all the land, they'd be a 'legitimate' government. > Finally, as an aside, I think a problem is that having forced wealth > transfers will eventually have a cultural impact -- as some people If I have ot pay someone to rent land they own, where I do the work of constructing a house and all they contribute is legal access to the land, how is that not a forced wealth transfer? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 19:35:21 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:35:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090506193521.GD23175@ofb.net> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:19:58AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > 2009/5/6 Dan : > > > >> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, I mean many if not most people were on some form of public assistance. > > > > And it would have been better if they had been allowed to starve, > > denied education and health care etc.? > > ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, don't do drugs, > keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, over and over and > over again, and, well, screw you. And let their children starve too! -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 19:56:22 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:56:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20090506195622.GE23175@ofb.net> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:49:47AM -0400, MB wrote: > I've been very pleased with my health care. I've been able to choose > my doctors, I've been able to get appointments when I needed them, > service was speedy. And yes, there have been medical problems, > illness which was hard to diagnose, frustrating to treat. And how do you pay for that health care -- pocket, or insurance? Is the insurance through a large employer, or individual? If individual, did you have "pre-existing conditions"? The system works okay once you're in it, and assuming the companies can't find a way out of paying for you. Where the US falls down is getting people into the system. Except, wait! We have a crude form of socialized insurance: not Medicaid, ultimate, but emergency rooms -- they have to take you in! Of course, treating emergencies is expensive and relatively ineffective (compared to preventive care), and the unfunded mandate means ERs are closing. Great insurance or deep pockets won't help you in a trauma if the nearest ER is more than your untreated life expectancy away. The fundamental social choice is "if someone's found naked and bleeding, with no proof of insurance, do we treat them or let them die? If they have killer flu or resistant TB, do we let them run around or treat them?" As a society, we've chosen life. We just do so crappily; given the choice, universal health care is the most efficient way of fulfilling it. If you want to fend off universal health care, convince your fellow Americans that poor sick people -- including children -- should be left alone to die, helped only by private charity or crushing debt. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed May 6 20:00:48 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 13:00:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <324783.79122.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <324783.79122.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090506200048.GF23175@ofb.net> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:19:10AM -0700, Dan wrote: > * It should also be noted that organized crime (aside from government > itself) thrives under government. Were it not for outlawing various > so called vices in the US (e.g., illegal drugs, prositution, and > gambling), I think most organized crime would disappear. Yeah, > there'd still be some of it around, but it'd be a pale shadow of its > former self. I don't expect that minimizing or abolishing the state > will make the world perfect, just much better under most > circumstances. Smuggling banned services (also desperate high-interest loans) is one avenue of organized crime, yes. But other big ones are construction contracts (I'm not sure why) and simple shakedowns: "give us money or we burn your business down". If there were no government, there'd be little check on that last -- one's own force, or that of private protection agencies, whose difference from organized crime gangs is undetectable to a lot of people. -xx- Damien X-) From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 6 19:59:32 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:59:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] NEW SCIENTIST on Singularity & Immortality In-Reply-To: <9ff585550905061059x2c95454cra5a7081777ed180@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ff585550905061059x2c95454cra5a7081777ed180@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090506155932.63wn5hos9w0ogs0o@webmail.natasha.cc> Great article, Michael. Thanks for sending it. It could be any of us have been saying for the past 20 years (except for the SU). :-) It is amazing to me that the journalists act as if all this is new information, new knowledge. Not. Nonetheless, it is fabulous to keep it in the public eye! best wishes, Natasha Quoting Michael LaTorra : > Ray Kurzweil: A singular view of the future > 06 May 2009 by Liz Else > > Q: When will the Singularity arrive? > > A: By 2045, give or take. We are already a hybrid of biological and > non-biological technology. A handful of people have electronic devices in > their brain, for example. The latest generation allows medical software to > be downloaded to a computer inside your brain. But if you consider that 25 > years from now these technologies will be 100,000 times smaller and a > billion times more powerful, you get some idea of what will be feasible. And > even though most of us don't have computers in our bodies, they are already > part of who we are. > > Q: What about people who don't want to be "trans-human" and merge with > technology? > > A: How many people completely reject all medical and health technology, > don't wear glasses or take any medicine? People say they don't want to > change themselves, but then when they get a disease they will do whatever > they can to overcome it. We're not going to get from here to the world of > 2030 or 2040 in one grand leap; we're going to get there through thousands > of little steps. Put these steps together and ultimately the world is a > different place. > . . . > Read entire interview at: http://tinyurl.com/dh4ym6 > > Watch the NEW SCIENTIST video interviews with Anders Sandberg, Aubrey de > Grey and Nick Bostrom at: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTqXL0d9Ls > From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed May 6 21:35:42 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <20090506195622.GE23175@ofb.net> References: <200905031932.n43JW3lY001104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0905031956u2f70355dsfcda1a350a60787c@mail.gmail.com> <33620.12.77.168.184.1241434187.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <20090506195622.GE23175@ofb.net> Message-ID: <35373.12.77.168.222.1241645742.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > And how do you pay for that health care -- pocket, or insurance? Is the > insurance through a large employer, or individual? If individual, did > you have "pre-existing conditions"? > I purchase my own insurance... Blue Cross. There is a deductable and there is copay. Individual insurance. Yes, I have had pre-existing condition and it was waived when I went to Blue Cross from Mutual of Omaha which withdrew from my state. > The system works okay once you're in it, and assuming the companies > can't find a way out of paying for you. Where the US falls down is > getting people into the system. I guess I've had about 4 different individual insurance policy providers. > > Except, wait! We have a crude form of socialized insurance: not > Medicaid, ultimate, but emergency rooms -- they have to take you in! Of > course, treating emergencies is expensive and relatively ineffective > (compared to preventive care), and the unfunded mandate means ERs are > closing. Great insurance or deep pockets won't help you in a trauma if > the nearest ER is more than your untreated life expectancy away. I've only been once to an ER and that was many many years ago (in the 1960s) when we had a big corporation carrying the insurance. > If you want to fend off universal health care, convince your fellow > Americans that poor sick people -- including children -- should be > left alone to die, helped only by private charity or crushing debt. > My friend who used the VA system ran into trouble with this. The VA said they wouldn't accept him unless he were brought by ambulance. Ambulance wouldn't take him unless the VA would accept him. Eventually the family lied and the ambulance took him and left him on the step of the VA ER and he was taken in, so I guess it was all bark and no bite. This was years ago and he is now dead so I cannot unscramble the whole story. Regards, MB From brentn at freeshell.org Wed May 6 22:26:46 2009 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 18:26:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052116o71eb991fic88b829c96c18039@mail.gmail.com> References: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> <7641ddc60905052116o71eb991fic88b829c96c18039@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <50DCCEA7-7ECB-4783-BDD6-8E9B839A428E@freeshell.org> On 6 May, 2009, at 0:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Yeah, sure, ppl like to play at "working". Say, build the biggest > and baddest punkin' chunkin' cannon > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuzMygEVOgM). Or whatever. This is the > kind of stuff that gets done when people are not working for money. > > But what's in it for me? Or you? Apparently, straw man arguments like the one you just made. :) B -- Brent Neal, Ph.D. http://brentn.freeshell.org From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu May 7 01:51:04 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:21:04 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Turkish Star Trek Message-ID: <710b78fc0905061851g3cd8c8c9hc6a008ea6ea0445@mail.gmail.com> Just to crank the intensity on list down a notch, check out the turkish rip-off of the original Star Trek. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7185067049150068960 It's a thing of beauty. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From frankmac at ripco.com Thu May 7 01:58:18 2009 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frankie) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 21:58:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] RECESSION ENDS IN 6 WEEKS Message-ID: <474B64E859E645ADB36C84CDEF99D73D@FRANKPC> The key to this recession is the destruction of debt, and the de valuing of the dollar. Neither has taken place and will not happen until years from now. The Stock market is in a bear rally that has lasted 40 days since the lows of March 6, where it closed at 666 strange number don't you think. Since we have gone 40 days since then, March 6, this is either a bull market or we are setting a record run for price and speed of a bear market rally. If we have turned the corner, the recession has ended and the world will be saved, if this is a bear market and the recession has not ended look for the market to test the lows of March 6 within the next few months,,, If the market turns south in the next ten days you will be in a recession until 2010 maybe 2011. In a casino the line spoken to the players " is place you bets, please", and since gas here in Chicago has gone up to 2.50 a gallon, I think the recession is still with us and will be until 2011. One last thought, I hope I am wrong because if you have a job you are in a recession, if you are without a job it is called a Depression at the dinner table , and right now a group of people are feeling the pain of this period. Speak quietly of them, as they have the ability to become a crowd, then a mob, then you are in a regime change is in order Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 7 02:18:28 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:18:28 +0800 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052109j2eac0125hfb375d5b09c9cb5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <894943.79823.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052109j2eac0125hfb375d5b09c9cb5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > ?I have the same >> choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: I could >> change the way I work or I could move, although that might be >> inconvenient, costly or impossible. > > ### Sure. But, is it good? I am sure you don't think that > intentionally limiting choices available to people is generally a good > idea. Taxation is a net reduction of choices: compared to a voluntary > system, it is almost impossible to use taxation to achieve a net > increase in the range of choices available to participants. Taxes > almost always make the taxed worse off - yet you seem to attribute > legitimacy to them, you seem to identify with their imposition, > although you reject other limitations of your choices (e.g. imposed by > "crime syndicates"). Both taxes and "protection" paid to crime bosses > make you worse off - yet you support the former and reject the latter. > Why? The criminal syndicate does no good for anyone (other than themselves) and no-one wants them. Rather like a corrupt or totalitarian government. If people were all stupid and governments were all grasping and irresponsible they would just vote to have no taxes and everything funded by printing money. But they vote to be taxed. How do you propose changing this? It seems you're stuck with the same solution as the Eastern European communists, who thought they were creating the good society and had to protect it by prosecuting anyone who posed any threat to the system. I'm writing this from economic freedom-loving, personal freedom-hating Singapore. I can't think of anywhere in the world at the moment where both personal and economic freedom is held in equally high regard. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 7 02:30:41 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:30:41 +0800 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <324783.79122.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <324783.79122.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/7 Dan : >> Would it be better if insurance companies only had >> to pay out if they felt kindly towards you, even >> though you have have a contract? > > The analogy you're seem to be attempting has, for me, a flaw. ?If you're trying to say the government has a contract with you to support you (under certain circumstances), the problem is it uses force against third parties to support you. ?That'd make the contract invalid. ?Insurance companies as insurance companies would not be using force as such to fulfill their contracts. ?In fact, insurance companies who don't fulfill their contracts -- as in they really do owe you (in the liberetarian just sense) a payment and decide they're not feeling kind toward the payee -- would be initiating force, specifically, using indirect force to keep what justly belongs to someone else. The insurance companies collect payments from other customers in order to pay you. The other customers can't ask for their money back on the grounds that they were more careful than you. The other customers, like the other taxpayers, are the third party. > Why you would attempt this analogy is strange. ?Do you believe that the libertarian view is buyers should pay sellers because they should be kind? ?(All of this is not to say charity isn't a virtue. ?Unlike justice (in the libertarian sense), however, coercion can't be used to correct a lack of charity.) I'm actually attempting this analogy to try to show that taxation is legitimate even under the libertarian view of justice, i.e. taxation as social contract. >>> The key point is: it's forced. ?The whole system is >>> based on coercion and on perpetuating coercion: you were >>> robbed, so you're entitled. ?Where does your entitlement >>> come from? ?Well, from robbing others to keep the system >>> going. ?From an Extropian perspective, is this the kind of >>> thinking and system we want to perpetuate? >> >> I wasn't robbed, I paid for a service. > > I'm not so sure about that. ?Did you have the option not to pay and continue to do whatever activity was involved? No, but I don't have the option not to pay and keep doing whatever I was doing in the case of every commercial transaction. >> True, I had to pay for the >> service if I wanted to work, but that's the case with >> thousands of >> commercial transactions. I have to pay for professional >> indemnity >> insurance; I have to pay for renovations to the building in >> which I >> own an apartment, or I can be sued and ultimately >> imprisoned; I have >> to pay for insurance in case the plane crashes as part of >> the price of >> the ticket whenever I fly, even if I'd rather pay less and >> take a >> risk. I can look for a different job, apartment or airline, >> but this >> might be inconvenient and costly, if not impossible. I have >> the same >> choice if I don't like the taxes in the state where I live: >> I could >> change the way I work or I could move, although that might >> be >> inconvenient, costly or impossible. > > I think you're confusing choices that have to be made in life regardless of state (or other) coercion and coerced choices imposed by the state. ?Of course, there's a lot of mixing here; we live in societies dominated by nation states that attempt to micro-manage many choices. ?Under such conditions, coercion enters almost every choice. ?But there's a difference between say, "If you want to do business with me, you must do X, Y, and Z" and "If you want to do business with me, even though it'd harm no one else (in a libertarian rights sense not in the idiotic, meaningless sense of anything anyone does affects everyone else) and both of us agree that the government requires you to do X, Y, and Z (because some bureaucrats or a session of the legislators decided that you must)." ?(Or if you please, let's say the local mob boss requires you to do X, Y, and Z. ?Thus, to avoid the shallow reply that I'm merely anti-statist or I'm ignoring non-state coercion.*) > ?In the former case, you might still find someone else to do business with -- someone who doesn't require X, Y, and Z. ?Or you might not. ?Or you might find someone who will only work with you if you X and Y, but not require Z. ?And so on. > > But in the latter case -- where the government requires X, Y, and Z -- you don't even have the choice to seek out or persuade others. ?(Admittedly, you can petition the state to change the policy, but that's a huge barrier to leap for most people. ?Why make it hard to change here? ?Why bake in to the system some beaucrats' or legislators' whims and make it hard for the people on the ground -- the one's who have to wear the yoke -- to find better ways of doing things?) > >>>> If I don't want to pay either I >>>> don't have to work. >>> >>> That's sort of like saying, "If I don't want to pay >>> the local crime syndicate, I can just avoid having a >>> business in town." >> >> The crime syndicate is not chosen and supported by the >> citizens who live there. > > True, but democracy is to a large extent merely a propaganda method used to legitamize the elite and rule of the many by the few. ?You get to select your master. ?Well, actually you don't. ?The majority of voters get to select it. ?So, at least some of the voters lose. > > But let's follow the analogy a little further. ?Imagine the local crime syndicate decides to run elections. ?Let's say the alternative is no elections, but the syndicate keeps doing whatever it does -- e.g., breaking knees, stealing from local businesses, and the like. ?So, now life is so much better. ?You get to have your vote added into with thousands or millions of others and there might be a tiny chance your vote will make a difference. ?Of course, to be certain, the candidates offered are pre-selected so that no one too radical -- say, like no one who'd push for the crime syndicate to stop stealing or stop breaking knees. > > The point is that just because you have some voice in the overall coercive system -- be it a local crime syndicate or a national one (a nation state) -- does make it non-coercive. ?In fact, the only way to make it non-coercive would be for all subjected to its activities (citizens is a loaded term; it makes it seem like governments only rule over their citizens and not uncounted others) expressly consented to it. ?(In the same way, if someone asks three people for a dollar and two agree (a clear majority!:) to five him one, this doesn't entitle him to the holdout's dollar. ?Were he to take it from the holdout, he would be coercing that person. ?But if he gets all three to consent, then there's no coercion involved.) As it happens, I don't like much of what governments do; for example, I don't like anti-drug laws. So, if I were boss, things would be different. What can I do about this? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 7 02:36:09 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:36:09 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/6 Rafal Smigrodzki : > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> 2009/5/6 Dan : >> >>> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in poor neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, I mean many if not most people were on some form of public assistance. >> >> And it would have been better if they had been allowed to starve, >> denied education and health care etc.? > > ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, don't do drugs, > keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, over and over and > over again, and, well, screw you. Well, here we reach an impasse. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 7 03:43:26 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 20:43:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <580930c20905050333r788ddd0ekbf35b1f8f993faef@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <580930c20905050333r788ddd0ekbf35b1f8f993faef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A0258DE.4070407@rawbw.com> Stefano writes > ...one has to wonder whether in the long term > such prohibitions worked in average so well > for their partisans themselves... ... > > In fact, the argument requires are three distinct claims: > - "we know better (what is right/true/correct/better > to believe in any event"; > - "to let those with different opinions speak, and/or to > let other people form their own view on it would be too > dangerous"; > - "the danger can effectively be avoided by the attempt > of enforcing a prohibition". Thanks very much for the clear analysis. > Unless evidence to one's satisfaction can be offered on all three of > them, limitations to free speech do not seem such a good idea. It would be interesting to see those who disagree respond to your dissection. > Moreover, as I am preaching that all discussions should be kept as > much as possible on-topic, I should submit that the transhumanist > discourse is itself exposed to a few risks of formal and informal > censorship in a number of contexts, while it is very hard to see > where, when and why it would ever profit from free-speech limitations. Naturally. What completely amazes me is just how or why some of us (like you and me) have come to see this issue so completely differently from others of us. The fact that you were born and raised in Italy weakens one of my conjectures, namely that in the 60s and 70s I was subjected to a great deal of merely American indoctrination on this subject. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 7 04:00:06 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 21:00:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> BillK wrote: > On 5/5/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I also think that in the back of the minds of those >> who call for prohibitions on free speech lurks >> exactly the same kind of elitism. "You never know," >> I can almost hear them saying, "how such memes may >> spread when picked up by the ignorant masses, and >> what woeful effects will result". >> > > I would lump this under 'etiquette' or 'how to behave properly in company'. > > What sort of a society do you want to live in? Well, one of the first answers that comes to mind is, "one where one is permitted to say what he or she thinks". > Do you want to live in a society where people > behave like savages? Certainly not. By "savages", I'll mean those who have no respect for rule of law. But evidently what you really mean is > Swearing, farting, belching, peeing in public, > rudely commenting on women present,... All of which you wish to have outlawed? But even more importantly, these have nothing to do with *ideas*, or beliefs. The latter are what is important; what do you think of the "marketplace of ideas", anyway? Silly phrase? I'm truly wondering if you are entirely serious here, especially after your next lines > grabbing the best party food first, disparaging > other people, etc. etc. Can you be seriously proposing that it be illegal to disparage people? > Free speech is fine. But discuss your views only > with people who want to listen. Forcing your 'free > speech' on unwilling listeners is initiating > aggression towards them. No, mouthing off on subjects can never properly, nor ever should be confused with aggression. (I'm willing to concede, just to get it out of the way, that perhaps exceptions could be made for mass media variations, although even there I am very doubtful.) Honestly, there is something quite humorous about a modern society where someone says "X", and the response is quick inhalation by everyone, the police are called, and immediately cart off the offender. Why? "Oh, because he said X!". As Stefano was pointing out, in spirit, think of where cryonics or even futurism itself would be if the default in our societies were not freedom of speech (when it concerns ideas and beliefs). Think of where atheism might be! Didn't arresting people for their beliefs and for their statements go out with the coming of the enlightenment? I can say that nothing I've ever seen on this list surprises me as much as your attitude, and of those that you (bravely) speak for. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 7 07:30:50 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 00:30:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Death by Singularity In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905031858o410de272h22fc34901a2e63e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <7641ddc60905031059w52111760ne832050a66ce0de7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090503132401.025462e0@satx.rr.com> <7641ddc60905031858o410de272h22fc34901a2e63e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A028E2A.3080509@rawbw.com> In a P.S. to a post in Re: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Yes, I really think the singularity will kill us. Aren't you ppl > worried about this? Yes, I put the chance of simple extinction for me and everyone else at about 50/50. But I'm not too worried: the upsides could more than make up for it. Most huge risks do not have such a correspondingly big payoff in the (small or tiny) chance that they come out all right. But a singularity, or other immense tech breakthrough, does. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 7 08:09:11 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:09:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 5/7/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > Honestly, there is something quite humorous about > a modern society where someone says "X", and the > response is quick inhalation by everyone, the > police are called, and immediately cart off the > offender. Why? "Oh, because he said X!". > > Didn't arresting people for their beliefs and for > their statements go out with the coming of the > enlightenment? I can say that nothing I've ever > seen on this list surprises me as much as your > attitude, and of those that you (bravely) speak > for. > The range of 'free speech' is very wide. Some just makes you obnoxious. A very small selection will get you arrested. The noisy neighbor problem is just his 'free speech', but it reduces your quality of life. I would certainly call that aggression. And in most jurisdictions you can take legal action to restrict his behavior. If you try to board a plane while making jokes about bombs and terrorists, you will be arrested. If you board a plane and look Arabic, look nervous and chat in a foreign language on a mobile phone, you might well be arrested after complaints from other passengers. If you demand your 'rights' while being questioned by police after a traffic stop, you are likely to be arrested for further investigation. What is theoretically your 'right' has to be restricted by the pressure of living with other people. In many cases, just walking out the room will be sufficient, when someone starts loudly proclaiming strange opinions. Leave them to the company of their own beliefs. But social behavior laws are made to attempt to raise the security and quality of life of society. If you want anarchy and the right to behave exactly as you please, then you have to find a society that agrees with you. If you remain in a society with different rules, then you will get into trouble for breaking the rules. That's life. BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu May 7 11:04:09 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35904.12.77.168.202.1241694249.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >> ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, don't do drugs, >> keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, over and over and >> over again, and, well, screw you. > > Well, here we reach an impasse. > > Ah. It's the *over and over and over again* that's the key to it, IMHO. I'm happy to help some one, teaching, leading, or just lending a hand. But not forever. That makes me some sort of slave thing. They've at least got to *try*, darn it. Regards, MB From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu May 7 13:24:24 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/7 Dan : >> The analogy you're seem to be attempting has, for me, >> a flaw. ?If you're trying to say the government has a >> contract with you to support you (under certain >> circumstances), the problem is it uses force against third >> parties to support you. ?That'd make the contract invalid. >>?Insurance companies as insurance companies would not be >> using force as such to fulfill their contracts. ?In fact, >> insurance companies who don't fulfill their contracts -- as >> in they really do owe you (in the liberetarian just sense) a >> payment and decide they're not feeling kind toward the payee >> -- would be initiating force, specifically, using indirect >> force to keep what justly belongs to someone else. > > The insurance companies collect payments from other > customers in order > to pay you. The other customers can't ask for their money > back on the grounds that they were more careful than > you. The other customers, like the other taxpayers, > are the third party. But no one is forced to pay insurance companies (save for when governments mandate insurance). In other words, the other insurance clients are not non-consenting third parties. The taxpayers are. This is why insurance companies don't punish people when they don't buy a policy, but government do punish those who don't pay taxes. (Yeah, not all the time, but the general rule is there are penalties ranging from death to all lesser penalties for non-payment of taxes.) This is a chief problem with your analogy and it relates directly to the core principle of libertarianism -- so it's not some minor quibble. (I wonder, too, if someone has written on these types of justifications for the state: ones that ignore the issue of force and attempt to make an analogy with non-coerced interactions.) >> Why you would attempt this analogy is strange. ?Do >> you believe that the libertarian view is buyers should pay >> sellers because they should be kind? ?(All of this is not >> to say charity isn't a virtue. ?Unlike justice (in the >> libertarian sense), however, coercion can't be used to >> correct a lack of charity.) > > I'm actually attempting this analogy to try to show that > taxation is legitimate even under the libertarian view > of justice, i.e. taxation as social contract. There's a vast literature in libertarian thought that rejects social contract theory. The whole notion of a social contract -- at least as historically presented -- rests on a flawed analogy between the expressly consented to contracts and tacitly consented ones. In the former, the parties actually agree to terms; in the latter, it seems, the social contract theorist merely makes up terms and then manufactures consent needed for her or his pet theory. In fact, while express contracts -- not without problems, but easily understood -- often make it clear who agrees to do what*, tacit ones, like social contracts, make it possible to get anything at all. For instance, people have used tacit consent to argue that people who don't openly rebel against a murderous regime tacitly support that regime. In other words, that notion can justify anything, so it justifies nothing and makes a shambles of the notion of contract. (Ditto for Buchanan's notions on virtual unaminity. As someone once pointed out, wherever you read "virtual unanimity" one should, to make sense of the passage, replace it with "lack of unanimity.":) >>> I wasn't robbed, I paid for a service. >> >> I'm not so sure about that. ?Did you have the option >> not to pay and continue to do whatever activity was >> involved? > > No, but I don't have the option not to pay and keep > doing whatever I was doing in the case of every > commercial transaction. That's my point. Now, were you to be placed in a world where you had the option -- the choice to NOT pay and keep doing whatever it is -- and then chose to make the payment, then you could proclaim you paid for it. In the same way, when I take a trip by plane, I know I'm paying several taxes -- i.e., I'm being robbed -- many of which are hidden. I don't pretend that this is not robbery and know, were I not forced to pay them, I probably would use that money for something else. (And, no, it wouldn't be to act as a miser; I actually do donate to charities -- though that's beside the point. I'd rather decide, though, where my money goes -- rather than some political elite and its corporate sponsors deciding. And, yes, some of my decisions will be stupid in retrospect, but at least they'll be my decisions and I can learn from them. At best, all one can do if the political elites make a wrong call is whine about it (or leave the country; you know how easy that is for most people and how unlikely it is over, say, a tiny theft here and there).) [big snip of material you didn't comment on, but I'd like to know what you thought about it just the same] > As it happens, I don't like much of what governments do; > for example, > I don't like anti-drug laws. So, if I were boss, things > would be different. What can I do about this? My suggestions? First, don't give it your moral support. Second, find like-minded individuals to work with to overturn these things. Third, try to persuade un-like-minded individuals the error of their ways. Well, that's my two cents on changing the world. Regards, Dan * Agreement in itself does not, however, make a given contract valid. Aside from purely logical and physical constraints on contracts, contracting parties must be working within in context where they have a prior right to contract over whatever they're agreeing on. (And they can't contract over, in libertarian terms, what they don't have a right to. E.g., you and I can't contract over how to divide up Rafal's justly earned (assuming he has any) wealth.) From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu May 7 13:50:22 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: >>> 2009/5/6 Dan : >>> >>>> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in >>>> poor neighborhoods around the US. ?And by poor, >>>> I mean many >>>> if not most people were on some form of public assistance. >>> >>> And it would have been better if they had been >>> allowed to starve, >>> denied education and health care etc.? >> >> ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, >> don't do drugs, >> keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, >> over and over and >> over again, and, well, screw you. > > Well, here we reach an impasse. Let's put this in the fashionable meme-speak of some in this audience. :) I actually think no or very few people would really die. (It should be pointed out that the current system -- paying some able-bodied NON-retired people to NOT work -- does not result in zero deaths. So the choice is not between a welfare state world where everyone lives forever and gets a good education, decent medical care, but a few anal libertarians are unhappy and a libertarian world where hordes of people live in the worst poverty and the few happy rich people only have to worry about tripping over the corpes of the downtrodden.*) Rather, the lazy meme would start to die out. (I doubt it'd go extinct.) Individuals themselves would learn -- er, lose that meme. The fact that any cost is experienced -- cost in terms of the agent NOT in terms of money** -- will give an incentive to change the behavior and perhaps even the thought patterns. Again, too, I'd like to point out that the choice for people in the poor neighborhoods I lived in was NOT between being on the dole or dying, but between being on the dole or working. Many of them chose the former -- not because they believed, it seems to me, that had they all found jobs they would start to die out. Regards, Dan * I think some of the rhetoric used to critique the libertarian view here have the Nirvana fallacy meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy In political economy, this fallacy usually rears its ugly head when court intellectuals -- er, mainstream economists fault people acting in relatively free markets for not meeting some standard of economic efficiency, at which point, the court intellectuals -- er, mainstream economists recommend regulations to take care of the problem. (Note my rhetoric here: people acting in relatively free markets. Markets, as such, exist when people freely interact. They are not entities in their own right. Likewise, the alternative to free interaction interaction is forced interaction: where someone forced people to interact or not interact (think of prohibitions) in ways they would not otherwise do. Government or the state is merely one species of forced interaction, but it's one of the most important species of such because it has a big footprint and many supporters -- whereas non-government force interactions tend to have a small footprint (the mugger only robs a few people at most) and tend to have few supporters (muggers do not have legions of court intellectuals ready to justify mugging to the general public).) ** All costs are, in the end, psychic -- not meaning paranormal, but meaning that the agent experiencing a cost experiences as either a potential or actual worsening of her or his condition. (This doesn't mean people actually think explicitly about costs this way. Instead, someone might think, "If I do that, I might end up regreting it" or "I did that yesterday and today I wish I hadn't done that." This also works with looking at others: people often generalize back to themselves. For instance, I might, if I'm keen, observe that most people sitting at a roulette wheel are losing money and generalize back to me persuading myself to NOT sit at the roulette wheel. And people can be mistaken -- and experts can be too and often are with spectacular results mistaken. E.g., I might only look at the winners at the roulette wheel and mistakenly generalize that I can win.) From painlord2k at libero.it Thu May 7 15:36:53 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:36:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] banning groups and preserving free speech In-Reply-To: <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A030015.2040703@libero.it> Il 07/05/2009 6.00, Lee Corbin ha scritto: > BillK wrote: >> What sort of a society do you want to live in? > > Well, one of the first answers that comes to mind is, > "one where one is permitted to say what he or she thinks". This article could be interesting for the discussion: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10830 Can We Ban Islam? - Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States It point out to the "Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States" where "The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it-- thus upholding Jefferson?s distinction between action and belief. " "Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves. " "And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam." "The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations-- and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations. " It is interesting from a legal prospective. Free speech is a fundamental right, but we must be able to differentiate free speech and actions. Mirco From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu May 7 15:48:24 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:48:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905070848r6ad6f8c4mfcc1596a2585663b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, BillK wrote: > If you try to board a plane while making jokes about bombs and > terrorists, you will be arrested. If you board a plane and look > Arabic, look nervous and chat in a foreign language on a mobile phone, > you might well be arrested after complaints from other passengers. Why, "being arrested" has different meanings. I am perhaps over-optimistic, but I am reluctant to believe that you might be tried, convicted and do jail time because you tried to board a plane while looking Arabic and speaking nervously on a mobile phone, or because you made jokes about bombs and terrorists Or at least I doubt that such a development would be a legally sound conclusion in the statutory system of the US of A. On the contrary, limitations of free speech exist in many countries which are of an entirely official and legal nature, and are exclusively based on the nature of what is being said. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu May 7 15:51:55 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:51:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] banning groups and preserving free speech In-Reply-To: <4A030015.2040703@libero.it> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A030015.2040703@libero.it> Message-ID: <580930c20905070851k3446c726n874d261a88bb838a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, painlord2k at libero.it wrote: > It is interesting from a legal prospective. > > Free speech is a fundamental right, but we must be able to differentiate > free speech and actions. Yes, in general terms I agree. There *are* behaviours that are not "speech", and might be found indesiderable, while at the same time some limitations of the latter might be at the very least superfluous or excessive when the real goal is to prevent the former. -- Stefano Vaj From max at maxmore.com Thu May 7 16:01:11 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 11:01:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Blogging platforms Message-ID: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Since I'm planning to re-launch my blog, I'd like to also decide whether to stick with Blogger or move to a different platform. If you have any opinions about the relative merits of Blogger, Wordpress, Metacafe, etc., I'd like to hear them. I'm looking for a modest degree of customization, perhaps the ability to share the blog with one or two other people, and (very importantly) longevity in the platform -- I don't want to have to move everything a couple of years from now because the organization supporting the platform has gone away. Thanks, Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From eschatoon at gmail.com Thu May 7 16:22:15 2009 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:22:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Blogging platforms In-Reply-To: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90905070922x3ab6b721pb2e179b6272daaac@mail.gmail.com> If you do not have really special requirements, staying with Blogger is a safe bet. Google is not going down anytime soon. Also, it is evident that Google is implementing all the separate pieces of the ultimate social network, and they could announce their final integration any day now. At that point Blogger would be automatically integrated in the Google de-facto monopoly on the Internet. On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Max More wrote: > Since I'm planning to re-launch my blog, I'd like to also decide whether to > stick with Blogger or move to a different platform. If you have any opinions > about the relative merits of Blogger, Wordpress, Metacafe, etc., I'd like to > hear them. > > I'm looking for a modest degree of customization, perhaps the ability to > share the blog with one or two other people, and (very importantly) > longevity in the platform -- I don't want to have to move everything a > couple of years from now because the organization supporting the platform > has gone away. > > Thanks, > > Max > > > ------------------------------------- > Max More, Ph.D. > Strategic Philosopher > Extropy Institute Founder > www.maxmore.com > max at maxmore.com > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From x at extropica.org Thu May 7 16:15:25 2009 From: x at extropica.org (x at extropica.org) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:15:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] banning groups and preserving free speech In-Reply-To: <580930c20905070851k3446c726n874d261a88bb838a@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A030015.2040703@libero.it> <580930c20905070851k3446c726n874d261a88bb838a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, painlord2k at libero.it > wrote: >> It is interesting from a legal prospective. >> >> Free speech is a fundamental right, but we must be able to differentiate >> free speech and actions. > > Yes, in general terms I agree. There *are* behaviours that are not > "speech", and might be found indesiderable, while at the same time > some limitations of the latter might be at the very least superfluous > or excessive when the real goal is to prevent the former. Speech and (other) actions are expressions of the actual nature of the agent. It is the effectively inferred values of the agent, and not their particular expression, upon which social structures are built, and from which our morals, ethics, customs, laws, etc. derive. - Jef From frankmac at ripco.com Thu May 7 17:11:04 2009 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frankie) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:11:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Recession which end in 6 weeks Message-ID: <0BC42A5673774A978FFE34D333EAE774@FRANKPC> For those taking bets, both of these guys are fading that things get worst in instead of ending,, humans against computer models here's a chance to see how things are going http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=aw8ry7hR04m4&refer=home -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu May 7 18:01:59 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Property rights and land/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax Message-ID: <221927.45546.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:40:24AM -0700, Dan wrote: >> Also, given the context of your statement, the >> difference between a >> GI, negative income tax, and other such public wealth >> transfers and >> all forms of private ones is that the former must >> violate property >> rights -- someone is forced to pay.? In both >> cases, yes, free-loaders > > But how are property rights distributed? The general libertarian view is that property rights arise from one of three ways: 1.? First appropriation (AKA homesteading) 2.? Exchange 3.? Gift Note: they are not "distributed" in the sense of a central body deciding who gets what.? The usual course would be from unowned something or other to justly appropriated property and then possibly to exchanging this property (trading it for other justly owned property) or gifting -- or abandoning it.? In the last case, abandonment, the something or other can be appropriated by someone else.? Of course, there are debates over what consistitutes just appropriation and abandonment. On the latter, there are extreme views, such as nothing is ever really abandoned to only property that is currently occupied or in use is actually owned.? I think the valid view is somewhere between these and dependent on cultural context and technology.? If some of our desires come to pass, such as people living really, really long times, for example, then abandonment might have to be reconfigured.? Just because you left a home on Ceres for a few centuries doesn't mean you've abandoned it.? At the same time, with better technology and an awareness of this issue, people might opt for explicitly abandoned items or realize that a seven hundred year old property claim is not going to be respected by most legal authorities. On the former -- just what is just appropriation -- most seem to settle on cultural (including technological) context. This allows for some fuzziness, but statism provides no real resolution -- merely kicks the problem to the government deciding the issue rather than providing a transparent set of rules for deciding it. > If someone owns land, they can basically be the > government, a veritable king, on that land.? > "Pay me rent!? > Obey my rules or I evict you!" Well, the difference is, again, how it was acquired.? If she justly acquired the land and there are no other claims to it -- such as usufruct or rights of passage claims -- then she may dispose of it as she sees fit.? Governments have never acquired land that way.? They proclaim they own what others already occupy, use, and otherwise would be called the rightful owners of said land.? (This even applies in the case of nomads.? One could easily justify them occupying a range of land on rights of passage if not real property ownership.? And it also applies to group ownership.)? Where they do buy land, they purchase it with funds that are not rightfully theirs -- paying, in effect, with stolen goods -- whether they buy it from a rightful owner or from another government (as in the case of, say, the purchase of Alaska by the US government from the Russian government). > Not a huge problem with many competitive small > landowners -- > though shared norms against blacks or gays can make life > hard for those > renters -- but if someone owned all the land, they'd be a > 'legitimate' government. Again, how did the "landowners" in your scenario come to own the land?? In my view, were libertarian rules in effect, most of the world would be unowned -- instead of claimed by governments and their corporate sponsors.? The parts there were owned would all be privately owned -- either by individuals or groups -- with usufruct and other rights limiting some of this.? (E.g., you might buy a several hectares near me, but I might have a right to peacefully cross your land within certain limits and regardless of your consent.? So, you might lack, say, a right to completely stop me from such passage, though you might not allow me to, say, run a tractor trailer across your garden.)? Yes, they would have the right to set rules, but as there would be a lot more property to homestead AND they would bear the costs of stupid rules.*? So, people who let their irrational prejudices get in the way, would also pay the price for that. >> Finally, as an aside, I think a problem is that having >> forced wealth >> transfers will eventually have a cultural impact -- as >> some people > > If I have ot pay someone to rent land they own, where I do > the work of > constructing a house and all they contribute is legal > access to the > land, how is that not a forced wealth transfer? It's not a forced transfer if the owner justly acquired the property. Yes, in practice, a lot of land (and other property) has not be justly acquired.** In those cases, it's quite likely that challenges to supposed owners will arise and where they go will depend on who can make the better case to the legal authorities. However, if one case were to go in favor of a current landowner, yes, that means she owns the land and you have to pay her or leave. (In such cases, too, improvements to said property might be deducted. Hoppe actually brought up such cases with regard to de-socializing nationalized property in the early 1990s: the original just owner has a right to the original property, but not the improvements made. I think this can get messy, BUT no more so that property rights issues under the current statist regimes.) Regards, Dan *???The current system means such costs are distributed to third parties, decoupling the cost of stupid decisions from their decision-makers, thereby preventing or slowing such decision-makers from learning and changing.? This is why there are episodes of stasis followed by reform: pressures for change must build until either the elite is behind it or the elite fears open rebellion.? This is a general problem with voice vs. exit systems. ** Were a libertarian society to evolve in the context of the current mess, no doubt, some of this property would be returned to its rightful owners. Where this is not possible, it's likely that the rest will either be put into a state of being unowned (ready to be justly appropriated) or divided up in a way that best addresses the problem (say, allowing current occupants to keep land when the original just owners can't be found). In my view, possession would probably argue in favor of current owners and the "burden of proof" would be on the challenger. This doesn't mean the status quo -- as in some cases, it's clear that it's easy to satisfy challenge. The case of public property requires no challenge, since it's all been stolen; the problem is merely how to return it to its rightful owners; certainly, governments or their members have no just right to public property. From spike66 at att.net Thu May 7 20:24:05 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:24:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <7641ddc60904300111n166ed1d2ndf3c95e5ddcac35f@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904300430w705de777u34dc0221c7f2478c@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904300805r7afeca49u6d39450a107b668@mail.gmail.com><710b78fc0904301531i42de21cfv89ca0aeb1c0571f4@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60904302028r47502237r4aec8c3b0e237d18@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090501130053.022b0c80@satx.rr.com><7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com><49FC6844.8040607@libero.it><8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin .... > > From: "spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > > > > Now, imagine if someone had asked Obama the most obvious > question, the > > one that is *still there* waiting for some reporter > anywhere: where > > did you get your money? Let him reply "I choose to not > answer that." > > What else could he say? > > What are you implying? That Buffett gave Obama money? What?... Olga Olga, I coulda made that more clear. In Dreams of My Father, Obama described doing "blow" in high school "...when you could afford it..." Well, OK, when could you afford it? Why could you afford it? Hoooowwwww could you afford it. What were you doing for a living in those days Mr. Obama? I recall being in high school the same time he was, and the drugs of choice were beer and marijuana, because those were cheap, a high for a couple bucks, or free if you grew your own grass. But cocaine was crazy expensive: usually took at least fifty bucks or more to get stoned once, or so I am told. Those who did it were either stealing or dealing. Now, the thing I am really looking for is a sense on the part of our leaders, that whenever money is spent by the government, must be *taken* from someone who is working her ass off for that money. When I was that age in the late 70s, those formative years, I had a minimum wage job; $2.90 an hour back then was gross pay. Beekeeper, hot as all hell if one wore protective clothes under the bee suit to reduce stings, dangerous (I still have back problems that originated from hoisting my weight in bee hives), overall just damn hard dirty work for little pay, pretty much like what most of us here did at that age when we were forming attitudes about money. Well, if one works like that, one doesn't snort a week's takehome pay up one's nose for a few hours of whatever that stuff does. NO WAY! Not one of my fellow beekeepers did "blow" altho plenty of them drank beer and smoked reefers. But if someone had some mysterious source of money as a teen, they may not get it that when one snorts fifty bucks worth of powder, someone somewhere is supplying that money with honest hard work. Might have been his grandparents, who didn't know. It probably wasn't his mother, for she was a welfare queen, and if so, someone somewhere is working her ass off to supply that welfare for her to give to her son to waste that way. But good chance if a teen is doing cocaine, they are either stealing or dealing. Or both. In which case, they won't get the evil of spreading the wealth around. If one doesn't work for their money, they cannot understand. I keep getting this creepy feeling that our current US government just doesn't get that notion that when governments spend like they are doing, the taxpayers who work hard, who work their lives away every day, are paying the bills. Money doesn't magically appear: it is taken from taxpayers. We will continue to pay the bills way out into the future; the debt that is currently being run up could very well crush us before the singularity, or possibly even defeat the singularity, prevent it by keeping those who would discover its secrets busy working some mundane task in order to survive. spike From mark at cosmicpenguin.com Thu May 7 21:01:46 2009 From: mark at cosmicpenguin.com (Mark S Bilk) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:01:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Blogging platforms In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90905070922x3ab6b721pb2e179b6272daaac@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1fa8c3b90905070922x3ab6b721pb2e179b6272daaac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090507210146.GB723@Isis> Youtube (run by Google) has begun removing entire channels (some with thousands of videos) objected to by the ADL and/or SPLC, i.e., 9/11-truth, anti-war, and anti-NWO material. Blogger is starting to censor entire blogs either on the same basis or on objections from fundamentalist "christians". The corporations running these sites have little respect for fairness, justice, or freedom of speech. The best thing to do is to get your own domain ($15/yr) and have it hosted by a web-hosting company ($10/month). You can run a free blogging program (in perl, python, or ruby) on the server and create a blog under your control that way. Retain the text, pictures, etc., for each entry on your own computer. Keep backups in secure locations. If the web-hosting company takes your website down, you can get it hosted elsewhere (currently Russia, Sweden, and the Netherlands are said to be free of censorship) and reload it with the files from your computer. On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Eschatoon Magic wrote: >If you do not have really special requirements, staying with Blogger >is a safe bet. Google is not going down anytime soon. Also, it is >evident that Google is implementing all the separate pieces of the >ultimate social network, and they could announce their final >integration any day now. At that point Blogger would be automatically >integrated in the Google de-facto monopoly on the Internet. > >On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Max More wrote: >> Since I'm planning to re-launch my blog, I'd like to also decide whether to >> stick with Blogger or move to a different platform. If you have any opinions >> about the relative merits of Blogger, Wordpress, Metacafe, etc., I'd like to >> hear them. >> >> I'm looking for a modest degree of customization, perhaps the ability to >> share the blog with one or two other people, and (very importantly) >> longevity in the platform -- I don't want to have to move everything a >> couple of years from now because the organization supporting the platform >> has gone away. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Max From spike66 at att.net Thu May 7 21:06:30 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:06:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <790144.86965.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <790144.86965.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7D5D786A45B14343A089A5BCA98D2A3F@spike> > Dan, aspiring free loader wrote: ... > I believe this partly accounts for the usual polical divide > between the species of fascists in America -- dubbed > "liberals" (a misnomer, since the term original meant > something very close to libertarian) and "conservatives." > ... The term conservative *is now becoming* something very close to libertarian. Isn't that interesting how the cycle goes? Dan, thanks for a good post, very thought provoking. We may get hung up on the liberal or conservative approach to things like drug legality, abortion legality, gun ownership restrictions, etc, when really all that stuff fades to meaningless in comparison to the really really big divide that is developing between US political right and left recently: how much government should be spending. Compared to the spending, none of that other stuff really matters. Rather, gun ownership does matter, for without that right, we will not have the rest of them. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu May 7 21:46:22 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:12:54AM -0700, Dan wrote: >> The key point is: it's forced.? The whole system >> is based on coercion > > There's a thing called the Prisoner's Dilemma.? It's > sort of solvable by > tit-for-tat.? Then there's the multiperson prisoner's > dilemma. I don't think so.? Prisoner's Dilemma's result from the inability of participants to signal each other and to depend on anything more than each participant trying to maximize some specific reward.? In the real world, people can signal each other and they have different notions of what constitutes a reward.? On the latter, for example, some of us want to live in a world with lower coercion and will forego at least some potential near term rewards from coercion for this -- and even suffer some specific punishments for it. It's also the case that one can't do interpersonal comparisons of value, so specific rewards can be measured between people.? This is why some will work harder or longer for what seems to be the same objective reward than others.? This goes for monetary rewards and all other rewards -- even ones some people might think are not rewards at all. > Coercion, whether by government or very powerful social > norms, seems the only way of solving it.? I would not put the two together: government and social norms.? The latter are really just norms some people -- sometimes a majority -- hold.? They are not necessarily coercive and, even if wrong, should be addressed non-coercively.? To use an analogy, if someone holds the wrong theory about how life came to be, you try to persuade him -- you don't seize his property or person or take his life.? (Recall my earlier mentioning about virtues in relation to libertarianism: justice is the only virtue that intersects with coercion.? If someone does something unjust -- as in and only as in violating rights -- then she has initiated force.? The negation of any other virtue is not the same.? E.g., if someone is unkind, one can't beat kindness into him.? So, in that case, one must seek a non-coercive remedy, such as ostracism.) > Yes, choice is reduced, > because free individual > choice leads to us all following our individual > self-interest to an > outcome that makes us all worse off; only uniform and > enforced > commitment lets the cooperative option be stable.? > Thus taxes (and > possibly draft) for defense, and law enforcement, and > welfare, and > social insurance, and insurer-of-last-resort, and pollution > control functions. Actually, it's questionable that everyone is better off.? Given the inability to do interpersonal comparisons of well-being and of value -- how can one tell, for instance, that one person is better off by some specific amount to judge this is worth harming another person by some other specific amount -- this is, at best, a guess.? In fact, the best way to tell if people are better off is to allow them to freely choose or not choose.? If they all decide to go along with it, then they all at least expect to be better off.? If they continue to go along with it -- that is, they are allowed to choose not to but keep choosing, then I believe it's safe to safe they think they're better off given the options they're aware of. And this is where coercion can be seen to fail.? At least one person is obviously made worse off: the person who is coerced.? We can know this because she or he is forced to do what she or he would otherwise would not have done. And in the long run, I think it's more Extropian to keep the ability to choose open rather than sacrificing it -- either allowing others to choose for us or pretending we're so wise as to choose for others -- for some supposed immediate gain and thereby establishing the notion that whoever has enough power should likewise always take away freedom whenever it seems expedient.? In fact, I'd rather establish the "powerful social norm" that coercion is almost always if not always bad and should be avoided -- both because this makes sense and the opposite empirically leads to the kind of mess and morass we live under now. >> and on perpetuating coercion: you were robbed, so >> you're entitled. >> Where does your entitlement come from?? Well, >> from robbing others to >> keep the system going.? From an Extropian >> perspective, is this the > > Or from a social contract: people finding a compact that > guarantees a > minimum more attractive than a compact that guarantees a > lack of > explicit coercion but otherwise provides no security. This is pure fantasy.? No such contract exists.? All do not consent to it; it's merely a fabrication used to justify whatever the person using it feels is right, but won't allow people to actually freely choose. > Or from the fact > that the unequal distribution of property is pretty morally > tainted if you look at the history, > and ongoing redistributive taxes > are less > disruptive than a sweeping act of reform, which might well > destabilize > by the next generation anyway. There is nothing wrong or un-Extropian _per se_ with inequality.? However, even without an unjustified egalitarian presumption, property rights have been trampled (sometimes in the name of equality) and this must be addressed. Regarding how reform should be attempted within the present system, I disagree that perpetuating or expanding the system is the correct approach.? I think as libertarian ideas slowly spread, we will slowly evolve away from the coercive system.? A more radical approach is not likely to succeed simply because most people don't understand libertarian principles -- even if they default to practicing them successfully in most of their lives (i.e., most people do not initiate force in most cases to get what they want and live their lives) -- and lack imagination to see how a non-command system will work.? (In a sense, just as people find it hard to grasp evolution -- how life can self-organize -- they are unable to understand how free people can self-organize via markets and other voluntary institutions.? They can't, for the most part, understand how order can arise without some central dictator or planning board telling everyone or everything what to do.) >> kind of thinking and system we want to perpetuate? > > I quote a friend of mine: > > === > I sometimes make the argument that the world *is* a > libertarian > "paradise". There is, after all, no world government. You > want to talk > about "private" police forces and infrastructure companies? > We call them > "nations". There are many, and they offer a variety of > "packages". Some > do well and others do not. > > "What," I say to the spluttering Libertarian, "You want to > talk about > hegemony, bundling, required contracts, the importance of > colocation, > and natural monopoly? Those aren't very Libertarian points > to make." > > I then argue that apparently nation-states are the > equilibrium result of > anarchy. Good news: Libertarianism "works"! (Well, insofar > as our > nation-states "work".) "You're absolutely right; people > will, and have, > self-organized to the degree they see necessary. Now what's > your point, > again?" > === Yes, I've heard the notion that nation states -- coercive entities -- are in anarchic equilibrium. My belief is the world is not and never will be in equilibrium.* There might be some stable states -- no pun intended. But nation states, while they might be anarchic between themselves to some degree, they don't play that way internally. Also, the argument that things are now as people want them has some merit -- in the sense that few are rioting over there being monocentric legal orders. (Monocentric legal order: fancy term for a legal order where a monopoly controls legal rulings. This is distinguished from the polycentric legal order or anarchy.) However, in the same way, one would not argue that current scientific theory is great and shouldn't be improved on because no one is up in arms about it and everything, on the surface, appears to be working smoothly. Finally, the spontaneous order between nation states is not libertarian at all. Nation states do not eschew initiating force -- either against their subjects or against foreigners. (Libertarianism, too, does not recognize nation states themselves as having rights, so there can be no analogy between say a person and a nation state in terms of the nation state having rights to life, liberty, and property. In that sense, the strict libertarian view is nation states have no right to exist period.) Yes, libertarianism followed consistently is anarchic, but anarchy per se is not necessarily libertarian. (In the same way, people who argue for some form of government don't usually believe any form of government is okay. They usually have an ideal or a range of governments in mind and find fault with other forms. The practical question to ask though is whether the particular form someone advocates is somewhat stable and feasible.**) Regards, Dan * Not news to most libertarians. Even a late comer to the table such as me has written on this. In regards to the false view that legal standards require a government to enforce, I wrote: "Current nation states agree on standards even when they maintain their sovereignty. Surely, we do get some nations who do not agree to such, just as we have dissenters inside nation states who do not agree with a given nation's government's standards... But this disagreement does not mean that no agreement is possible. The fact that nation states form alliances, sign and enforce on themselves treaties and agreements as well as form transnational institutions at least demonstrates that an overarching government is not necessary." This is from "Anarchism, Minarchism, and Freedom" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Anarchism.html And another self-quote, if my vanity can be forgiven once more: "One can imagine a polycentric one that is probably many a minarchist?s view of anarchism: civil war or the international system of today. In the latter case, there is no international government, so the legal order is polycentric, but not the type most anarchists would applaud. (Waltz 1979) Note that this condition is not completely lawless as even between nation states spontaneous orders can arise ? as well as planned ones such as treaties, agreements, alliances, and international institutions." This is from "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification" at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html I hope the links will still work, but my site is soon going down for good. Alas, soon I'll be a charity case again. :/ ** From my "Free Market Anarchism: A Justification": "I believe that one can be objective here by asking a few questions that won't prejudice the issue. For example: would a polycentric or a monocentric legal order work better at rights enforcement? (It could be that the answer to these questions is neither ? that both work equally well, as good or as bad.) Which type of order is more stable? Do different types of cultures fit better into one type of order or the other? How do such orders evolve over time? Are there historical examples of either worth considering? Can either be applied to today?s world? How do we get to either from current social arrangements? (It might be that there is no easy path to either or that one is much easier to accomplish than the other, so we should take the easier path.)" Some had already addressed these questions before I asked them, but usually only from the libertarian anarchist perspective. It'd be nice to see some minarchists and non-libertarians who are well-versed in anarchism address it. My experience is the minarchists and non-libertarians are not so well versed. Even highly educated ones tend to just make up some points and not study their opponents' literature. A good example of this is: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Public-Thinking-Political-Economy/dp/1845422406 The articles from the older edition -- from the 1970s -- show these intellectuals pontificating on anarchism without even thinking to read the works of Molinari, Rothbard, and the like. Thankfully, Stringham updated the book and the newer articles address this lacuna. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 7 23:11:50 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 16:11:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> BillK wrote: > On 5/7/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Honestly, there is something quite humorous about >> a modern society where someone says "X", and the >> response is quick inhalation by everyone, the >> police are called, and immediately cart off the >> offender. Why? "Oh, because he said X!". >> >> Didn't arresting people for their beliefs and for >> their statements go out with the coming of the >> enlightenment? > > The range of 'free speech' is very wide. > > Some just makes you obnoxious. A very small selection will get you arrested. > > The noisy neighbor problem is just his 'free speech', but it reduces > your quality of life. I would certainly call that aggression. And in > most jurisdictions you can take legal action to restrict his behavior. No offense, but it does seem that you systematically invoke examples where it's not the beliefs and the content of statements that are at issue. Here, for example, you conflate a noisy neighbor with, oh, say me expressing disdain for some religious movement (but doing so politely and quietly), or me wondering out loud whether or not a certain policy by should be enacted or not, or me wondering whether in fact some claimed historical incident in fact did occur. You see the difference? (Yes, I'm the first to say that neighbors ought not have the legal right to play very loud music, or behave in ways that annoy their neighbors---it's just that the expression of beliefs or ideas (suitably done) ought not be prohibited. Period.) > If you try to board a plane while making jokes > about bombs and terrorists, you will be arrested. As we slowly recover from the state of war mentality, this too should cease. If not before. But again---it's besides the point. An airline in principle should be able (in my opinion) to prohibit swearing, or the making of jokes about the company president's wife, or whatever. This is totally different from suppressing political dissent or making (at proper times that don't inconvenience anyone) unpopular historical or philosophical statements *illegal*. > What is theoretically your 'right' has to be > restricted by the pressure of living with other > people. In many cases, just walking out the room > will be sufficient, when someone starts loudly > proclaiming strange opinions. Leave them to the > company of their own beliefs. Yes, that's more like it! But to make such statements *illegal*? Are you really sure that that's what you want? > But social behavior laws are made to attempt to raise the security and > quality of life of society. If you want anarchy and the right to > behave exactly as you please, Again, behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of ideas another. Lee > then you have to find a society that > agrees with you. If you remain in a > society with different rules, then > you will get into trouble for breaking > the rules. That's life. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 7 23:40:42 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 18:40:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> At 04:11 PM 5/7/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: >Again, behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of >ideas another. The core problem in this dispute seems to be your (and some others') adherence to this claim. Despite the recommendations of Enlightenment philosophes to defend to the death the liberty of everyone to say whatever they please, this proposed dichotomy is just plain wrong. Voicing an idea *is* a behavior, and in some circumstances can be an incendiary and even fatal behavior. Whether one privileges free speech over those risks and consequences is another matter, but we have to start with the recognition of human reality. People are not dispassionate brains in bottles, even when they're doing science. To quote the blessed Lewis Thomas: "Scientists at work are rather like young animals engaged in savage play. When they are near an answer their hair stands on end, they sweat, they are awash in their own adrenalin." (Lewis Thomas, The Lives of a Cell. Notes of a Biology Watcher, 1974) Dr. Thomas was an experimentalist as well as an administrator, not a theorist. How much more savage and awash in adrenalin, then, when humans overhear others "merely voicing ideas" concerning their genocide, for example? (Jesus Christ, was it really necessary for me to spend several minutes writing that?) Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 8 02:50:08 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:50:08 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/7 Dan : > Let's put this in the fashionable meme-speak of some in this audience. ?:) ?I actually think no or very few people would really die. ?(It should be pointed out that the current system -- paying some able-bodied NON-retired people to NOT work -- does not result in zero deaths. ?So the choice is not between a welfare state world where everyone lives forever and gets a good education, decent medical care, but a few anal libertarians are unhappy and a libertarian world where hordes of people live in the worst poverty and the few happy rich people only have to worry about tripping over the corpes of the downtrodden.*) ?Rather, the lazy meme would start to die out. ?(I doubt it'd go extinct.) ?Individuals themselves would learn -- er, lose that meme. ?The fact that any cost is experienced -- cost in terms of the agent NOT in terms of money** -- will give an incentive to change the behavior and perhaps even the thought patterns. It doesn't actually work out that way. Most developing nations have poor social security and other government services, but it doesn't spur them to greater productivity. Instead, people do die, of easily preventable or treatable conditions, sometimes even of starvation. On the other hand, laziness and not wanting to work is not a problem in countries where there are extensive social security systems, or there would be a labour shortage. The only places where this does seem to be a problem is in wealthy, resource-rich countries which import labour, especially for the more menial tasks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 8 03:11:07 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:11:07 +0800 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> References: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/8 spike : > But if someone had some mysterious source of money as a teen, they may not > get it that when one snorts fifty bucks worth of powder, someone somewhere > is supplying that money with honest hard work. ?Might have been his > grandparents, who didn't know. ?It probably wasn't his mother, for she was a > welfare queen, and if so, someone somewhere is working her ass off to supply > that welfare for her to give to her son to waste that way. ?But good chance > if a teen is doing cocaine, they are either stealing or dealing. ?Or both. > In which case, they won't get the evil of spreading the wealth around. ?If > one doesn't work for their money, they cannot understand. Exactly, and that's the problem with rich people. You work hard as a beekeper, they keep the profits, doing less work themselves per dollar "earned" than welfare recipients, and having much less need for it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 8 04:04:43 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:04:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A03AF5B.9040707@rawbw.com> Rafal wrote: > Stathis wrote: > >> Dan wrote: >> >>> For almost all of my childhood, I lived in >>> poor neighborhoods around the US. And by poor, >>> I mean many if not most people were on some >>> form of public assistance. >> >> And it would have been better if they had been >> allowed to starve, denied education and health >> care etc.? > > ### Yes. They would be a lesson to others. Work hard, don't do drugs, > keep your nose clean, and you'll make it. Screw up, over and over and > over again, and, well, screw you. So often we wonder, "How did we get into this mess?", or "What is the cause of poverty?", or "why can't third world nations overcome their problems?", and so on. We too seldom inquire as to "how did anyone become wealthy in the first place?". "How did any society succeed to the point that we have something against which to compare so-called failed societies?" Stathis did write >> And it would have been better if they had been >> allowed to starve, denied education and health >> care etc.? Remember that this is what happened originally. This was the natural state. This is the default condition. We must focus on how any society rose above this default condition, and what makes it possible for any society to do so. The culture had to become "strong" enough so that a sufficient number of people chose to behave differently. This was accomplished, historically, in precisely the way that Rafal indicates, namely by those who failed to adhere to high standards becoming examples of what not to do. This is how probity evolved. When you loosen these conditions, things pretty quickly go back to the default state. And unfortunately, it seems the object of most of the world's governments to accomplish precisely this, along with a lot of shortsighted people seemingly unaware of the crucial role played by incentive. That the governments wish to do this falls out naturally from their desire to achieve more power (a government being a collection of abnormally ambitious human beings). That many people do not seem to understand or appreciate that lax conditions breed irresponsibility is the mystery to me. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 8 04:24:56 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:24:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A03B418.5050807@rawbw.com> Damien writes: > Lee wrote: > >> Again, behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of >> ideas another. > > The core problem in this dispute seems to be your (and some others') > adherence to this claim. Despite the recommendations of Enlightenment > philosophes to defend to the death the liberty of everyone to say > whatever they please, this proposed dichotomy is just plain wrong. I have asked for historical examples. Do you have any? Or could this just be theorizing? And recall that I am not asking for examples of speech that have nothing to do with ideas or beliefs. > Voicing an idea *is* a behavior, and in some circumstances can be an > incendiary and even fatal behavior. Catherine the Great needed to suppress anti-government ideas by Pugachev; any number of autocrats in pre-democratic nations needed to suppress ideas. Can you find any examples in democratic countries where the suppression of statements of belief was a good idea? Do you suppose that the Smith Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act or the Sedition Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts were positive moves? Can belief really be *effectively* suppressed by making certain pronouncements illegal? > Whether one privileges free speech over those risks and consequences is > another matter, but we have to start with the recognition of human > reality. So far as I know, your "risks and consequences" are merely hypothetical. I crave an example. Look, if there is some danger that some bad idea (e.g. "let's round up all the right-wingers and crucify them") really is going to get traction, how can you possibly think that making such an utterance illegal will help? It will only draw attention. For example, suppose that the American government suddenly made talk of the Moon Hoax illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations What would be the effect? > People are not dispassionate brains in bottles, even when > they're doing science... Of course they're not. But in Stefano's fine analysis your argument depends on three distinct claims: - "WE know better what is right/true/correct/better to believe in any event"; - "to let those with different opinions speak, and/or to let other people form their own view on it would be too dangerous"; - "the danger can effectively be avoided by the attempt of enforcing a prohibition". So this is why you wish the government to silence dissent on some subjects? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 8 04:32:25 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:32:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Silly In-Reply-To: <1241619735_11365@s6.cableone.net> References: <310444.43819.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1241619735_11365@s6.cableone.net> Message-ID: <4A03B5D9.5020600@rawbw.com> At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: > Will cryonics even work? And even if it does, it > depends on everything going right until you get > revived. If, say, the laws are changed to completely > confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal death -- > so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the political > or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- then > you might be left to rot. Yes, all these terrible things could happen. But if you were faced with imminent death, just what choice is there? Does your logical argument boil down to "well, something could go wrong"? > I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this dude: > > http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust That's a lot of posts, from a long time ago. What's your current take now? That chance are that cryonics is going to be made illegal sometime soon, and that those frozen must die? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 8 04:44:24 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 21:44:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The choice wasn't death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> Dan wrote: >> And it would have been better if they had been allowed to >> starve, denied education and health care etc.? > > I don't believe that was the alternative. The people > I knew were, as I pointed out (at least as far I could > tell or as they reported to me), able-bodied. It > seemed to me they chose the dole over work -- not > that they chose the dole over death. (Regarding > the latter, I don't think I'd fault someone for > choosing the dole over death.) I myself came close to having that choice. At age 29, I was a retired chess bum/teacher with no marketable skills. At the same time, many busy, eager Social Security office workers were looking for people just like me to put on the dole. One of the greatest strokes of luck in my life is that they didn't find me in time. So I had to leave southern California, all my chess pals, all the distractions of life that I had accumulated in my misspent youth, and focus on making a living. Thank goodness. Heretofore the government has been destroying people's incentives and lives by a sort of "mass bombing" of funds, especially into lower income urban areas, in order to maximize the number of victims. What the government needs is "smart bombs", i.e., means of locating people such myself decades ago that can be targeted when they're on the brink of having to make sacrifices to become productive. Certain bureaucrats at the Social Security office (and many, many other departments) need more intelligent ways to seek out and find people on the border of personal responsibility, instead of wasting all that money (in so many cases) on people whose lives are already wrecked. Lee > Also, I'm not sure how they were denied education > or health care. In the places I lived, education > was mandatory, usually up to the age of 16 -- > though I was specifically talking about able-bodied > adults. Also, healthcare was provided through > Medicaid and similar programs -- so it was free. > I wasn't talking about that either. I wasn't > talking about people who were working and choose > to accept government education and healthcare. > I was talking about people who were NOT working, > who could work, and opted for the easy payment > of a government check over finding and keeping > a job. > My general point was merely what I saw when > people had the alternative not to work. > Many of them chose not to work. They didn't > do so so that they could continue their education, > pursue some artistic project, or something along > those lines. > > Regards, > > Dan From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 8 07:01:00 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:01:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/7 Dan : > But no one is forced to pay insurance companies (save for when governments mandate insurance). ?In other words, the other insurance clients are not non-consenting third parties. ?The taxpayers are. ?This is why insurance companies don't punish people when they don't buy a policy, but government do punish those who don't pay taxes. ?(Yeah, not all the time, but the general rule is there are penalties ranging from death to all lesser penalties for non-payment of taxes.) Sometimes we are forced to pay for insurance. I am forced to pay for insurance on an apartment I own. I also have to pay for renovations to the building if the owners vote for it, even though I don't like what they propose to do or I can't afford it. If I don't pay, I can be sued or ultimately imprisoned. The argument is, if I don't like the rules I can sell the apartment or try to change the rules through my vote in the owners' corporation. Is that still coercion? > There's a vast literature in libertarian thought that rejects social contract theory. ?The whole notion of a social contract -- at least as historically presented -- rests on a flawed analogy between the expressly consented to contracts and tacitly consented ones. ?In the former, the parties actually agree to terms; in the latter, it seems, the social contract theorist merely makes up terms and then manufactures consent needed for her or his pet theory. ?In fact, while express contracts -- not without problems, but easily understood -- often make it clear who agrees to do what*, tacit ones, like social contracts, make it possible to get anything at all. ?For instance, people have used tacit consent to argue that people who don't openly rebel against a murderous regime tacitly support that regime. ?In other words, that notion can justify anything, so it justifies nothing and makes a shambles of the notion of contract. ?(Ditto for Buchanan's notions on > ?virtual unaminity. ?As someone once pointed out, wherever you read "virtual unanimity" one should, to make sense of the passage, replace it with "lack of unanimity.":) Why is the social contract "tacit"? Would it make it any better if I signed a piece of paper when I entered a country as a visitor or migrant explicitly agreeing to abide by its laws, including the procedures for changing the laws? Admittedly, I don't have a choice which country I'm born in, but I don't see a way around that problem. >> No, but I don't have the option not to pay and keep >> doing whatever I was doing in the case of every >> commercial transaction. > > That's my point. ?Now, were you to be placed in a world where you had the option -- the choice to NOT pay and keep doing whatever it is -- and then chose to make the payment, then you could proclaim you paid for it. > > In the same way, when I take a trip by plane, I know I'm paying several taxes -- i.e., I'm being robbed -- many of which are hidden. ?I don't pretend that this is not robbery and know, were I not forced to pay them, I probably would use that money for something else. ?(And, no, it wouldn't be to act as a miser; I actually do donate to charities -- though that's beside the point. ?I'd rather decide, though, where my money goes -- rather than some political elite and its corporate sponsors deciding. ?And, yes, some of my decisions will be stupid in retrospect, but at least they'll be my decisions and I can learn from them. ?At best, all one can do if the political elites make a wrong call is whine about it (or leave the country; you know how easy that is for most people and how unlikely it is over, say, a tiny theft here and there).) > > [big snip of material you didn't comment on, but I'd like to know what you thought about it just the same] Sorry, I'm travelling at the moment and lost the original email. Perhaps you could resend it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 8 07:10:53 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:10:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/7 : > I don't think so.? Prisoner's Dilemma's result from the inability of participants to signal each other and to depend on anything more than each participant trying to maximize some specific reward.? In the real world, people can signal each other and they have different notions of what constitutes a reward.? On the latter, for example, some of us want to live in a world with lower coercion and will forego at least some potential near term rewards from coercion for this -- and even suffer some specific punishments for it. The Prisoner's Dilemma is relevant to taxation. It is possible that there is some project, costing money, which would give everyone utility greater than the amount they paid. However, each person would be even better off if they didn't contribute, since the project is of a type which benefits the cheats as well as well as the contributors. But if everyone cheated, the project would not go ahead, and hence everyone would lose. So, when it comes to the vote, everyone would vote to be forced to contribute - since that would mean everyone else would also be forced to contribute (a better outcome still would be that everyone except me is forced to contribute, but that vote obviously isn't going to pass). This is what a tax is. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 8 10:53:28 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:53:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <4A03AF5B.9040707@rawbw.com> References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> <4A03AF5B.9040707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > We too seldom inquire as to "how did anyone > become wealthy in the first place?". "How > did any society succeed to the point that > we have something against which to compare > so-called failed societies?" > > Remember that this is what happened originally. > This was the natural state. This is the default > condition. We must focus on how any society rose > above this default condition, and what makes it > possible for any society to do so. > > The culture had to become "strong" enough so > that a sufficient number of people chose to > behave differently. This was accomplished, > historically, in precisely the way that Rafal > indicates, namely by those who failed to adhere > to high standards becoming examples of what > not to do. This is how probity evolved. > No, it didn't. In early societies, violence was the secret sauce, with slavery close behind. People got rich by using force to take it from weaker people / nations. Then using more force (legal system, armies, etc.) to keep control. The idea of democracy and working to better yourself is very recent. And mostly it is not allowed to interfere with the existing rich and powerful classes. (Some exceptions, of course). BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 8 11:11:50 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 19:11:50 +0800 Subject: [ExI] The choice wasn't death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/8 Lee Corbin : > I myself came close to having that choice. At age > 29, I was a retired chess bum/teacher with no > marketable skills. At the same time, many busy, > eager Social Security office workers were looking > for people just like me to put on the dole. One > of the greatest strokes of luck in my life is that > they didn't find me in time. > > So I had to leave southern California, all my chess > pals, all the distractions of life that I had > accumulated in my misspent youth, and focus on > making a living. Thank goodness. Are you saying you would have been content with the dole had it been available? Then to be consistent you would have obtained a part-time job had the dole not been available, i.e. one requiring the minimum effort to obtain the same income as the dole. -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri May 8 11:16:37 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 20:46:37 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Blogging platforms In-Reply-To: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200905071601.n47G1SZs014609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0905080416n3960cf04t3c4964aeea2b9ac5@mail.gmail.com> 2009/5/8 Max More : > Since I'm planning to re-launch my blog, I'd like to also decide whether to > stick with Blogger or move to a different platform. If you have any opinions > about the relative merits of Blogger, Wordpress, Metacafe, etc., I'd like to > hear them. > > I'm looking for a modest degree of customization, perhaps the ability to > share the blog with one or two other people, and (very importantly) > longevity in the platform -- I don't want to have to move everything a > couple of years from now because the organization supporting the platform > has gone away. > > Thanks, > > Max > > > ------------------------------------- > Max More, Ph.D. > Strategic Philosopher > Extropy Institute Founder > www.maxmore.com > max at maxmore.com > ------------------------------------- I'm a fan of Wordpress. It's nice software to use, you can get a hassle-free blog at http://wordpress.com. Importantly, it's open source, and thus there are import and export functions. So, if you ever want to move it to another wordpress host, or host it yourself, you can. That's an unusual ability in this software-as-a-service world. -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 12:58:49 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 14:58:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 4.50, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/7 Dan: > It doesn't actually work out that way. Most developing nations have > poor social security and other government services, but it doesn't > spur them to greater productivity. Most developing nations have not the same "resources" like the developed ones. And many, until yestersay, were leaded by socialist governments. They started developing with 10% yearly growth when they moved from socialism to a freer economy. For them, social security and other government services are luxuries they can not afford. > Instead, people do die, of easily > preventable or treatable conditions, sometimes even of starvation. Usually, people die of starvation only in war ravaged or government ravaged places. What welfare state do you want in Zimbabwe? Or in Libya? The welfare state there is conceived as a tool to keep the people quiet enough that the police can keep the unsatisfied down. > On the other hand, laziness and not wanting to work is not a problem > in countries where there are extensive social security systems, or > there would be a labour shortage. You mix causes and effects. Ad you see things in a small time frame. Developed countries can afford a limited social security and some government service free for all (or at politic prices) because they became developed before these politics were so extended and costly. Then you don't look at the right time frame and at the changing conditions. Until a few decades ago, the people in the developing nations (Europe, US, etc.) worked until they died. When retirement was introduced in Italy people retired at 60 and died at 65 (average). Now they retire at 65 (max - average is less than 60) and die at 80. This change the equation. Add that people before of this would work from 15 to 60 when now they work from 25 to 65 (young people is often jobless, like women). As the social services grew the economy started to slow down. Italy grew at 10% rates until 1960, then the Center-Left governments started to form and the rates went to 7-8%, then in the 1970 the rates went around 5% and to 3% in the 1980. In the 1990 they were 2%-0% and now they are negatives. In between the government moved from taking the 27% of the GDP of Italy in the 1970 to the 43% now (computed with a 20% of the economy in the black market, so the rates paid by the "honests" is over 50%). I have no numbers for the years before 1970, but I would suppose the burden of taxes was lower than 20%. An example of socialism is in Finland the fact that the car outside the social housing are bigger, more costly than the cars out of private housing. Why? because the people in social housing have more money available for cars as they spend less for housing. The same is true in Italy, where they sell more furs in Sicily than in Lombardy. In Italy, a large part of the political discourse, in the last twenty years, is about how much taxes are paid by the North regions that go to the South Regions for welfare. This helped the people there? Not much; but surely helped Mafia, Camorra and N'drangeta to expand their business. Welfare to the mobsters. Mirco From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 8 13:16:17 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Cryo-problems/was Re: Silly Message-ID: <645535.16801.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > At 06:08 AM 5/5/2009, Dan wrote: > >> Will cryonics even work?? And even if it does, >> it >> depends on everything going right until you get >> revived.? If, say, the laws are changed to >> completely >> confiscated all your funds and wealth after legal >> death -- >> so that other, "wiser" people (i.e., those in the >> political >> or corporate elites) decide where your wealth goes -- >> then you might be left to rot. > > Yes, all these terrible things could happen. > But if you were faced with imminent death, > just what choice is there? > > Does your logical argument boil down to "well, > something could go wrong"? I was only responding to Keith's seeming attitude of "Death's already been solved, there's nothing to worry about, so let's discuss other things." My point is not that cryonics is bunk or that it's better to be dead and not frozen, but merely that the problem hasn't been solved and I think anyone who pretends otherwise is making a big mistake. >> I wonder if you've read the posts on CryoNet by this >> dude: >> >> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=daniel%20ust > > That's a lot of posts, from a long time ago. IIRC, CryoNet shut down soon after. > What's your current take now? That chance are > that cryonics is going to be made illegal > sometime soon, and that those frozen must > die? I don't know how, based on my recent statements or on my posts on Cryonet, you came up with that question. My current remains that, at best, cryonics is a gamble period -- and a big one at that. I hope none of us have to take that gamble in the sense that we all live to a better solution, but I don't think it's blatantly irrational to take that bet. (Of course, in the end, it depends on one's personal values. After all, cryonics is NOT cost-less.) Regards, Dan From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 13:31:10 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 15:31:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60905012219g42a8db94m74e14940be755bea@mail.gmail.com> <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> Message-ID: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 5.11, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > Exactly, and that's the problem with rich people. You work hard as a > beekeper, they keep the profits, doing less work themselves per dollar > "earned" than welfare recipients, and having much less need for it. I don't understand how Obama, in his misspent youth, could be called "rich". I know, due to my job, a few people that are poor and on welfare. Usually their attitude is that we owe them what they want. The problem is never how much money someone have, but how much he worked to gain it or how much he was teach to respect things and value them. I remember an interview with Susanna Agnelli (you know, the people owning FIAT); she recall how stern her mother was when, as a child, she used cloths one time only (this is probably around the early 1950). All of the heirs of the house Agnelli, before becoming managers must enter the production like as common workers (in disguise) and work there for a few months. The same could be told about Berlusconi, Bill Gates and many others. The largest example are the Indians that was throw out of Uganda. They went from a poor group without nothing (they lost all there) to one of the most wealthy in one generation both in UK and in the US. Your fallacy about rich people doing less than poor workers. The rich people, if they don't use the government to give themselves wealth and power, risk their money, time, lives sometimes, to work for themselves. They have the responsibility of themselves and of the workers they manage. When they fail, usually they pay their debts and move on. They don't call for others to pay for them. I don't know if you understand the difference. Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 13:53:40 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 15:53:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 9.01, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/7 Dan: > >> But no one is forced to pay insurance companies (save for when >> governments mandate insurance). In other words, the other >> insurance clients are not non-consenting third parties. The >> taxpayers are. This is why insurance companies don't punish people >> when they don't buy a policy, but government do punish those who >> don't pay taxes. (Yeah, not all the time, but the general rule is >> there are penalties ranging from death to all lesser penalties for >> non-payment of taxes.) > > Sometimes we are forced to pay for insurance. I am forced to pay for > insurance on an apartment I own. I also have to pay for renovations > to the building if the owners vote for it, even though I don't like > what they propose to do or I can't afford it. If I don't pay, I can > be sued or ultimately imprisoned. The argument is, if I don't like > the rules I can sell the apartment or try to change the rules through > my vote in the owners' corporation. Is that still coercion? It is not, if it was in a contract given you before you bought the apartment. Bad contract I would say. The government imprisoning you is coercion. Laws forcing you to do renovations against your will are coercion. > Why is the social contract "tacit"? Would it make it any better if I > signed a piece of paper when I entered a country as a visitor or > migrant explicitly agreeing to abide by its laws, including the > procedures for changing the laws? Yes. Because the migrants could be sued and could not claim "ignorance", "their customs are different", "religious duties", etc. > Admittedly, I don't have a choice > which country I'm born in, but I don't see a way around that > problem. What is the problem? Until you don't write your name under the dotted line, you would not be a "citizen" but only a "guest" of your parents. You do wrong, they pay for you. When you accept the burden of citizenship you will receive the privileges of citizenship. There would be not a problem if people were differentiated in groups: 1) Citizens 2) Citizen's children 3) Citizen's guests (probably with subtypes) The difference is that the (2) would become (1) only if they want and not would be forced to become (1) when they become 18 years old. Some laws limiting the rights of (1) would not be applicable on (2) and (3). Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 14:38:05 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:38:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> Il 04/05/2009 0.22, Damien Broderick ha scritto: The problem with inheritance is the problem with gifts. If we ban inheritance we must ban gifts. Gifts are unearned, so they must be wrong as inheritances, I suppose. But welfare is, in essence, a gift. An gift paid by mostly unwilling people. Rich people have not a problem to pass the large part of their wealth to their heirs bypassing laws. The inheritance laws hit the poor or the middle class proportionally more or the unlucky rich that die prematurely. People, usually, don't work so hard only for themselves, but also for their offspring. You take away the inheritance and they will stop working so much and will start to consume more or work less, or will find a way to pass their wealth to their heirs anyway. Mirco From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 8 14:55:03 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] External costs Message-ID: <641043.57515.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 4/21/09, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Dan > wrote: > >> ** ?Positive externalities are not really a problem, >> since they violate no one's rights and the source of a >> positive externality can always decide to not provide it -- >> if it costs said source too much. > > ### Not sure about that. This is one of the strongest > arguments > against anarchocapitalism that I know. The free rider > problem in the > provision of defense against large-scale territorial > aggression is > difficult, unless you for example introduce rogues who > would allowed > to prey on defectors and thus persuade them to buy bundled > protection > contracts. Tricky. I do think it's doable, that's why I am > an > anarchocapitalist, but it's not easy. I disagree.? First, positive externalities are subjective.? For instance, you might live next to a bakery that gives off the aroma of fresh bread and other delectables for a good chunk of the day.? And this might be something you like -- and, therefore, experience as a positive benefit.? As you're not paying for it, it would be considered a positive externality.? The bakery cannot charge you for this benefit. Yet another person might experience this as a nuisance.? (Property rights might settle the issue in the fashion of who was there first.? For instance, imagine the bakery was in the neighborhood first and has been there for decades -- in which case, some might say the bakery "homesteaded" the right* to give off baking odors in the neighborhood and, if you don't like it, you'll have to negotiate with the bakery to get it to stop BUT you can't use coercion against it.? Imagine the opposite case: you're there first and the bakery's the new kid on the block.? In that case, some might say that you have the right to the pre-bakery condition and the bakery has to negotiate with you for the right to "pollute" the air with baking aromas -- or, at the extreme, must stop.? Note that, in either case, there is no failure of property rights or the market.? Also, it's likely that people who really detest baking smells won't move next to a bakery in the first place; bakeries, too, that want to avoid going to court will likely also want to avoid moving into neighborhoods where someone hates baking smells enough to take them to court.) Second, positive externalities extend out in all directions and do NOT necessarily impose a cost on the producer.? In the case of the bakery, that you enjoy baking smells really doesn't any additional cost to the bakery.? The bakery might still enjoy a handsome profit without even knowing that you open up your passive ventilation apparatus every morning so that baking odors will waft in for you to enjoy.? And if it really bothers the owner that much, she might find ways to deny the odors to you. This applies generally.? Me using the same language as you might yield a positive benefit to countless others reading this.? Yet this doesn't diminish the profit you and I get from being able to understand each other.? I don't fret thinking, "Keith, Lee, and Natasha might read and understand this without making a side payment to me, so I'm losing out in life."? (Note that this would also apply in security examples.? For instance, during the Napoleonic Wars, it could be said that Britain was a free rider during most of the conflict, allowing France's continental enemies to do most of the heavy lifting.? (This is generally the case for off-shore powers who can sit out continental conflicts or enter them late after the belligerents have worn each other down.? Another example is US entry into both World Wars.? The US didn't send troops over to defend Belgium in WW1 or France in WW2, but waited until Japan attacked and then Germany (idiotically, some would say, because its treaty with Japan did not obligate it to declare war against any nation Japan attacked, but only in defense) declared war on the US.)? Likewise, a neighbor who is always about his home, working on the yard and such, might deter burglars from making an attempts on his neighbors' homes.? In both cases, positive externalities, in the mainstream economist's view, are generated.) Third, from the work of Walter Block and others, it seems clear that the definition of "public good" -- the epitome of a positive externality -- is troublesome if not incoherent.? This is because any positive externality ultimately can be internalized by the producer stopping production, negotiating with the third party, or by changing production in such a way as to limit the positive externality.? (All of this depends on the producer here seeing the positive externality as a problem.? In case of the bakery above, the bakery owner might not care that you enjoy the aroma of fresh baked goods without paying for it.? She might not seek a way to prevent you from enjoying that benefit without paying.? That's her choice.) How might this practically be applied to security?? Well, let's assume a libertarian market anarchist society, Fair Libertaria, where each person decides her or his security arrangements -- even whether to have any at all.? (Imagine, for exmaple, America were to turn libertarian today with no substantial change in security issues.? (My guess would be that security issues would becoming less pressing in a libertarian society because people would be able to defend themselves and the overall costs of real crime -- as opposed to victimless crime -- would be much higher.? This is, of course, my guess.)? I used to live in Northern Vermont, where crime is extremely low.? In that area, I might decide I don't need to pay for any security.? I also lived in the NY metropolitan area at one time.? There I'd be much more likely to pay for security, simply because crime is much higher.) Further, imagine some people pay for, say, a militia to defend against an invasion.? (Let's say the payments are in the form of money, goods and services, or actually joining the ranks to, say, carry a rifle or crew forts on the frontier or coast.)? Others, on the other hand, decide not to help out with this militia.? (Some might decide not to simply because they truly believe it's a waste of time and effort.)? Let's say there's an invasion and the militia swings into action defeating it, though at high cost.? Now, as you seem to contend, all the people of Fair Libertaria benefit from this -- even the ones who didn't pay for the militia.? As it's a libertarian society, the militia supporters can't coerce the other residents of Fair Libertaria to pay up -- either before, during, or after the invasion.? And the usual view is that as this sort of "national defense" is a pure public good, no one would privately provide it -- of course, assuming no altruism or that no one values defense so highly that she doesn't mind free riders -- so it must be publicly provisioned.? (In a sense, coercing non-payers here is just the same as taxing them: it initiates force and the justification is, as usual with taxation, for some public good.) So what's to be done? Well, for the libertarian, coercion can't be used. (That would, anyhow, transform the libertarian society into a non-libertarian one. In this case, the militia supporters would, in effect, become a ruling elite.) So, either the libertarian society would, assuming militia supporters won't support a militia unless only supporters benefit, go defenseless or some other solution must be had. This maps onto my statement above: the producer can stop production, negotiate with the alleged free riders, or change production in such a way as to limit the positive externality. Let's take the latter two in turn. Negotiation can involve everything from moral suasion to boycotting non-payers to anything else not involving coercion. Social pressure can be brought to bear on non-payers. Of course, there might still be some who still don't pay, but one would wonder why they'd continue their unpopular action or stay in an area where social pressure against them is very high. Capturing or internalizing the positive externality would involve entrepreneurship. One could imagine, for example, the militia letting the invaders know that this or that home or neighborhood will be defended. An invader bent on plunder, thereby, might avoid those areas because of the high cost. But how would this work in the case of, say, a frontier defense, where everyone living behind the frontier seems to benefit. (This brings up the subjectivity, again, of externalities. Many, many years ago in _The Connection_, Ben Best writing as Diogenes of Panarchia raised this issue, defending the notion that free riders should be made to pay. I pointed out that one could take his argument to extremes by saying that the US should pay the PRC for its rivalry with the Soviet Union. After all, from about the 1960s, the PRC, to some extent, checked Soviet power. So, should Americans and Western Europeans pay the Chinese for this favor? I don't recall Ben's answer.) However, in my view, the toughness of this case should not be seen as a knockdown argument in favor of surrendering the libertarian principle in the name of national defense. It merely represents, to me, an opportunity for people via markets and other voluntary arrangements to work out how to deal with the problem. (I also think the problem magnified a bit. Were collective defense the best bet against attack and invasions, societies with governments would never be attacked or invaded. In fact, it's almost always the case that such societies are attacked and invaded -- and invaders usually fare better in such because they need only get some, most, or all in the victim government to collaborate. Even when such collabortors aren't to be had, that the victim society is used to being ruled and already has centralized authority, makes it extremely easy to take over. This is why the invasion of North America and Ireland took so long -- so long before the invaders completely took over and pacified the natives -- while the similar invasions of the Inca, Aztec, and Mogul empires were so quick and easy.) Regards, Dan *? Note that this logic applies generally.? The homesteader gets the right to do something -- she or he has justly appropriately the good.? This doesn't mean that the homesteader can't or won't ever negotiate -- just that she or he can't be forced to stop using the property.? (Note my use of force here.? This doesn't mean anyone who doesn't like, say, bakery smells can't seek non-coercive remedies.)? In the bakery case, it might be that the bakery owners prefers to have the good will of her neighbors, so she might actually put in special ducts or filters to reduce or eliminate bothersome odors -- even though, from the property rights perspective, she has every right to let her facility reek of them into the neighborhood. From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 15:56:53 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 17:56:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> References: <770438.64458.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <58C56143-2BCF-4B9D-A7D9-BE73848CB244@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <4A045645.1010801@libero.it> Il 05/05/2009 18.45, Brent Neal ha scritto: > > On 5 May, 2009, at 9:53, Dan wrote: > >> (I've lived in neighborhoods full of able-bodied pre-retired people >> who just collected check.) > > Can you give an example, with specifics? Not that I don't believe you, > mind, but I'm curious what bound this neighborhood together. I quite > honestly don't know anyone, that given a chance to work on their own > projects regardless of income wouldn't jump at the chance. Not "just lay > around", but volunteer with various groups, sing, play music, learn a > new skill, etc. And primarily, these are people who are no more than > lower middle class socioeconomically, not just the overeducated > uppermiddle class brainiac types. I bet, there is no one volunteering for cleaning the sewers. Mirco From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 8 16:06:21 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:06:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> At 04:38 PM 5/8/2009 +0200, Mirco wrote: >People, usually, don't work so hard only for themselves, but also >for their offspring. You take away the inheritance and they will >stop working so much and will start to consume more or work less, or >will find a way to pass their wealth to their heirs anyway. Yes, yes, yes, all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money to the lazy poor is held to be wrong *in part because* it corrodes the moral character of the recipients (among other reasons why it's wicked and damaging), then giving money to the children of the rich might do just the same damage, and should be prevented *if only for their own sake*. Pragmatic questions of who or what could prevent this dreadful damage to heirs (the government? Robin Hood? religious obligations? customs of potlatch? etc) is beside the point. So are questions of whether the largesse was forcibly appropriated from taxpayers (or paid by us with our general consent, as we pay for police protection), or bequeathed by a plutocrat who earned it all by masterful inventing, investing or managing etc. The question is: does unearned income always *corrupt*? Or does it only corrupt those worthless lazy stupid-but-cunning millions sucking on welfare's tit? (Or does it corrupt everyone alike, except that the heirs of billionaires are few in number, as I think Rafal noted, so their ruin is negligible compared to the 51% who allegedly vote themselves bread and circus and drive every democracy into squalor?) This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia arrives, with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication and transport for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation because these benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this case the goodies aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around" to the welfare queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway because the AIs took it? Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri May 8 16:23:11 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:23:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor. References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com><49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com><580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com><49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com><4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com><4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> Lee wrote: >> behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of ideas another. Damien wrote: > The core problem in this dispute seems to be your (and some others') > adherence to this claim. The obvious objective way to distinguish between the two is to say that voicing an idea is anything that can be sent over a wire and behavior is everything else. I admit that someday this little test may be insufficient, be we'll worry about that after the singularity. Damien again: > Voicing an idea *is* a behavior If you're right and the two should be treated identically then we would not have a limitation of freedom of the press, we would have the complete extinction of it. And the justification of the censorship would be the same as it always has been, the same as it was during the inquisition; namely an unproven theory that if people receive certain information they will believe in things that you personally don't like. Of course in one way this entire matter is of academic interest only because with today's technology there is not a snowball's chance in hell of stopping ideas from going where they want to go; however the futile attempts to ban unapproved speech is not academic because it would have a very real corrosive effect on any civilization. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 8 16:42:47 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:42:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor. In-Reply-To: <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508113857.07c39418@satx.rr.com> At 12:23 PM 5/8/2009 -0400, JKC wrote: >Lee wrote: > >>>behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of ideas another. > >Damien wrote: > >>The core problem in this dispute seems to be your (and some others') >>adherence to this claim. > >The obvious objective way to distinguish between the two is to say that >voicing an idea is anything that can be sent over a wire and behavior is >everything else. Ah, so the wartime radio and public speeches of Churchill and Hitler were voicings of ideas, and the globe-altering intentional consequences of those speeches was behavior--utterly different? Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri May 8 16:58:04 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:58:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I am the very model of a singularitarian References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com><49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com><580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com><49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com><4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com><4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3F898A53E75F4459BBC94AE20EF3BDD2@MyComputer> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8 From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 8 16:59:17 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:59:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > Yes, yes, yes, all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the > point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money to the lazy poor > is held to be wrong *in part because* it corrodes the moral character of the > recipients (among other reasons why it's wicked and damaging), then giving > money to the children of the rich might do just the same damage, and should > be prevented *if only for their own sake*. > Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD Winnebago with a sticker on the back that says 'Spending our kids inheritance' ? > This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia arrives, > with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication and transport > for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation because these > benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this case the goodies > aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around" to the welfare > queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway because the AIs > took it? > So, nanotopia will make the whole human race stop working and live on welfare? The failing with this idea is that it makes Star Trek type assumptions. i.e. one thing will change, but all else remains much the same. How many Star Trek plots were resolved by a John Wayne style punchup? When nanotopia arrives, *everything* will change. Even humanity itself. If a human becomes a vortex of energy spiraling around a miniature black hole, it hardly seems relevant to talk about 'welfare queens'. BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 17:07:19 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 19:07:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A0466C7.8040709@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 18.06, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > At 04:38 PM 5/8/2009 +0200, Mirco wrote: > Yes, yes, yes, all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the > point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money to the lazy > poor is held to be wrong *in part because* it corrodes the moral > character of the recipients (among other reasons why it's wicked and > damaging), then giving money to the children of the rich might do just > the same damage, and should be prevented *if only for their own sake*. The problem is two faced: Inheritances are freely given to heirs as the parent is free to squander his/her wealth before passing it. Or it is free to have not children. Entitlements are not freely given, because the money needed to fund them is extorted from the (unwilling) taxpayers. The right to inheritance is the right to inherit because others unrelated people have not the right to take the inheritance for themselves. The right to inherit is, mainly, a right to leave our wealth to someone after we die. The inheriting people have not the right to kill us to collect before or to force us to work more so they will be able to collect more. Entitlements funded with taxes give the entitled people an unjust claim that they can collect from taxed people when thy want collect what they want collect, as the taxed people have no right to complain. The collecting people receiving a damage is not a problem, as they are free to refuse the unjust help offered and so refusing to take the damage. The real problem is the damage imparted to the taxed people, that will find themselves forced to pay and will choose to work less or will choose to use welfare. > Pragmatic questions of who or what could prevent this dreadful damage to > heirs (the government? Robin Hood? religious obligations? customs of > potlatch? etc) is beside the point. Pragmatic answer is "their business, not mine". The parents that spoil their children are doing a disservice to themselves and their children. Spoiled children and their money will part ways early and will go to unspoiled children. > The question is: does unearned income always *corrupt*? Always is a big word. Often it is so. Sometimes it is not. Often depend on how it is given, how much and on what terms. > Or does it only > corrupt those worthless lazy stupid-but-cunning millions sucking on > welfare's tit? (Or does it corrupt everyone alike, except that the heirs > of billionaires are few in number, as I think Rafal noted, so their ruin > is negligible compared to the 51% who allegedly vote themselves bread > and circus and drive every democracy into squalor?) What the heirs receive is given with particular terms, where the sucking multitudes are given under different terms. > This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia > arrives, with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication > and transport for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation > because these benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this > case the goodies aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around" > to the welfare queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway > because the AIs took it? If they produce their stuff with the nanofactories, this is a job. So what they receive is not unearned. Easy earning, maybe. Unearned not. If they want someone else use the nanofactories to produce stuff for them, they could go to hell or have people producing stuff with them (Soylent Green anyone?) Mirco From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri May 8 17:07:29 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:07:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <04CEE3DFABDF46B8801CF4DDAFF1FCCF@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "BillK" To: "ExI chat list" > Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD Winnebago > with a sticker on the back that says > 'Spending our kids inheritance' ? Nah, it says: "Spending our kid's inheritance." ;)) From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 8 17:28:43 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:28:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508121622.079c4600@satx.rr.com> At 04:59 PM 5/8/2009 +0000, BillK wrote: >When nanotopia arrives, *everything* will change. Even humanity itself. >If a human becomes a vortex of energy spiraling around a miniature >black hole, it hardly seems relevant to talk about 'welfare queens'. That's one, apocalyptic picture; I suspect in the short term, with partly self-repping matter compilers of various kinds, we'd see futures more like Bruce Sterling's "Kiosk" or HOLY FIRE--incremental modifications of the current human condition. Sure, if there's a "hard takeoff" the future goes absurdly weird fairly fast, but, as Keith and Rafal keep saying, that looks more like doom for everyone except the Exes (to adopt Moravec's term). >Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD Winnebago >with a sticker on the back that says >'Spending our kids inheritance' ? My own behavior is irrelevant; all I did was poke the end of a burnt stick into what I saw as a seeping hole in the libertarian claim that free loot is dreadfully bad for the character--well, unless you have a well-to-do daddy (especially if you're a libertarian trustafarian). Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 8 17:34:44 2009 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:34:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508113857.07c39418@satx.rr.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508113857.07c39418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A046D34.2050307@mac.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:23 PM 5/8/2009 -0400, JKC wrote: > >> Lee wrote: >> >>>> behavior is one thing. The mere voicing of ideas another. >> >> Damien wrote: >> >>> The core problem in this dispute seems to be your (and some others') >>> adherence to this claim. >> >> The obvious objective way to distinguish between the two is to say that >> voicing an idea is anything that can be sent over a wire and behavior is >> everything else. > > Ah, so the wartime radio and public speeches of Churchill and Hitler > were voicings of ideas, and the globe-altering intentional consequences > of those speeches was behavior--utterly different? What is the point of this quibble? Advocacy of ideas is behavior. But there is still a difference from advocacy and acting on what one advocates reasonably consistently. "Talking the talk" versus "walking the walk". If one is strongly in the business of creating and dispensing memes then the line blurs a little. But there is many a memeset dispenser in the world who does not live by what s/he preaches. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 8 17:38:14 2009 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:38:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508121622.079c4600@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508121622.079c4600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A046E06.1040905@mac.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:59 PM 5/8/2009 +0000, BillK wrote: > >> When nanotopia arrives, *everything* will change. Even humanity itself. >> If a human becomes a vortex of energy spiraling around a miniature >> black hole, it hardly seems relevant to talk about 'welfare queens'. > > That's one, apocalyptic picture; I suspect in the short term, with > partly self-repping matter compilers of various kinds, we'd see futures > more like Bruce Sterling's "Kiosk" or HOLY FIRE--incremental > modifications of the current human condition. Sure, if there's a "hard > takeoff" the future goes absurdly weird fairly fast, but, as Keith and > Rafal keep saying, that looks more like doom for everyone except the > Exes (to adopt Moravec's term). > > >Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD Winnebago > >with a sticker on the back that says > >'Spending our kids inheritance' ? I like the last will statement, "Being of sound mind I spent all my money while I was alive." > > My own behavior is irrelevant; all I did was poke the end of a burnt > stick into what I saw as a seeping hole in the libertarian claim that > free loot is dreadfully bad for the character--well, unless you have a > well-to-do daddy (especially if you're a libertarian trustafarian). This in not a particularly libertarian claim. - samantha From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 17:38:25 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 19:38:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508113857.07c39418@satx.rr.com> References: <49F54A9B.6050709@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090427013627.022c94c0@satx.rr.com> <49F5D74B.3080400@rawbw.com> <580930c20905031235l4fa326b0u490e099117c4f90b@mail.gmail.com> <49FFE723.3060606@rawbw.com> <4A025CC6.807@rawbw.com> <4A036AB6.6020807@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090507182150.02357bb8@satx.rr.com> <5CF2600105D14892B18CBF03172D4DCF@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508113857.07c39418@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A046E11.2090507@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 18.42, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > Ah, so the wartime radio and public speeches of Churchill and Hitler > were voicings of ideas, and the globe-altering intentional consequences > of those speeches was behavior--utterly different? Nazis were found guilty of doing evil things, not to say evil things. They were found guilty to organize and executing the "final solution" not to describing it or advocating it. Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 8 18:15:13 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 20:15:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090508121622.079c4600@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508121622.079c4600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A0476B1.2070601@libero.it> Il 08/05/2009 19.28, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > That's one, apocalyptic picture; There is more. If you red Rothbard, "Man, Economy and State", you could note a very interesting, but I suppose very underrated, statement. I suppose it is so underrated because it is a shared belief in economics. In a complex economy people must specialize is a limited set of jobs (no one is able to do all with the same skill level) to produce and sell the requested goods and services so they can be sold in exchange of money that can be used to buy other goods and services needed. Now, with nanotopia, people could become skilled in many task, maybe in all tasks all at the best level. You could produce anything and you would not need anyone do produce them. There is no more need to cooperate with others. So others lose their usefulness. They are not useful as slaves and they are not useful as thinkers. The only things useful are their resources. > My own behavior is irrelevant; all I did was poke the end of a burnt > stick into what I saw as a seeping hole in the libertarian claim that > free loot is dreadfully bad for the character--well, unless you have a > well-to-do daddy (especially if you're a libertarian trustafarian). Free lunches are damaging for the receiving end in the long runs (usually even in the short ones). But there is no need to ban gifts or inheritances as the receiving people can always refuse them. The problem is the damage received by people forced to pay for the entitlements of others. Mirco From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 8 17:58:29 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <804022.2263.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:59 PM 5/8/2009 +0000, BillK > wrote: > > > When nanotopia arrives, *everything* will change. Even > humanity itself. > > If a human becomes a vortex of energy spiraling around > a miniature > > black hole, it hardly seems relevant to talk about > 'welfare queens'. > > That's one, apocalyptic picture; I suspect in the short > term, with partly self-repping matter compilers of various > kinds, we'd see futures more like Bruce Sterling's "Kiosk" > or HOLY FIRE--incremental modifications of the current human > condition. Sure, if there's a "hard takeoff" the future goes > absurdly weird fairly fast, but, as Keith and Rafal keep > saying, that looks more like doom for everyone except the > Exes (to adopt Moravec's term). Also, it's anyone's guess what happens afterward. I think the material and cultural conditions will radically change, but the laws of economics will still apply. (But most people seem to confuse those laws with the caricature of them in mainstream economics.) >> Is it true that Damien drives round in a 250,000 USD > Winnebago > >with a sticker on the back that says > >'Spending our kids inheritance' ? > > My own behavior is irrelevant; all I did was poke the end > of a burnt stick into what I saw as a seeping hole in the > libertarian claim that free loot is dreadfully bad for the > character--well, unless you have a well-to-do daddy > (especially if you're a libertarian trustafarian). This is NOT a libertarian claim. It's just a claim period. Also, the strict libertarian view is that it's only rights that matter in these concerns: does the rich parent have a right to spoil her or his offspring regardless of whether this turns them into shiftless layabouts? Sadly, yes. Does the state have a right to coerce money from anyone -- rich, poor, whatever -- to give to someone else, including people who might seem very deserving? No. Of course, there's the issue of just what constitutes desert. Strict libertarianism doesn't speak to this matter, and libertarians should be critical of allowing considerations of desert to trump justice (in the libertarian sense). Of course, since many people who claim to be libertarians are merely modern liberals or modern conservatives with some libertarian leanings (e.g., they might want to legalize porn, drugs, or selling bonds without a license, but they still have core anti-libertarian beliefs that come out in any crisis), matters of desert are often touted by them and, sadly, associated in the public mind with libertarianism. This is not a minor issue either. Rights can more easily be applied, detected, and defended. Yes, they're not perfect, but matters of desert allow too much partisanship and subjectivity to enter the picture. It's quite easy, e.g., to figure out that if X owns P, X can gift P to Y period. It's much harder to figure out if Y morally deserves P -- or even if X morally deserves P. (Still, neo-Aristoteleans, non-naive Objectivists, and neo-Kantians would recognize that even if moral desert were easily determined, this still doesn't mean moral desert would allow force to be used to make sure P went not to the rightful owner, but to a more deserving person.) I can see a good group of people agreeing on property rights -- even people disagreeing on their foundations. (Locke, Nozick, and Rothbard, e.g., basically agree on property rights, but Locke was a theist who ultimately grounded such rights in God while Nozick was a neo-Kantian who grounded his Lockeanism in tht sort of logic and Rothbard was a neo-Aristotelean.) But agreeing on desert, as a purely practical matter, would likely lead to a much worse outcome. I bet, too, desert, if used as a criterion for property would not only result in more initial bickering but even more "boundary" bickering leading to most people feeling less secure or in attempting to curry more favor with social elites -- as property might change hands based on someone losing or gaining desert. (Having the state interfere, too, only means that now the chances for error are centralized and any changes now become a political matter. Is politics really the arena where these issues should be settled? Has it worked well with much else?) Nozick tried to sum up his libertarian view of property at one point (in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_; I'm recalling this from memory, so forgive my errors) in contrast to the popular "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" slogan. He cast it as "from each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen." Of course, that's very simplified, but I think it catches what should be _the_ libertarian stance on inheritance: someone chooses to gift something to someone else and no one else should coercively interfere in that -- even and especially they find thw choice made morally repugnant or just plain stupid. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 8 21:28:32 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <538586.5960.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/7? : > >> I don't think so.? Prisoner's Dilemma's result from >> the inability of participants to signal each other and to >> depend on anything more than each participant trying to >> maximize some specific reward.? In the real world, people >> can signal each other and they have different notions of >> what constitutes a reward.? On the latter, for example, >> some of us want to live in a world with lower coercion and >> will forego at least some potential near term rewards from >> coercion for this -- and even suffer some specific >> punishments for it. > > The Prisoner's Dilemma is relevant to taxation. It is > possible that > there is some project, costing money, which would give > everyone > utility greater than the amount they paid. This would, if true, only allow the Prisoner's Dilemma to be applied to that case -- not to the general case of taxation.? And it still doesn't answer the problem of how to determine utility or value in such a way.? The Dilemma merely assumes such comparisons are possible and goes from there.? You snipped out my statements on this: "It's also the case that one can't do interpersonal comparisons of value, so specific rewards can be measured between people.? This is why some will work harder or longer for what seems to be the same objective reward than others.? This goes for monetary rewards and all other rewards -- even ones some people might think are not rewards at all." Without such an ability to compare, how can one tell beforehand how agents will act? Also, with the ability to signal, repeated interactions, and moral and other forces acting on agents, the Dilemma need not apply. Notably, in real world economic interactions, people do signal each other and adopt other strategies. > However, each > person would > be even better off if they didn't contribute, since the > project is of > a type which benefits the cheats as well as well as the > contributors. > But if everyone cheated, the project would not go ahead, > and hence > everyone would lose. So, when it comes to the vote, > everyone would > vote to be forced to contribute - since that would mean > everyone else > would also be forced to contribute (a better outcome still > would be > that everyone except me is forced to contribute, but that > vote > obviously isn't going to pass). This is what a tax is. The problem is: this is what advocates of taxation believe it is. In fact, one can't know if something is of benefit to all and the evidence that it's not is in that it must be forced on people. To wit, if people don't all agree to it, then they must not all believe they want it -- they must not believe that it makes their world better. (Not the rhetoric I'm using here: economics is not about personal monetary gain, but focuses on why people act. They act to improve things. This could be as when a miser acts to grow his pile of coins ever larger or when a saint self-abnegates to purify his soul. Both fall under the purview of economic analysis, and both are subject to the logic of action.) Yes, you might honestly believe it makes the world better, but they don't. (And why are or the group that taxes right while all others are wrong?) Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri May 8 21:51:20 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <260856.55885.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/7 Dan : > >> But no one is forced to pay insurance companies (save >> for when governments mandate insurance). ?In other words, >> the other insurance clients are not non-consenting >> third parties. ?The taxpayers are. ?This is why insurance >> companies don't punish people when they don't buy a >> policy, but government do punish those who don't pay >> taxes. ?(Yeah, not all the time, but the general rule >> is there are penalties ranging from death to all lesser >> penalties for non-payment of taxes.) > > Sometimes we are forced to pay for insurance. I am forced > to pay for > insurance on an apartment I own. I also have to pay for > renovations to > the building if the owners vote for it, even though I don't > like what > they propose to do or I can't afford it. If I don't pay, I > can be sued > or ultimately imprisoned. The argument is, if I don't like > the rules I > can sell the apartment or try to change the rules through > my vote in > the owners' corporation. Is that still coercion? I don't know in all these cases, but it's not coercion if you expressly agreed and both parties had a right to whatever was contracted over.? In the case of, say, you buy into a coop or other housing arrangement with set rules, it's not coercion.? You always had the option not to join.? This is little different from, e.g., me saying that you can having dinner with me as long as you agree to chew with your mouth closed.? It's not coercion if I eject you from the table because you chew with your mouth open. Following this analogy further, imagine the government now passed a law decreeing you must chew with your mouth closed.? That would be coercion because it forbids you from, e.g., eating with people who don't mind that or from doing it alone.? (Leave aside how they'd enforce such a law; my guess is it'd be something used to make examples of certain people.? You know, they can't eject Joe Blowshisnose from the park where he has lunch everyday until they have this law in hand to make it all legal.) >> There's a vast literature in libertarian thought that >> rejects social contract theory. ?The whole notion of >> a social contract -- at least as historically >> presented -- rests on a flawed analogy between the >> expressly consented to contracts and tacitly consented >> ones. ?In the former, the parties actually agree to >> terms; in the latter, it seems, the social contract >> theorist merely makes up terms and then manufactures >> consent needed for her or his pet theory. ?In fact, >> while express contracts -- not without problems, but >> easily understood -- often make it clear who agrees to do >> what*, tacit ones, like social contracts, make it possible >> to get anything at all. ?For instance, people have used >> tacit consent to argue that people who don't openly rebel >> against a murderous regime tacitly support that regime. ?In >> other words, that notion can justify anything, so it >> justifies nothing and makes a shambles of the notion of >> contract. ?(Ditto for Buchanan's notions on >> ?virtual unaminity. ?As someone once pointed out, >> wherever you read "virtual unanimity" one should, to make >> sense of the passage, replace it with "lack of >> unanimity.":) > > Why is the social contract "tacit"? This is a key feature of social contract theory. The typical social contract theory is an attempt to justify some socio-political order via an analogy with a real contract -- as if all members of society agree to some (you guessed it!) social contract. Since real world societies of any appreciable size don't arise contractually -- viz., people don't get together, formulate a contract, and then actually expressly consent to it -- the problem is how to complete the analogy. This is where tacit consent comes in. With tacit consent, social contract theorists usually argue either that people would agree to a particular social arrangement if there were an explicit contract but this is impractical or that by taking certain actions that agree to it anyway. (The latter is actually much weaker when you think about it because you end up with arguments like the king should king because no one has bothered to overthrow him.) If tacit consent makes no sense -- either because it's groundless (what kind of consent is it that isn't express? how comes people often expressly go against what the social contract theorist believes they tacit consent to?) or because it's has no limits (with tacit consent one can justify just about anything -- as can be seen by the major social contract theorists: Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and John Rawls; these guys all have very different views of the correct social order ranging from absolute monarchies to classical liberal constitutional republics to welfare states and beyond). > Would it make it any > better if I > signed a piece of paper when I entered a country as a > visitor or > migrant explicitly agreeing to abide by its laws, including > the > procedures for changing the laws? Only if the person or group making you consent had the right to do so. The government of a country simply does not have that right -- any more than I have the right to ask people who visit you to abide by my rules. As I have no right over you or your property, I have no right to compell your guests to follow my rules. > Admittedly, I don't have > a choice > which country I'm born in, but I don't see a way around > that problem. This brings up another problem with social contracts: even were an explicit contract signed, it wouldn't bind others or future generations. But in the case of your country of birth, the government there has no right to impose its rules on you period. It simply lacks ownership over that country or a right to compell. (Certainly, it claims ownership and has the ability to compell, but this is no different than me claiming ownership over the moon or a mugger being able to compell you to surrender your wallet.) >> [big snip of material you didn't comment on, but I'd >> like to know what you thought about it just the same] > > Sorry, I'm travelling at the moment and lost the original > email. > Perhaps you could resend it. I'll send it to you off-list.? Have a safe and fun journey. Regards, Dan From max at maxmore.com Sat May 9 02:36:18 2009 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:36:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <200905090236.n492aSe5010832@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Daniel: I agree with almost all of what you've written on this thread (and have enjoyed your clarity of expression). However, I'm puzzled by what seems to be your complete rejection of "tacit consent". Do you really deny that this can exist? The classic example is when you walk into a restaurant. You may (or may not) look at the prices, but you never explicitly say that you will pay them. But you certainly don't expect to be able to walk out without paying. The burden is on you -- quite reasonably -- to pay up, unless you have explicitly announced to the owner or manager in charge that you are ordering the food with no intention of paying. I agree that it's easy for statist-minded people to abuse the idea of implicit/tacit consent, but that's not sufficient reason to reject it entirely. Right? As I recall, even Murray Rothbard accepts this case of tacit consent. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 9 07:01:13 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:01:13 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it : > Most developing nations have not the same "resources" like the developed > ones. If you mean natural resources, on average developing nations don't have fewer than developed nations. But one advantage they have over developed nations (according to the theory that government services make people lazy) is a lack of any social security safety net. People have to work hard just so they and their family can survive, and they have to work extra hard if they want to pay for decent education, health care and so on. This is stuff everyone gets for free or almost free in most developed countries, even the US. > And many, until yestersay, were leaded ?by socialist governments. They > started developing with 10% yearly growth when they moved from socialism to > a freer economy. > For them, social security and other government services are luxuries they > can not afford. Right that they can't afford it, but wrong that most of them are socialist. For example, most of South and Central America for the past century has been governed by US-supported regimes that are even more assiduous in suppressing any sort of left wing activity (opposition parties, unions, free speech) than the US itself. There are some exceptions, like Cuba - and look at what the US did there. The problem, you see, is that whether through wisdom, stupidity or outside manipulation, left to their own devices the people might introduce socialist policies; and the only way to avoid this if you are the government and you are sure you know what is best is to actively suppress dissent. > As the social services grew the economy started to slow down. > Italy grew at 10% rates until 1960, then the Center-Left governments started > to form and the rates went to 7-8%, then in the 1970 the rates went around > 5% and to 3% in the 1980. In the 1990 they were 2%-0% and now they are > negatives. The usual pattern with economic growth in developing countries is rapid growth at the start then a slowing down as they reach the levels of the more developed countries. It seems that the plateau is more due to technological factors than economic ones. There are many examples of this other than Italy. For example, Singapore went from a poor country to a rich country in the space of a few decades, but then growth slowed down despite continuation of much the same economic policies (Lee Kwan Yew would not have allowed it any other way). So Singapore has been able to roughly match, but not surpass the standard of living found in other developed nations in Europe and North America. This is not to say that tax and welfare spending is without qualification a good thing. There is a certain optimal level of each. Too much, and no-one has an incentive to work; too little, and the average quality of life goes down, and ultimately you end up with ill-educated, dissatisfied masses resulting in a running down of the country's human capital. For all his socialist-hating ways, Lee Kwan Yew made it a priority that every Singaporean would have a good education and adequate housing, the latter through generous subsidies for first home buyers. > In between the government moved from taking the 27% of the GDP of Italy in > the 1970 to the 43% now (computed with a 20% of the economy in the black > market, so the rates paid by the "honests" is over 50%). I have no numbers > for the years before 1970, but I would suppose the burden of taxes was lower > than 20%. > > An example of socialism is in Finland the fact that the car outside the > social housing are bigger, more costly than the cars out of private housing. > Why? because the people in social housing have more money available for cars > as they spend less for housing. > > The same is true in Italy, where they sell more furs in Sicily than in > Lombardy. In Italy, a large part of the political discourse, in the last > twenty years, is about how much taxes are paid by the North regions that go > to the South Regions for welfare. This helped the people there? Not much; > but surely helped Mafia, Camorra and N'drangeta to expand their business. > Welfare to the mobsters. These are strange observations. You haven't explained why northern Italy is wealthier than Southern Italy and less prone to organised crime, or why Finland, more socialist than Italy has ever been, has done so well economically, especially in the last couple of decades. Also, within Italy, the leftists (including the communists) have held power consistently in Emilia-Romagna, one of the wealthier northern provinces. It's not as simple as your contention that any socialist measures inevitably lead to economic stagnation. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 9 07:18:42 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:18:42 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it : > Il 08/05/2009 5.11, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > >> Exactly, and that's the problem with rich people. You work hard as a >> beekeper, they keep the profits, doing less work themselves per dollar >> "earned" than welfare recipients, and having much less need for it. > > I don't understand how Obama, in his misspent youth, could be called "rich". > I know, due to my job, a few people that are poor and on welfare. > Usually their attitude is that we owe them what they want. I was referring to spike working for low pay, not Obama. I don't understand how one could begrudge an unemployed person a subsistence level of income but think it's OK for other people, rich people, to "earn" more for doing less. The capitalist who makes profits in his sleep takes the money from the people who actually do the work just as surely as the unemployed person getting the dole does. There might be a practical argument for allowing the capitalist to make huge profits, since otherwise many useful enterprises would never get underway, but this does not amount to a *moral* argument. Perhaps it's because some rich people are secretly ashamed of how they acquired their wealth that they have to keep reassuring themselves that they "worked" for it and put down those they accuse of not working for it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 9 07:43:58 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:43:58 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it : >> Sometimes we are forced to pay for insurance. I am forced to pay for >> insurance on an apartment I own. I also have to pay for renovations >> to the building if the owners vote for it, even though I don't like >> what they propose to do or I can't afford it. If I don't pay, I can >> be sued or ultimately imprisoned. The argument is, if I don't like >> the rules I can sell the apartment or try to change the rules through >> my vote in the owners' corporation. Is that still coercion? > > It is not, if it was in a contract given you before you bought the > apartment. Bad contract I would say. > The government imprisoning you is coercion. > Laws forcing you to do renovations against your will are coercion. I own one apartment in a building of about ten. If one owner were allowed to veto any renovations or repairs, then work that could benefit everyone might never get done. That's why the contract allows for a majority decision, and that's the contract I agreed to. It's also the contract I agree to (tacitly, perhaps) when I migrate to a country. However, I don't agree it when I am born in a country. The problem is, if you think this is unfair for the native but not the migrant, since the native did not agree to anything either tacitly or explicitly, it could lead to a situation where only migrants have to pay taxes and obey other laws. >> Why is the social contract "tacit"? Would it make it any better if I >> signed a piece of paper when I entered a country as a visitor or >> migrant explicitly agreeing to abide by its laws, including the >> procedures for changing the laws? > > Yes. Because the migrants could be sued and could not claim "ignorance", > "their customs are different", "religious duties", etc. > >> Admittedly, I don't have a choice >> which country I'm born in, but I don't see a way around that >> problem. > > What is the problem? > Until you don't write your name under the dotted line, you would not be a > "citizen" but only a "guest" of your parents. You do wrong, they pay for > you. When you accept the burden of citizenship you will receive the > privileges of citizenship. > > There would be not a problem if people were differentiated in groups: > 1) Citizens > 2) Citizen's children > 3) Citizen's guests (probably with subtypes) > > The difference is that the (2) would become (1) only if they want and not > would be forced to become (1) when they become 18 years old. > Some laws limiting the rights of (1) would not be applicable on (2) and (3). So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the unjust taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to where?), but for those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the contract they have entered into? -- Stathis Papaioannou From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 9 10:12:05 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:12:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 9.43, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it: > I own one apartment in a building of about ten. If one owner were > allowed to veto any renovations or repairs, then work that could > benefit everyone might never get done. That's why the contract allows > for a majority decision, and that's the contract I agreed to. It's > also the contract I agree to (tacitly, perhaps) when I migrate to a > country. However, I don't agree it when I am born in a country. The > problem is, if you think this is unfair for the native but not the > migrant, since the native did not agree to anything either tacitly or > explicitly, it could lead to a situation where only migrants have to > pay taxes and obey other laws. The don't "have to" as they can leave. Obviously, there must be a way to limit the number of the unwanted people entering. I think the children of the owners of your building are not owners, so they could be kicked out if they don't behave. Mainly by their parents. >> There would be not a problem if people were differentiated in groups: >> 1) Citizens >> 2) Citizen's children >> 3) Citizen's guests (probably with subtypes) >> >> The difference is that the (2) would become (1) only if they want and not >> would be forced to become (1) when they become 18 years old. >> Some laws limiting the rights of (1) would not be applicable on (2) and (3). > > So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the unjust > taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to where?), but for > those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the contract they > have entered into? It could be. This depend on what contract they accept. I, for sure, would insist on that taxation must be agreed by the taxed before being collected. And the agreement must be confirmed after a period of time. No open-ended "suck my blood" invites to the vampires. Like in your building, they could collect money from you for some reasons, but they must document the reasons before and must document how they spent the money after. I'm sure they have claims only for renovations and reparations needed, I suppose they can not claim money for improvements not needed. E.G. they could claim money to substitute lamps with LEDs when the lamps worn out, not to substitute working lamps with LEDs. The fact they sign a written contract is important as they explicitly accept a limited set of duties and receive a limited set of claims. In your case, the contract say something, but you are bound from the laws written before and after you accepted the contract by someone else with or without your agreement. The main problem is that would be difficult to implement a single contract stating all and any duty and claim of any and all citizens. The main contract would state some basic rules and the penalties associated for breaking them. Something like "Don't kill", "Don't steal", etc. Then other contracts would rule other matters. Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 9 10:17:47 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:17:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A05584B.8030702@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 9.18, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > I was referring to spike working for low pay, not Obama. I don't > understand how one could begrudge an unemployed person a subsistence > level of income but think it's OK for other people, rich people, to > "earn" more for doing less. The capitalist who makes profits in his > sleep takes the money from the people who actually do the work just as > surely as the unemployed person getting the dole does. The capitalist risk his/her capital and defer consumption of his/her capital because he/she invest the capital in some enterprise. When I invest money in a company I could sleep and gain or I could sleep and lose. The unemployed on the dole can only gain from the dole as he did not invest and risk nothing. > There might be > a practical argument for allowing the capitalist to make huge profits, > since otherwise many useful enterprises would never get underway, but > this does not amount to a *moral* argument. The moral argument is written upon. The capitalist risk his wealth and defer his consumption, so he have the right to earn whatever his enterprise let him earn, and keep it. Mirco From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 9 10:45:13 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:45:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> Message-ID: On 5/9/09, painlord2k wrote: > The fact they sign a written contract is important as they explicitly > accept a limited set of duties and receive a limited set of claims. > In your case, the contract say something, but you are bound from the laws > written before and after you accepted the contract by someone else with or > without your agreement. > > The main problem is that would be difficult to implement a single contract > stating all and any duty and claim of any and all citizens. > The main contract would state some basic rules and the penalties associated > for breaking them. Something like "Don't kill", "Don't steal", etc. Then > other contracts would rule other matters. > These libs do love their contracts, don't they? Everybody is expected to have a filing cabinet full of contracts relating to every person, company, club, council, government office, etc. that they deal with. And they all have to checked that they are still up-to-date and valid. And among these hundreds of contracts, they have to check carefully that no contract has terms that contradict the terms in any other contract. Then they have to worry about precedence. Which contract can override less important contracts? And perhaps, unknowingly, their contracts conflict with someone else's contracts? And all the contract conflicts for the population have to be fought out in court. And, of course, you have to be able to read and write to sign a contract. The US has about 99% literacy. But that 1% is still 3 million people. Many countries are below the 70% literacy level. What they need is a government organization to process and record all the contracts for all the population. Like the DMV, but much, much larger and more bureaucratic. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 9 12:11:44 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:11:44 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <4A05584B.8030702@libero.it> References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <4A05584B.8030702@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/9 painlord2k at libero.it : > The capitalist risk his/her capital and defer consumption of his/her capital > because he/she invest the capital in some enterprise. > When I invest money in a company I could sleep and gain or I could sleep and > lose. > > The unemployed on the dole can only gain from the dole as he did not invest > and risk nothing. Then the capitalist is lucky, or even smart, but not necessarily hard working. The argument was that the unemployed person is lazy and takes from those who work. >> There might be >> a practical argument for allowing the capitalist to make huge profits, >> since otherwise many useful enterprises would never get underway, but >> this does not amount to a *moral* argument. > > The moral argument is written upon. > The capitalist risk his wealth and defer his consumption, so he have the > right to earn whatever his enterprise let him earn, and keep it. So you say, but it's a made-up justification. It's like a law saying that if you lose some money and I find it, I get to keep it. But it wouldn't make it morally right just because that's the law, even if there is some practical justification for the law. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 9 12:20:54 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:20:54 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/9 painlord2k at libero.it : > Like in your building, they could collect money from you for some reasons, > but they must document the reasons before and must document how they spent > the money after. I'm sure they have claims only for renovations and > reparations needed, I suppose they can not claim money for improvements not > needed. E.G. they could claim money to substitute lamps with LEDs when the > lamps worn out, not to substitute working lamps with LEDs. I'm pretty sure that if a 2/3 majority decided on any major renovation, the rest would be forced to go along with it. There might be limits, but the point for the present discussion is that the contract states I would have to go along with a majority decision. My only way out is to sell the apartment, which is pretty drastic, if not as drastic as leaving the country. > The fact they sign a written contract is important as they explicitly accept > a limited set of duties and receive a limited set of claims. > In your case, the contract say something, but you are bound from the laws > written before and after you accepted the contract by someone else with or > without your agreement. > > The main problem is that would be difficult to implement a single contract > stating all and any duty and claim of any and all citizens. > The main contract would state some basic rules and the penalties associated > for breaking them. Something like "Don't kill", "Don't steal", etc. Then > other contracts would rule other matters. The basic contract is that citizens are bound by anything whatsoever that the elected legislators decide on. Some countries have constitutions which limit the kinds of laws that can be changed, but then the constitution can be itself be changed by majority decision. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat May 9 14:28:50 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:28:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Three big space missions this week References: <200905090236.n492aSe5010832@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <09AFD377B5E947EB9EC2D98F52DCF82B@MyComputer> We're coming up to the biggest week in space exploration that we've had in a long time: On Monday the Shuttle will launch its long delayed Hubble repair mission; if successful Hubble will have new capabilities far beyond what it ever had before. On Thursday the same rocket in French Guiana will launce both the Herschel and Planck satellites to the L2 Lagrange point. The two satellites are quite different but equally important. Herschel will probe the largely unexplored far infrared part of the spectrum with the largest mirror ever put into space. Plank will study the cosmic microwave background radiation with far greater precision than ever achieved before including measuring for the first time its polarization. If we're lucky it might even find Gravitational Waves. John K Clark From spike66 at att.net Sat May 9 16:32:28 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:32:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Three big space missions this week In-Reply-To: <09AFD377B5E947EB9EC2D98F52DCF82B@MyComputer> References: <200905090236.n492aSe5010832@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <09AFD377B5E947EB9EC2D98F52DCF82B@MyComputer> Message-ID: <78D74252DB9D4FED821311C6BA6C88BE@spike> > ...On Behalf Of John K Clark > Subject: [ExI] Three big space missions this week > > We're coming up to the biggest week in space exploration that > we've had in a long time: > > On Monday the Shuttle will launch its long delayed Hubble > repair mission; if successful Hubble will have new > capabilities far beyond what it ever had before... Hubble Space Telescope, another Lockheeed product, still gazing after all these years. > On Thursday the same rocket in French Guiana will launce both > the Herschel and Planck satellites to the L2 Lagrange point... > John K Clark Life is gooooood. {8-] spike From spike66 at att.net Sat May 9 16:23:10 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:23:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> Message-ID: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > Subject: Re: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda,was: > retrainability of plebeians > ... > > > > I don't understand how Obama, in his misspent youth, could > be called "rich". > > I know, due to my job, a few people that are poor and on welfare. > > Usually their attitude is that we owe them what they want. > > I was referring to spike working for low pay, not Obama. I > don't understand how one could begrudge an unemployed person > a subsistence level of income but think it's OK for other > people, rich people, to "earn" more for doing less. The > capitalist who makes profits in his sleep takes the money > from the people who actually do the work just as surely as > the unemployed person getting the dole does... > -- > Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, the key to understanding the above statement is in the phrase "the money" as in "...takes THE money from the people..." A capitalist creates wealth by investment, so it makes more money. The beekeeper puts down his own money to invest in hives, the bees create honey, which is wealth, then the capitalist hires indolent youths (such as me) and others to work for pay which they otherwise would not have had. The capitalist doesn't take THE money, she creates wealth which would not otherwise exist, and partners with labor, so that they earn some of the created wealth. Everyone wins. Cool! My heartburn with Obama is that he never had that experience, he didn't do grinding labor for a pittance, didn't risk his own capital to start or run a business. His professional experience is in suing businesses for a ton of money. This would cause him to see business as prey, as opposed to partners with goverment in wealth creation. He is running the country like a teenager snorting cocaine. It sets off alarm bells in my head when he utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." THE wealth? Define THE, sir. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 9 17:49:32 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:49:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> At 09:23 AM 5/9/2009 -0700, spike wrote: > >It sets off alarm bells in my head when he >utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." THE >wealth? Define THE, sir. I always assumed this is an incredible beat-up (as Aussies say of journalistic hysteria where a statement is taken out of context and inflated absurdly). THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces of the community. As everyone knows, in recent years an increasing proportion of this wealth has been funneled into the richest segments of (so-called) capitalist nations. Some of this upward drainage is due to unmitigated theft and scams on a colossal scale, pyramid schemes and other depredations. Some might be deserved, as brilliant and risky entrepreneurship increased wealth and convenience and lifespan etc for the entire community, and Atlas deserves his payment. Nevertheless, it can be argued that a disproportionate cut has been scooped up by the richest, and that this is not only morally dubious *but damages future wealth-making processes*--by, for example, as we are seeing, leading to a clusterfuck of such enormous dimension that 539,000 jobs disappeared last month in the US, and nearly 6 million in less than a year and a half. I'd have thought that good capitalists would *want* to see as many citizens as possible creating and sharing in the wealth of their community. If shunting more and more into the pockets of the wealthiest plutocrats actually *despoils* the productivity of the community, throwing millions out of work, it might be rather a good idea to find ways to have the communally-produced wealth spread around again. Hostile rhetoric about "welfare queens" can deafen us to this call to a return to real functioning capitalism. Yes, there are spongers and petty criminals, but it seems to me extremely unlikely that Obama was appealing to them in his invocation of traditional American values of fairness and community. Damien Broderick [a stranger in a strange land--so hey, maybe I've got the ethos wrong, and Americans always *have* wanted the very richest to own almost all the nation's wealth and to hell with the rest] From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 9 18:08:00 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 11:08:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it><8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z><0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z><875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5F6C6D31553843DCB26EC5589562223E@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda > At 09:23 AM 5/9/2009 -0700, spike wrote: >> >>It sets off alarm bells in my head when he >>utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." >>THE >>wealth? Define THE, sir. > > I always assumed this is an incredible beat-up (as Aussies say of > journalistic hysteria where a statement is taken out of context and > inflated absurdly). > > THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces of the > community. As everyone knows, in recent years an increasing proportion of > this wealth has been funneled into the richest segments of (so-called) > capitalist nations. Some of this upward drainage is due to unmitigated > theft and scams on a colossal scale, pyramid schemes and other > depredations. Some might be deserved, as brilliant and risky > entrepreneurship increased wealth and convenience and lifespan etc for the > entire community, and Atlas deserves his payment. Nevertheless, it can be > argued that a disproportionate cut has been scooped up by the richest, and > that this is not only morally dubious *but damages future wealth-making > processes*--by, for example, as we are seeing, leading to a clusterfuck of > such enormous dimension that 539,000 jobs disappeared last month in the > US, and nearly 6 million in less than a year and a half. > > I'd have thought that good capitalists would *want* to see as many > citizens as possible creating and sharing in the wealth of their > community. If shunting more and more into the pockets of the wealthiest > plutocrats actually *despoils* the productivity of the community, throwing > millions out of work, it might be rather a good idea to find ways to have > the communally-produced wealth spread around again. Hostile rhetoric about > "welfare queens" can deafen us to this call to a return to real > functioning capitalism. Yes, there are spongers and petty criminals, but > it seems to me extremely unlikely that Obama was appealing to them in his > invocation of traditional American values of fairness and community. I've read some brilliant stuff on this discussion forum. But this one beats all. Thank you, Damien ... Olga From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 9 19:00:59 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 20:00:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces of the > community. As everyone knows, in recent years an increasing proportion of > this wealth has been funneled into the richest segments of (so-called) > capitalist nations. Some of this upward drainage is due to unmitigated theft > and scams on a colossal scale, pyramid schemes and other depredations. Some > might be deserved, as brilliant and risky entrepreneurship increased wealth > and convenience and lifespan etc for the entire community, and Atlas > deserves his payment. Nevertheless, it can be argued that a disproportionate > cut has been scooped up by the richest, and that this is not only morally > dubious *but damages future wealth-making processes*--by, for example, as we > are seeing, leading to a clusterfuck of such enormous dimension that 539,000 > jobs disappeared last month in the US, and nearly 6 million in less than a > year and a half. > > I'd have thought that good capitalists would *want* to see as many citizens > as possible creating and sharing in the wealth of their community. If > shunting more and more into the pockets of the wealthiest plutocrats > actually *despoils* the productivity of the community, throwing millions out > of work, it might be rather a good idea to find ways to have the > communally-produced wealth spread around again. Hostile rhetoric about > "welfare queens" can deafen us to this call to a return to real functioning > capitalism. Yes, there are spongers and petty criminals, but it seems to me > extremely unlikely that Obama was appealing to them in his invocation of > traditional American values of fairness and community. > > The depression hasn't got bad enough yet. The bankers have taken over the Fed and are running the country for the benefit of their banking friends and ex-colleagues. Mainly because they have huge wealth invested in these big banks, so protecting the banks is also protecting their own wealth. The big banks continue to use financial trickery to hide their bankruptcy and keep everything going on as normal. Big salaries, big bonuses, unlimited expenses, etc. The small banks are getting closed down or taken over by bigger banks. No protection for them. Unemployment will continue to grow at around 500,000 per month as business continues to shrink. How long can it continue? If the government keeps handing more and more fake money over to the big banks, they can keep the zombie banks staggering on for years while the economy collapses around them. Eventually the death and renewal force of capitalism will take effect. The broken companies must be torn down and new companies started up. But the longer it is postponed the worse the depression will become. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat May 9 21:07:34 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 14:07:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] puzzler Message-ID: <45684D6DBDC9439AAF1E6021BCC41D91@spike> I am so in awe of myself. The Click and Clack radio show has a weekly puzzler, and this week's is terrific. I figured it out. I suspect even the monster brains on this forum will not get it. Here it is: "I was hired to build a cabin in the woods 20 miles from civilization, so I set off early one morning before sunrise. And because there was no electricity at the site I brought along my generator, radio, etc. I also packed an extension cord, my electric drill and the bits, and my socket and wrench set. When I was finished for the day, I tried to leave but my battery was dead. I had left my lights on all day. "I look behind the driver's seat and I find the following items: jumper cables, a roll of duct tape and a quart of Fillipo Berio Extra Virgin Olive Oil. By this time it's getting dark, the coyotes are howling and the buzzards are circling. "If only there was a way to get power from the generator which is making 110 volts AC and get that into my dead battery, which is 12 volts DC. The question is: how can I do it with only the items at my disposal?" I nailed it because of something I discovered during my misspent youth. The answer will be given on the Car Talk show tomorrow. I will post the answer later today. Any guesses? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Sat May 9 23:29:58 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 01:29:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A0556F5.8080406@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A0611F6.5090401@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 12.45, BillK ha scritto: > On 5/9/09, painlord2k wrote: > These libs do love their contracts, don't they? When dealing with a government the contracts are subject to change without notice. And, as Darth Vader put it, "Pray I don't change them again!" > Everybody is expected to have a filing cabinet full of contracts > relating to every person, company, club, council, government office, > etc. that they deal with. And they all have to checked that they are > still up-to-date and valid. We are very lucky that computer and internet exist, today. They could manage all the contracts, look for interdependencies and incompatibility. I suppose many contracts could be and will be standardized as to make the life simpler for the sellers and the buyers. I think that the number and types of contracts and their interdependencies and incompatibilities will be much lesser than today mess of laws and codes created by lawmakers and bureaucrats that have the power to impose them to you. For comparison, I found this example of the current mess: www.i2i.org/articles/IP_9_2005_b.pdf > Colorado currently has some 30,000 laws filling more than 50 volumes > of the Colorado Revised Statutes, both criminal and regulatory. > Every session, the Colorado General Assembly passes hundreds of new > laws for government to enforce and citizens to both understand and > obey http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113861,00.html > The federal tax code (search) today covers 17,000 pages and requires > over 700 different forms. The IRS estimates Americans spend 5.1 > billion hours annually merely preparing their taxes. The Tax > Foundation estimates that those wasted hours drain some $194 billion > annually from the U.S. economy. All of that comes before Joe Taxpayer > forks over his first dime. > The Federal Registry (search), which records all of the regulations > the federal government imposes on businesses (all of which carry the > force of law), now exceeds 75,000 pages. The Office of Management and > Budget estimates that merely complying with these regulations ? that > is, paying lawyers to keep educated on them, interpret them and > implement them ? costs U.S. business another $500 to $600 billion per > year. Do you really believe that people would be able and willing to do worse than this? In Italy, we had 100.000 laws in the books (2005), but this is good, because we had 200.000 laws in the books in the 1985. The Vatican, this year, stopped to adopt "automatically" all the laws enacted by Italy. "Italian laws are too many, changing and often contradictory to each other, let alone those standards that in fact run counter to Christian morality." > And among these hundreds of contracts, they have to check carefully > that no contract has terms that contradict the terms in any other > contract. Then they have to worry about precedence. Which contract > can override less important contracts? And perhaps, unknowingly, > their contracts conflict with someone else's contracts? And all the > contract conflicts for the population have to be fought out in > court. Are you sure to be in compliance with any and all laws of the US? federal and local? Did you read all of them and carefully checked them for any action you do during your day and night activities? > And, of course, you have to be able to read and write to sign a > contract. The US has about 99% literacy. But that 1% is still 3 > million people. Many countries are below the 70% literacy level. Well, "ignorance of the laws is not an excuse". So, people unable to read is not excuse if they don't know and understand all the laws the lawmakers write. > What they need is a government organization to process and record all > the contracts for all the population. Like the DMV, but much, much > larger and more bureaucratic. I would prefer a private service that record and maintain the various contracts. Governments would be always later, they would lose the papers and would mix the records. Mirco From mlatorra at gmail.com Sun May 10 00:34:46 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 18:34:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550905091734r2df0bdb2w99355a37fef4d300@mail.gmail.com> Right, Damien. Excessive concentration of wealth weakens the entire society. The situation is only made worse when we discover how much of that concentrated wealth was garnered through fraud. Regards, Mike LaTorra On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:23 AM 5/9/2009 -0700, spike wrote: > >> >> It sets off alarm bells in my head when he >> utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." >> THE >> wealth? Define THE, sir. >> > > I always assumed this is an incredible beat-up (as Aussies say of > journalistic hysteria where a statement is taken out of context and inflated > absurdly). > > THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces of the > community. As everyone knows, in recent years an increasing proportion of > this wealth has been funneled into the richest segments of (so-called) > capitalist nations. Some of this upward drainage is due to unmitigated theft > and scams on a colossal scale, pyramid schemes and other depredations. Some > might be deserved, as brilliant and risky entrepreneurship increased wealth > and convenience and lifespan etc for the entire community, and Atlas > deserves his payment. Nevertheless, it can be argued that a disproportionate > cut has been scooped up by the richest, and that this is not only morally > dubious *but damages future wealth-making processes*--by, for example, as we > are seeing, leading to a clusterfuck of such enormous dimension that 539,000 > jobs disappeared last month in the US, and nearly 6 million in less than a > year and a half. > > I'd have thought that good capitalists would *want* to see as many citizens > as possible creating and sharing in the wealth of their community. If > shunting more and more into the pockets of the wealthiest plutocrats > actually *despoils* the productivity of the community, throwing millions out > of work, it might be rather a good idea to find ways to have the > communally-produced wealth spread around again. Hostile rhetoric about > "welfare queens" can deafen us to this call to a return to real functioning > capitalism. Yes, there are spongers and petty criminals, but it seems to me > extremely unlikely that Obama was appealing to them in his invocation of > traditional American values of fairness and community. > > Damien Broderick > [a stranger in a strange land--so hey, maybe I've got the ethos wrong, and > Americans always *have* wanted the very richest to own almost all the > nation's wealth and to hell with the rest] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dharris234 at mindspring.com Sun May 10 01:05:40 2009 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 18:05:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] puzzler In-Reply-To: <45684D6DBDC9439AAF1E6021BCC41D91@spike> References: <45684D6DBDC9439AAF1E6021BCC41D91@spike> Message-ID: <4A062864.6020608@mindspring.com> You know how to challenge us! OK, some generators have a 12 volt DC output that could be carried to the battery directly. I have such a generator in my back yard storage, thanks to Enron's fraud that made me think that shortages of 110 juice would be a frequent occurrence in California. But assuming this generator was not so equipped, I'd take the generator's 110 AC thru the extension cord to the electric drill with a big drill and some little ones jammed into the square drive side of a socket so the drill's rotation would drive the nut that holds the pulley that is bolted to the CAR's generator or alternator. Loosen the generator or alternator drive belt so you're just turning the pulley that makes 12V for the car battery. Disconnect the battery positive, temporarily, from devices that might deplete the stream of entering 12V power. There is some remote chance that the carboxylic acid(s) in the olive oil would orient (because carboxylic acids have a positive end and a hydrophobic oily chain) in contact with the battery acid and act as some sort of diode, allowing more electrons to move in one direction than the other direction of the 110 alternating current. Different numbers of electrons makes a DC current in one direction. I'd do the drill method before Googling on the electrical properties of olive oil and acids. How'd I do? - David Harris, Palo Alto spike wrote: > .... I suspect even the monster brains on this forum will not get > it. Here it is: > > > "... brought along my generator, radio, etc. I also packed an > extension cord, my electric drill and the bits, and my socket and > wrench set. ... jumper cables, a roll of duct tape and a quart of > Fillipo Berio Extra Virgin Olive Oil.... > > "If only there was a way to get power from the generator which is > making 110 volts AC and get that into my dead battery, which is 12 > volts DC. The question is: how can I do it with only the items at my > disposal?" > > > > > I nailed it because of something I discovered during my misspent > youth. The answer will be given on the Car Talk show tomorrow. I > will post the answer later today. Any guesses? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun May 10 03:08:13 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 20:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Is this intolerant? Message-ID: <6316.29509.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOewegX7H-Q __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ From spike66 at att.net Sun May 10 05:08:54 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:08:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] puzzler In-Reply-To: <4A062864.6020608@mindspring.com> References: <45684D6DBDC9439AAF1E6021BCC41D91@spike> <4A062864.6020608@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Excellent! David after I saw your post I realized this might work, so there are two different ways to sleep that night in a warm bed instead of a cold truck. Your idea is one: remove the alternator belt and rig the drill to spin the alternator. Here's what I thought: Recall that hand drills are variable speed devices, using a potentiometer in the trigger. In my misspent youth, I found an old drill in the trash, plugged it in, didn't work, took it apart and noticed that it was a DC motor. It had a rectifier circuit going to the potentiometer in the trigger and that output going to brushes in the motor. So I reasoned I should be able to run the drill motor off of a car batter by taking out the rectifier and putting in 12 volts just upstream of the trigger potentiometer. Works great. So store this away: if you are away out in the hootnannies with no electric power but have the usual tools one carries in a take-along tool bag, and you need to drill a hole in something, remember you can splice in ahead of the trigger and run your hand drill off your car battery. So I reasoned that if a drill can run off of a battery, then a battery can run off of a drill. So I would remove the drill motor brushes, attach the jumper cables to the car battery, take about a 10 amp fuse from something non-critical, put it in series, then gradually pull the trigger until the fuse burns out, lock the trigger in place right there, then connect it back without the fuse and let the rectifier circuit in the drill charge the battery. With ten amps, the truck should start within an hour or two. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David C. Harris Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 6:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] puzzler You know how to challenge us! OK, some generators have a 12 volt DC output that could be carried to the battery directly. I have such a generator in my back yard storage, thanks to Enron's fraud that made me think that shortages of 110 juice would be a frequent occurrence in California. But assuming this generator was not so equipped, I'd take the generator's 110 AC thru the extension cord to the electric drill with a big drill and some little ones jammed into the square drive side of a socket so the drill's rotation would drive the nut that holds the pulley that is bolted to the CAR's generator or alternator. Loosen the generator or alternator drive belt so you're just turning the pulley that makes 12V for the car battery. Disconnect the battery positive, temporarily, from devices that might deplete the stream of entering 12V power. There is some remote chance that the carboxylic acid(s) in the olive oil would orient (because carboxylic acids have a positive end and a hydrophobic oily chain) in contact with the battery acid and act as some sort of diode, allowing more electrons to move in one direction than the other direction of the 110 alternating current. Different numbers of electrons makes a DC current in one direction. I'd do the drill method before Googling on the electrical properties of olive oil and acids. How'd I do? - David Harris, Palo Alto spike wrote: .... I suspect even the monster brains on this forum will not get it. Here it is: "... brought along my generator, radio, etc. I also packed an extension cord, my electric drill and the bits, and my socket and wrench set. ... jumper cables, a roll of duct tape and a quart of Fillipo Berio Extra Virgin Olive Oil.... "If only there was a way to get power from the generator which is making 110 volts AC and get that into my dead battery, which is 12 volts DC. The question is: how can I do it with only the items at my disposal?" I nailed it because of something I discovered during my misspent youth. The answer will be given on the Car Talk show tomorrow. I will post the answer later today. Any guesses? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 10 15:12:09 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 01:12:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/10 spike : >> I was referring to spike working for low pay, not Obama. I >> don't understand how one could begrudge an unemployed person >> a subsistence level of income but think it's OK for other >> people, rich people, to "earn" more for doing less. The >> capitalist who makes profits in his sleep takes the money >> from the people who actually do the work just as surely as >> the unemployed person getting the dole does... >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou > > > Stathis, the key to understanding the above statement is in the phrase "the > money" as in "...takes THE money from the people..." ?A capitalist creates > wealth by investment, so it makes more money. ?The beekeeper puts down his > own money to invest in hives, the bees create honey, which is wealth, then > the capitalist hires indolent youths (such as me) and others to work for pay > which they otherwise would not have had. ?The capitalist doesn't take THE > money, she creates wealth which would not otherwise exist, and partners with > labor, so that they earn some of the created wealth. ?Everyone wins. ?Cool! If I pay you $1 to make a widget which I then sell for $100 I may have done something legal, even admirable in some peoples' eyes, but to my way of thinking I have exploited you. I have been paid at a huge rate for the work I have done, even though the enterprise may not have got off the ground at all without that small amount of work. It's just that the market and the legal system have allowed my work to be rated far more highly than your work. Pragmatically, you could argue that things should be left this way since the possibility of reward disproportionately high compared to effort motivates people to attempt projects they otherwise would not. In fact, you could summarise capitalist success as the achievement of making more and more money while doing less and less work. But this does not, in my view, make it morally right, although of course we may come to an impasse when it comes to defining moral principles. > My heartburn with Obama is that he never had that experience, he didn't do > grinding labor for a pittance, didn't risk his own capital to start or run a > business. Well, most supporters of capitalism would say that if a capitalist built a billion dollar company by doing *less* work and risking *less* money, that's even more impressive. That reward should be in proportion to effort sounds more like something Marx would have approved of! > His professional experience is in suing businesses for a ton of > money. ?This would cause him to see business as prey, as opposed to partners > with goverment in wealth creation. ?He is running the country like a > teenager snorting cocaine. ?It sets off alarm bells in my head when he > utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." ?THE > wealth? ?Define THE, sir. I don't disagree that some lawyers earn too much but they're probably in the middle range of those who earn too much; not up there with bankers and celebrities. But I'm surprised that you would find fault with someone who, after all, only earned as much as the market would stand. Is there any businessman who would not do the same? Is there any businessman who would not sue a competitor if he thought he could benefit financially by doing so? You are showing, dare I say, the sort of scruples a socialist would show. And whatever else Obama is, he doesn't claim to be a socialist, not would anyone identifying as a socialist claim him as one of his own. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Sun May 10 16:18:16 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:18:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it><8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z><0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z><875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7CA8E792AE3B46BE87977AE0F92C19B3@spike> > > At 09:23 AM 5/9/2009 -0700, spike wrote: > > > >It sets off alarm bells in my head when he utters comments > like "We all > >benefit when we spread THE wealth around." THE wealth? Define THE, > >sir. > ... > > THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces > of the community... Damien Very well, let us accept that definition of THE wealth. When we elect a president, we have her take the oath of office, in which she vows to uphold the constitution. The constitution was carefully designed by a bunch of guys who just finished fighting a tyrannical government. It specifically limits what the government can do to us. Although we grudging accept taxation as a necessary evil, I see nothing in the constitution that allows the president to have any say in redistributing THE wealth, as defined above. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun May 10 16:33:00 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:33:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou .... > > > My heartburn with Obama is that he never had that experience, he > > didn't do grinding labor for a pittance, didn't risk his > own capital > > to start or run a business. > > > > His professional experience is in suing businesses for a > ton of money. ? > > This would cause him to see business as prey, as opposed to > partners > > with goverment in wealth creation. ?He is running the > country like a > > teenager snorting cocaine. ?It sets off alarm bells in my > head when he > > utters comments like "We all benefit when we spread THE wealth > > around." ?THE wealth? ?Define THE, sir. > > ...But I'm surprised that > you would find fault with someone who, after all, only earned > as much as the market would stand. Is there any businessman > who would not do the same?... Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, the reason I didn't vote for Obama (and McCain either) is that they didn't have the critical experience in their youth of working their asses off for low pay and associating with others doing the same. Both of those guys they missed a critical lesson in life, one that must be learned early and reinforced. I don't know what the heck McCain was doing back then, but Obama describes in his book snorting cocaine, which no one with a minimum wage job will do, because it costs a ton of money. Why doesn't the press ever ask where the money came from? Then later he was suing businesses. I see nothing in that formative background which would make him realize that money is hard earned stuff, it's the lifeblood of the working class. We don't want government taking it from those who work hard and using it to bail out huge businesses that are too big to fail, but are going to fail eventually anyway. The US constitution doesn't give the government the authority to do that. spike From painlord2k at libero.it Sun May 10 16:47:35 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:47:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <4A05584B.8030702@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A070527.1040600@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 14.11, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/9 painlord2k at libero.it: > >> The capitalist risk his/her capital and defer consumption of his/her capital >> because he/she invest the capital in some enterprise. >> When I invest money in a company I could sleep and gain or I could sleep and >> lose. >> >> The unemployed on the dole can only gain from the dole as he did not invest >> and risk nothing. > Then the capitalist is lucky, or even smart, but not necessarily hard > working. > The argument was that the unemployed person is lazy and takes > from those who work. I don't know if people on dole are "lazy" or not. I know that they could decide to refuse a job if they are sure the dole will not disappear. Often, this decision would be the best option available. I don't know what are "hard working" or "lazy" in this discussion. Are you arguing that only people sweating are hard working people? Are you arguing that only people doing physical jobs are working? The capitalist job is to use his capital (and the capital other entrust to him) to produce useful goods and services. Useful is determined when people pay for them freely. In this act, all capitalists are speculation on the future. They produce stuff or services that they hope to sell in the future for a profit. The job of the capitalist is to take the burden of the risk of the enterprise. Do you think this is something not needed? Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Sun May 10 17:17:52 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:17:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A070C40.3050802@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 19.49, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > At 09:23 AM 5/9/2009 -0700, spike wrote: >> >> It sets off alarm bells in my head when he utters comments like "We >> all benefit when we spread THE wealth around." THE wealth? Define >> THE, sir. > > I always assumed this is an incredible beat-up (as Aussies say of > journalistic hysteria where a statement is taken out of context and > inflated absurdly). Your assumption are wrong. Why assuming? Read and look and hear. It is all online. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp Obama said he want "redistribute the wealth of people like JOE WURZELBACHER (AKA Joe The Plumber). > I explained to him that I?m planning on purchasing this company ? > it?s not something I?m gonna purchase outright, it?s something I?m > going to have to make payments on for years ? but essentially I?m > going to buy this company, and the profits generated by that could > possibly put me in that tax bracket he?s talking about and that > bothers me. It?s not like I would be rich; I would still just be a > working plumber. I work hard for my money, and the fact that he > thinks I make a little too much that he just wants to redistribute it > to other people. Some of them might need it, but at the same time, > it?s not their discretion to do it ? it?s mine. > > PM: You?re a plumber, and you?re looking to buy your own plumbing > business? > > JW: Correct. Read the rest. This is the only wealth that was and will be redistributed by socialists like Obama. From the real hard workers to their cronies. Mirco From painlord2k at libero.it Sun May 10 17:28:33 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:28:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> References: <49FC6844.8040607@libero.it> <8EC6ADBDF15D4FDABEE1C01D8E8E8F8B@patrick4ezsk6z> <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <7.0.1.0.2.20090509122413.0224ebe8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A070EC1.6070807@libero.it> Il 09/05/2009 19.49, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > THE wealth is the wealth created by all the productive forces of the > community. Please define "productive forces". I don't know "productive forces". I know only individual persons. I know only individual persons work and produce goods and services. And good and services can be classified as wealth only if people want them and is willing to pay for them. Mirco From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 05:07:15 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:07:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A07B283.50603@rawbw.com> Dan wrote (5/7/2009 2:46pm) > Regarding how reform should be attempted within the > present system, I disagree that perpetuating or > expanding the system is the correct approach. Yes indeed. And I commend you also for pointing out that we can only hope to move towards eventual positions that appeal to us, and ought not outright advocate those eventual positions. > I think as libertarian ideas slowly spread, we will > slowly evolve away from the coercive system. Why are you optimistic? What can you point to in the last thirty or forty years that gives ground for optimism? In fact, right here on this list, we see a great, increasing, and ongoing retrenchment away from libertarian ideas and ideals. (It's worse year by year.) > A more radical approach is not likely to > succeed simply because most people don't > understand libertarian principles That's some of it all right. But also not to be underestimated is the feeling that most people have that one way or the other, their own value systems must triumph, no matter what it takes (e.g. coercion of some kind or other). A classic example is the "progressive" view here in the United States concerning the Supreme Court. Before 1920 or 1930, the progressives were all in favor of weakening the court---but this was merely, it turned out, because the court did not tend at the time to favor their policies. Ever since, it's been the legislatures that progressives want to weaken, and the courts to be strengthened---again, merely because of the transient fact that current legislatures are opposed to their agenda. As is so often the case, there is no principle in operation here. Only expediency. So far as I can tell, expediency has been uniformly increasing in the U.S. at the expense of principle for about one hundred and fifty years. Lee > -- even if they default to practicing them successfully > in most of their lives (i.e., most people do not > initiate force in most cases to get what they want > and live their lives) -- and lack imagination to see > how a non-command system will work. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 05:26:58 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:26:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <953258.34086.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7641ddc60905052119s62a3116am6fcbff27ce983c90@mail.gmail.com> <4A03AF5B.9040707@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A07B722.3090308@rawbw.com> BillK wrote: > On 5/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote: . >> We too seldom inquire as to "how did anyone >> become wealthy in the first place?". "How >> did any society succeed to the point that >> we have something against which to compare >> so-called failed societies?" >> >> Remember that this is what happened originally. >> This was the natural state. This is the default >> condition. We must focus on how any society rose >> above this default condition, and what makes it >> possible for any society to do so. >> >> The culture had to become "strong" enough so >> that a sufficient number of people chose to >> behave differently. This was accomplished, >> historically, in precisely the way that Rafal >> indicates, namely by those who failed to adhere >> to high standards becoming examples of what >> not to do. This is how probity evolved. >> > > No, it didn't. > > In early societies, violence was the secret sauce, with slavery close behind. It sounds as though we are talking about different points in history. > People got rich by using force to take it from weaker people / > nations. Then using more force (legal system, armies, etc.) to keep > control. Yes, that's a good description of the formation of all the early states. Things began what I'll call the modern transition in the 1700s. > The idea of democracy and working to better > yourself is very recent. Well, the "democracy" or republican form of government, despite its classical roots, became of significant force really only in the 19th century. The period starting in the 1820s that lasted about a century is the period to focus on. That's when modern wealth started being produced at fantastic levels (though we seldom appreciate it properly). An extremely good book is Bernstein, "The Birth of Plenty". Clark "Farewell to Alms" even pinpoints the years right around 1820 as pivotal. > And mostly it is not allowed to interfere with > the existing rich and powerful classes. (Some > exceptions, of course). Well, I think that's quite right too :) but not really germane. (E.g. a certain part of the present financial imbroglio is due to financial elites in the western world.) When I wrote >> The culture had to become "strong" enough so >> that a sufficient number of people chose to >> behave differently.... [exemplified in a >> negative way] by those who failed to adhere >> to high standards becoming examples of what >> not to do. This is how probity evolved. I was speaking of this modern period. I think that there was Darwinian selection of successful cultural practices throughout the whole modern period. Folks are conditioned to an amazing extent by what their parents do/did, and what they see the people around them doing. To the degree that human effort makes any difference (the "left" says "not a lot", the right says "it's everything", e.g. Horatio Alger myths), it stands to reason that bad examples won't be emulated, and good ones will. How do you think that probity evolved? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 05:42:01 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:42:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The choice wasn't death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> Stathis wrote: > 2009/5/8 Lee Corbin : > >> eager Social Security office workers were looking >> for people just like me to put on the dole. One >> of the greatest strokes of luck in my life is that >> they didn't find me in time. >> >> So I had to leave southern California, all my chess >> pals, all the distractions of life that I had >> accumulated in my misspent youth, and focus on >> making a living. Thank goodness. > Are you saying you would have been content with the > dole had it been available? Sadly, I'm afraid that that's exactly the case, although "content" is surely too strong a word. How about "resigned"? One person I know who didn't want to work has managed to convince the State of California that he is insane. And, uh, by "didn't want to work", I mean that he was never forced to make really hard choices and undergo retraining (he's very bright), or start at some low wage and work his way up---the state was there to give him an easier way out. Another person I know is a sort of hypochondriac. He did leave California, and found a government- supported life in a nearby state. He's hardly happy---but he (like my other acquaintance) is now thoroughly addicted to the dole, and is completely convinced that his illnesses make impossible any improvement in his condition. (There's only a small chance that he's right.) I offer these examples, of course, not by way of proof, but by way of illustrating a process that stand to reason: In America, even, the state actively intercedes in many, many people's lives destroying incentive. Quite a number of third-generation welfare recipients, or so I am told, now know no other way of living---you have a lot of kids and let the government take care of you, and, although there is a lot of hassle, you adapt. > Then to be consistent you would have obtained > a part-time job had the dole not been available, > i.e. one requiring the minimum effort to obtain > the same income as the dole. Well, I did try that. The work was simply too nasty (in one case, so boring that I was not able to do the work as well as others). It was at this point that I could have become addicted to the dole, and eventually, if the U.S. government had followed some European ones, learned to live very cheaply, perhaps in other countries, on the little money provided by my government. Fortunately for me, I was too lazy to do a through job of investigating all that the state of California had to offer, and I didn't happen to know anyone at the time who had learned how to extract a daily living from them. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 06:01:08 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:01:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> Damien wrote > ...all this is self-evident. It has nothing to do with the > point I raised, which is that if giving tax-sourced money > to the lazy poor is held to be wrong *in part because* it > corrodes the moral character of the recipients (among other > reasons why it's wicked and damaging), glad you're coming around on that > then giving money to the children of the rich might do > just the same damage, I must completely agree. Who wouldn't? Only those ignorant, I assume, of the actual histories of what happened to most people who inherited vast wealth. The true libertarians don't have any mixed feelings here (not being consequentialists). They sees it simply as a violation of property rights, pure and simple. As somewhat of a consequentialist, I agree that you have raised a valid question. If I am trying to weigh the long-term consequences of each policy, I must investigate the tradeoff between A. the wasted talent, energy, and work of those who merely inherit wealth (in most cases) with B. the diminished incentive of those who earn big fortunes, who know that when they're gone it will all be "for nothing" (at least nothing that concerns them personally). Even if I had a clear idea how to weigh A against B, the current times are changing too quickly to allow much validity to such a judgment. So I (very weakly) guess that probably the use of the money should be left to the discretion of those who earned it (and were motivated to do so in part by the benefit they anticipated their beloved children would receive), and kept out of the hands of government bureaucrats, who tend to use any excess monies to destroy the foundations of wealth-creation. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 11 06:17:36 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 01:17:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> At 11:01 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: >the use of the >money should be... kept out >of the hands of government bureaucrats, who >tend to use any excess monies to destroy the >foundations of wealth-creation. I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating young humans, building roads and sewers, contributing to some portion of health care. This sort of flagrant waste just erodes everything we hold dear, we wealth creators. Damien Broderick [Yes, it's the *bloat* that's really at fault--a vice one never encounters in business... banking, say, or health insurance] From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 06:31:16 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:31:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A0466C7.8040709@libero.it> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A0466C7.8040709@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A07C634.9010805@rawbw.com> Mirco wrote on 5/8/2009 10:07 AM > The right to inheritance is the right to inherit because other > unrelated people have not the right to take the inheritance for > themselves. The right to inherit is, mainly, a right to leave our wealth > to someone after we die. The inheriting people have not the right to > kill us to collect before or to force us to work more so they will be > able to collect more. Thanks for stating this much better than I could; we end up in the same place, mostly, but by different routes. (I also appreciate Dan's very readable essays on basic libertarianism.) You see this as a fundamental question of "rights", a language that for some reason has never made much sense to me, while I see it in terms of what will happen to a society that adopts confiscation as policy. > Entitlements funded with taxes give > the entitled people an unjust claim > that they can collect from taxed > people when thy want collect what they > want collect, as the taxed people have > no right to complain. Quite apart from the "justice", I come at it from the view of incentive. Here is the difference between true charity and entitlement: in the former, the receiver realizes the act as charity, and especially if he or she knows the giver, is motivated not to disappoint. Whereas the problems with "entitlements" hardly need stating. > The collecting people receiving > damage is not a problem, as they are > free to refuse the unjust help > offered and so refusing to take the > damage. Yes, but it's a very rare person who refuses such gifts. I myself, for example, would be completely against the U.S. government issuing checks to every adult citizen for $100,000, but you can be sure I'd cash mine. At least half of the real problem is that the gifts *are* accepted, and destroy motivation and incentive accordingly. I wish I knew why this doesn't seem obvious to many people. > The real problem is the damage > imparted to the taxed people, > that will find themselves forced > to pay and will choose to work > less or will choose to use welfare. Some are affected, but not all. Yes, the mechanism you refer to is real and operative. But in many cases, especially those who find their work rewarding, we can't really speculate on the effect, IMO. > [Damien writes] > >> Or [do entitlements] only corrupt those >> worthless lazy stupid-but-cunning millions Hey, let's not get personal! >> sucking on welfare's tit? (Or does it >> corrupt everyone alike, Mirco is probably right; it's too hazardous to generalize. Some people have (for whatever reason) a strong enough work ethic that it's not corrupting for them, for others it is. However, it's pretty easy to see that it often does corrupt, and not just in our own times. > [Damien wrote] > >> This line of thought might lead to further questions: if nanotopia >> arrives, with all of us getting food, shelter, education, communication >> and transport for free, must we face a future of hopeless degradation >> because these benefits are *unearned*? Or is that okay, because in this >> case the goodies aren't being taken from your pocket and "spread around" >> to the welfare queens--and besides, you don't have a taxable job anyway >> because the AIs took it? As someone wrote, this is a very difficult situation to analyze indeed. That person (sorry for the lacking ref, but it was BillK I think) wisely noted that nothing changes in isolation. I've felt for a decade and a half a lack of imagination on my own part about how the economic consequences would unfold. We see this in miniature all the time, however. Every time someone invents a new widgit, we have wealth creation. But there are myriad mysteries here. For example, when the European countries "damage" African economies by exporting artificially cheap food to them, how exactly is this different from an African genius inventing a machine that does the same thing? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 06:38:42 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:38:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> Damien notes > At 11:01 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: > >> the use of the >> money should be... kept out >> of the hands of government bureaucrats, who >> tend to use any excess monies to destroy the >> foundations of wealth-creation. > > I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating > young humans, building roads and sewers, contributing to some portion of > health care. This sort of flagrant waste just erodes everything we hold > dear, we wealth creators. Oh, I'll grant that things could always be done *more wastefully* than at present. But one by one of your points, the libertarians do have answers. Realizing that the degree to which a society can become libertarian in the short run is severely circumscribed by ambient cultural norms, I think it's a waste of time to speculate too much about *some* of the things you note, however. E.g., basic infrastructure is one. But education? Ever thought about what our education system would look like in twenty-five years or so if completely privatized (with, vouchers, say, for the time being, utilized)? The innovations dreamed up, and the customization to particular kids would become extraordinary. We've sadly, at least most of us, have grown up on the default assumption that only government can provide certain things. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 06:53:49 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 23:53:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the unjust > taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to where?), but for > those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the contract they > have entered into? As a practical matter, I think that I have to agree with you. Pure libertarians, in my view, constantly theorize about ideal individuals, as if such really existed. Our messy historical reality proves that we must hold libertarianism only as a direction toward which to move. What would have happened to any classical country of the 18th or 19th centuries that had a uniform change of consciousness, and whose residents all suddently became libertarians? This is not as far fetched as it sounds; something quite similar happened to the Polish nobility. The answer is that they're quickly gobbled up by outside gangs of one kind or another. Sad as it is to admit it, the U.S. government is merely the biggest and toughest gang on the North American continent. The vast federal armies made it perfectly clear in 1865 what happens to anybody that wants to go their own way. Look at a globe. See any areas where states haven't imposed, by force, their wills? Sadly, we have to work from within the present system, helping here and there to strengthen what is good, what is free, provided we remain within what is culturally possible. And even more sadly, respect for basic freedoms (and non-intrusion by governments, either fiscally or by men with badges and guns coming to make sure that you do what they think is right medically regarding your children), is culturally on the wane. Who could even have (on this list) imagined fifteen years ago that Voltaire's principle would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy years ago in America could have guessed that government would come to absorb about fifty percent of everyone's pay, and would soon be trying to impose communist health care? Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 11 07:26:06 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 02:26:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> At 11:38 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: >Ever thought about what our >education system would look like in >twenty-five years or so if completely >privatized (with, vouchers, say, for >the time being, utilized)? The innovations >dreamed up, and the customization to >particular kids would become extraordinary. I don't have to imagine it, I was "schooled" in a series of working class Catholic schools, paid for entirely privately, in the days before the Australian electorate agreed to give Catholics back some if not all the tax quantum they'd paid for education. Bad majority of bigoted voters, yes. But the private "education" I got was appalling, full of repression, ignorance and a measure of violence, sexually weird (all boys' schools, e.g.), incompetent. It might be retorted, "Oh, but look, you turned out okay, you have a doctorate and a bunch of books to your name." Not because of those schools, trust me. I turned out so academically fucked up at 17 that it took me 5 years to not quite get a degree (I caught up eventually); when I entered university I had *almost no cultural capital* outside a lot of rote instantly forgotten principal-exports-of-Peru crap and Irish Catholic godswallop. That's what "completely privatized" can do for a kid. At the age of 12 I was being treated as if my IQ was 50 or 60 points lower than it really was. You can find awful tales of govt schools that are as dismal, I know. Barbara spent some time teaching allegedly ineducable kids and did so brilliantly with several of them that she was fired by the slackarse incumbents. It's a crap shoot, maybe. How marvelous to be raised in a $cientology school, say, or a madras. Right, so much more liberating than those statist govt schools. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 11 07:30:17 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 02:30:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511022826.024689d8@satx.rr.com> At 11:53 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: >Who sixty or seventy >years ago in America could have guessed that >government ... would soon >be trying to impose communist health care? Lee, careful; this is the kind of rash statement that gives communism a good name. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 11 07:51:38 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:51:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A07D90A.6010008@rawbw.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:38 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: > >> Ever thought about what our >> education system would look like in >> twenty-five years or so if completely >> privatized (with, vouchers, say, for >> the time being, utilized)? The innovations >> dreamed up, and the customization to >> particular kids would become extraordinary. > > I don't have to imagine it, I was "schooled" in a series of working > class Catholic schools, paid for entirely privately, in the days before > the Australian electorate agreed to give Catholics back some if not all > the tax quantum they'd paid for education. Bad majority of bigoted > voters, yes. But the private "education" I got was appalling, I understand. But of course, so far as private schools went, the Catholics had a near monopoly. It was a part of being a good Catholic, I imagine, to even pay the extra of having your kids educated there. That bears little resemblance to what I'm talking about. To be sure, though, there are no guarantees. But a true market place, where some kid repeatedly doesn't do well or work out at some schools provides a "market opportunity" for entrepreneurs. > You can find awful tales of govt schools that are as dismal, I know. > Barbara spent some time teaching allegedly ineducable kids and did so > brilliantly with several of them that she was fired by the slackarse > incumbents. It's a crap shoot, maybe. Well, it would be just great for a few states in the U.S. to go entirely voucher. This couldn't be free of all government regulation, of course (not at first), but it would be a start. > How marvelous to be raised in a > $cientology school, say, or a madras. > Right, so much more liberating > than those statist govt schools. Not for your tastes nor mine. But there are a lot of good private schools. And there would be a hell of a lot more if people weren't simultaneously having to pay for the public ones. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 11 08:01:00 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:01:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511022826.024689d8@satx.rr.com> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511022826.024689d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511030013.024941c0@satx.rr.com> At 02:30 AM 5/11/2009 -0500, I wrote: >>Who sixty or seventy >>years ago in America could have guessed that >>government ... would soon >>be trying to impose communist health care? > >Lee, careful; this is the kind of rash statement that gives >communism a good name. Consider Krugman's opinion: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 11 08:18:31 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:18:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A07D90A.6010008@rawbw.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> <4A07D90A.6010008@rawbw.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > I understand. But of course, so far as private > schools went, the Catholics had a near monopoly. > It was a part of being a good Catholic, I imagine, > to even pay the extra of having your kids educated > there. > > That bears little resemblance to what I'm talking > about. To be sure, though, there are no guarantees. > > But a true market place, where some kid repeatedly > doesn't do well or work out at some schools provides > a "market opportunity" for entrepreneurs. > > "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" is the motto of the Jesuits. Jesuit schools are usually boarding schools to reduce the influence of parents and the outside world. From: Jesuit schools constitute one of the most effective forms for the apostolic activity of the Society of Jesus in the United States. Jesuits and their colleagues educate over 46,000 young men and women each year at 71 secondary or pre-secondary schools in 25 states ---------- The trouble with a 'market' in schools is that there is no standard to check them by. Every crazy group will have their own schools. Even 'good' schools will be sneaking in minor classes in creationism or bomb-making or the art of shoplifting, and so on. A 'market' has to have a minimum standard to attain and a supervisory administration to stop wrong behavior. Just like any market, from street markets to Wall Street (we can wish!). BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Mon May 11 15:07:46 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:07:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A083F42.1070206@libero.it> Il 11/05/2009 9.26, Damien Broderick ha scritto: > I don't have to imagine it, I was "schooled" in a series of working > class Catholic schools, paid for entirely privately, in the days before > the Australian electorate agreed to give Catholics back some if not all > the tax quantum they'd paid for education. I would blame the people that send you to the Catholic schools and paid for them, not the Catholic schools. What is left undisclosed is "how were the alternatives available at the time?" Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 11 15:12:21 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:12:21 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/11 spike : > Stathis, the reason I didn't vote for Obama (and McCain either) is that they > didn't have the critical experience in their youth of working their asses > off for low pay and associating with others doing the same. ?Both of those > guys they missed a critical lesson in life, one that must be learned early > and reinforced. ?I don't know what the heck McCain was doing back then, but > Obama describes in his book snorting cocaine, which no one with a minimum > wage job will do, because it costs a ton of money. ?Why doesn't the press > ever ask where the money came from? ?Then later he was suing businesses. ?I > see nothing in that formative background which would make him realize that > money is hard earned stuff, it's the lifeblood of the working class. ?We > don't want government taking it from those who work hard and using it to > bail out huge businesses that are too big to fail, but are going to fail > eventually anyway. ?The US constitution doesn't give the government the > authority to do that. I know a lot of people with minimal funds who blow them on drugs; both habitually irresponsible people and people who work/study and generally behave responsibly except for their irregular binges. Usually they grow out of it when they are older and, ironically, have more money. However, the more interesting point you make is that Obama did not work hard for his money. I am surprised that as a supporter of capitalism you would hold this against him. As I said in a previous post, a definition of capitalist success could be making more and more money while doing less and less work. If you decide, after a moment's reflection, that XYZ shares are going to go up, and then make a huge profit on them, the fact that you didn't do much work or even risk much capital only makes the achievement more impressive. This is essentially what Warren Buffett did, except that he didn't always get it right and had to invest substantial sums. Had he made the same fortune even faster, doing less work and risking less money, he would have been hailed as an even greater genius. -- Stathis Papaioannou From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 15:05:21 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, BillK wrote: [big snip] > The trouble with a 'market' in schools is that there is no > standard to check them by. Actually, I think standards evolve. The difference between having political control of schools is that whatever standards arise are generally political and all too often one-size-fits-all. This results in the pattern of change we see in current educational systems: they tend to change episodically as one group captures control and enforces its view of the right way to education. And typically this ossifies until pressure builds for the next wave of reforms. > Every crazy group will have their own > schools. Even > 'good' schools will be sneaking in minor classes in > creationism or > bomb-making or the art of shoplifting, and so on. But this is so now with homeschooling and private schools, no? And, yes, we do see some crazy stuff being taught, though the surprising thing to me seems to be that most homeschooling and private schooling seems fairly tame and mainstream. And public schools often teach crazy things (think of the mainstream view of history) or fail to teach things that work (think phonics in the US) or are correct (think evolution in the US). > A 'market' has to have a minimum standard to attain and a > supervisory > administration to stop wrong behavior. Just like any > market, from > street markets to Wall Street (we can wish!). See above. Market standards evolve. In fact, all standards had to start this way. Look at, e.g., legal standards. In Common Law and commercial law, these evolved and later the state took them over freezing in standards from a particular time (though, to be sure, state law still evolves, but, again, in an episodic "statis followed by reform" rather than a continuous improvement way.). There's no reason this can't apply to schools today. And as for markets needing minimum standards, what is meant here? The problem is the state usually interferes with spotaneous ordering of markets, including Wall Street. In the latter, for instance, the state tends to protect well connected big players and does all sorts of things to prevent people via markets from cleaning house. For example, in the US, laws that prevent corporate takeovers and the like shield management from the consequences of its incompetence. The recent wave of subsidies to bigs banks and large corporations likewise prevent the market from taking down inefficience firms. The problem seems to me NOT that Wall Street needs some governmental authority to step in to prevent cheating, but that we need the government to stop bailing out or otherwise shielding Wall Street insiders from competition and from their mistakes.* I think Extropians should be for better markets, but the path to these is NOT by having some central planner decree standards, but by fostering an environment where good standards can evolve and change faster. (Again, if central planners were good at setting such standards, then why does central planning fail so often?) Regards, Dan * Also, there's the curious but usually unnoticed phenomenon of big firms calling for regulations. Why is this? It seems to me this is often to create regulatory hurdles that smaller competitors will find it harder to leap over. E.g., recently in the US Walmart voiced its support for raising the minimum wage. Does anyone honestly believe Walmart did so because it was feeling particularly altruistic (even if altruistic with federal power)? No, it seems to have been a good public relations move, but even more a great move to shake off competition from smaller firms who will find it much more difficult to pay their works more. In other words, Walmart is willing to harm itself -- absorbing higher wage money costs -- as along as this harm is much more serious to its competition. From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 11 15:33:57 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:33:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The choice wasn't death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : >> Then to be consistent you would have obtained >> a part-time job had the dole not been available, >> i.e. one requiring the minimum effort to obtain >> the same income as the dole. > > Well, I did try that. The work was simply too > nasty (in one case, so boring that I was not > able to do the work as well as others). It was > at this point that I could have become addicted > to the dole, and eventually, if the U.S. > government had followed some European ones, > learned to live very cheaply, perhaps in other > countries, on the little money provided by > my government. > > Fortunately for me, I was too lazy to do a > through job of investigating all that the state > of California had to offer, and I didn't happen > to know anyone at the time who had learned how > to extract a daily living from them. It doesn't make sense that you say you would have taken the dole, yet ended up retraining and (I assume) working full time. What if there were no dole but you had, say, a couple of hundred thousand dollars from savings or inheritance, which you could have invested for a modest lifelong income, similar to the dole; in fact, even easier than the dole, since you would not have had to apply, continually justify to the government your need, explain to others that you were on the dole, etc. Would the money have been an equally great or greater personal disaster? Should we worry that savings can corrupt moral fibre and urge people to spend their income as soon as they are paid, to minimise the risk of laziness leading to the nation's ruin? -- Stathis Papaioannou From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 15:18:26 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <492727.8754.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Max More wrote: > Daniel: I agree with almost all of > what you've written on this thread (and have enjoyed your > clarity of expression). Thanks. > However, I'm puzzled by what seems > to be your complete rejection of "tacit consent". Do you > really deny that this can exist? The classic example is when > you walk into a restaurant. You may (or may not) look at the > prices, but you never explicitly say that you will pay them. > But you certainly don't expect to be able to walk out > without paying. The burden is on you -- quite reasonably -- > to pay up, unless you have explicitly announced to the owner > or manager in charge that you are ordering the food with no > intention of paying. Perhaps I'm a bit too strident in arguing against it, but I think there's a different between this form of consent as used by social contract theorist and the sort of "implied contract" form used in everyday life. To wit, the former is general and often at odds with what goes on in everyday life. E.g., in the restaurant example, there ARE restaurants where you must pay in advance; so there's no universal social contract for restaurants. Also, sticking with this example, there is an exit option (a way of getting out of or avoiding the interaction) -- unlike with the usual social contract theory of the state. I mean where someone might avoid the interaction all together. In fact, the usual social contract theory is used to justify why there is no exit or an exit that is extremely hard to use, such as leaving the country (the typical one paraded around by conservatives in the US) or taking over the state (as in voting your majority into power in a democracy or having a revolution). Finally, the form of implied contracts tend to evolve and grow out of practice. There's no pre-theoretical reason why pay-after-you-eat is the general rule (with many exceptions) is restaurants. It evolved that way and it's become a de facto standard -- but no central authority has to enforce it, some restaurants can adopt another rule, and the general rule might change to something else. This seems to me very different from the way social contract theories operate -- where people are general told they tacitly consent to things that are universal, in some sense unchanging, and also where alternatives are usually not allowed or only allowed under extreme conditions. > I agree that it's easy for statist-minded people to abuse > the idea of implicit/tacit consent, but that's not > sufficient reason to reject it entirely. Right? As I recall, > even Murray Rothbard accepts this case of tacit consent. IIRC, he I think does, but with the points I made above. IIRC, too, there's a libertarian presumption in his views on this: that the presumption of any implied contract is always in the direction of individual autonomy over state power. Some might question this presumption, but I actually think that objectively this presumption is sound given that state power is far more likely to be abused and cause problems than individual autonomy. (This is not to say that latter is problem free, but merely that the basket of problems seems, all else being the same, much smaller and easily to deal with.) Regards, Dan From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:02:25 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 02:02:25 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : > Who could even have (on this list) imagined > fifteen years ago that Voltaire's principle > would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy > years ago in America could have guessed that > government would come to absorb about fifty > percent of everyone's pay, and would soon > be trying to impose communist health care? You keep going on about health care, but it is one of the things that clearly works better when there is government involvement. You speculate that if the mostly private health system in the US were completely deregulated, health care would become both cheaper and better. But there is no evidence for this, anywhere in the world. Your position reminds me of apologists for the Soviet Union arguing that it failed because it wasn't communist *enough*. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:19:56 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:19:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/09, dan_ustwrote: > * Also, there's the curious but usually unnoticed phenomenon of big firms > calling for regulations. Why is this? It seems to me this is often to create > regulatory hurdles that smaller competitors will find it harder to leap over. > E.g., recently in the US Walmart voiced its support for raising the minimum wage. > Does anyone honestly believe Walmart did so because it was feeling > particularly altruistic (even if altruistic with federal power)? No, it seems to > have been a good public relations move, but even more a great move to > shake off competition from smaller firms who will find it much more difficult > to pay their works more. In other words, Walmart is willing to harm itself -- > absorbing higher wage money costs -- as along as this harm is much more > serious to its competition. > Just a point of correction here, as somebody, it might have been you, :) has quoted this before. This comment is back to front. I doubt very much that Walmart is worried about smaller competitors. As you should know, the usual effect of a Walmart store arriving in town is to close down all the small shopkeepers. Walmart supports increasing the minimum wage because many of its customers are minimum wage earners, so they would have a little more money to spend in Walmart. BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 16:41:34 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance Message-ID: <994573.67701.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, BillK wrote: > On 5/11/09, dan_ustwrote: > > >? *? Also, there's the curious but usually > unnoticed phenomenon of big firms > > calling for regulations.? Why is this?? It > seems to me this is often to create > > regulatory hurdles that smaller competitors will find > it harder to leap over. > > E.g., recently in the US Walmart voiced its support > for raising the minimum wage. > > Does anyone honestly believe Walmart did so because it > was feeling > > particularly altruistic (even if altruistic with > federal power)?? No, it seems to > > have been a good public relations move, but even more > a great move to > > shake off competition from smaller firms who will find > it much more difficult > > to pay their works more.? In other words, Walmart > is willing to harm itself -- > > absorbing higher wage money costs -- as along as this > harm is much more > > serious to its competition. > > > > > Just a point of correction here, as somebody, it might have > been you, > :) has quoted this before. > > This comment is back to front. I doubt very much that > Walmart is > worried about smaller competitors. As you should know, the > usual > effect of a Walmart store arriving in town is to close down > all the > small shopkeepers. > > Walmart supports increasing the minimum wage because many > of its > customers are minimum wage earners, so they would have a > little more > money to spend in Walmart. That might be their public relations or the belief of Walmart supporters -- and who truly can peer into their hearts to know for sure -- but it seems clear to me that this is a case of a firm supporter a policy change that will hurt its competitors. This doesn't just apply in places where Walmart already has a presence or just to mom and pops. Also, it's merely a case of an established firm (or set of firms) pushing for regulations putatively for the public good but actually which strengthen the market position of that firm -- at both its competitors and the public's expense. Finally, even were Walmart to believe raising the minimum wage would make its customers wealthier -- hence, able to buy more at Walmart -- this would have to come at someone else's expense, particularly of those whose marginal productivity was below the minimum wage. Over time, those people or people who enter the market at that lower level (viz., those wose marginal productivity is, again, below the minimum wage) would be unemployed. (Of course, it's quite possible execs at Walmart really don't understand the basic economics here. After all, most people seem to believe raising the price floor set on labor actually makes everyone better off.* I doubt this is true of Walmart execs -- as I doubt when any business pushes for something for the public good. And I feel the same way about politicians. So, unlike faux libertarians, I don't have any pretenses about businesses being for the free market. They are usually the ones calling the loudest for regulations -- often eager to make sure such regulations are crafted in their favor.) Don't you believe this is a case where the subject line should be altered? Regards, Dan * Of course, it makes some people better off, but always at the expense of others. Were this not so, why not set the minimum wage at, say, $500 an hour? Surely, a few people have a marginal productivity higher than this, but for the rest of us (including yours truly), this would be a definitely bump up. (And if this sort of logic works, why don't high-end retailers -- think of thecorner.com -- push for a $500 an hour minimum wage? Because at that level, the fallacy is readily apparent.) From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 11 16:31:26 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:31:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Education, Wealth and the future (was RE: libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com><4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <593890E78514480A94C6BA63E16D5CE7@DFC68LF1> Damien, thanks. Good laugh. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More >the use of the >money should be... kept out >of the hands of government bureaucrats, who tend to use any excess >monies to destroy the foundations of wealth-creation. I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating young humans, building roads and sewers, contributing to some portion of health care. This sort of flagrant waste just erodes everything we hold dear, we wealth creators. Damien Broderick [Yes, it's the *bloat* that's really at fault--a vice one never encounters in business... banking, say, or health insurance] _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 16:59:25 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : >> Who could even have (on this list) imagined >> fifteen years ago that Voltaire's principle >> would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy >> years ago in America could have guessed that >> government would come to absorb about fifty >> percent of everyone's pay, and would soon >> be trying to impose communist health care? I disagree with Lee's rhetoric here. I don't think it's communist healthcare; but it's definitely not free market and healthcare in the US has not been predominantly free market for many decades now. > You keep going on about health care, but it is one of the > things that > clearly works better when there is government involvement. I disagree, but what's your evidence for this? From my readings, it seems to me that government involvement has made healthcare much more costly -- especially since 1960 in the US -- and slowed down the pace of innovation. Of course, the latter is based on counterfactuals partly -- what might've happened had healthcare reform been in the direction of a free market (as in, in the US, abolishing the FDA, getting rid of the AMA's monopoly powers, and removing government completely from provisioning and mandating healthcare). > You > speculate that if the mostly private health system in the > US were > completely deregulated, health care would become both > cheaper and better. I think this is evidence. In the US, the costs of healthcare, for the most part, have been only loosely linked to actual service, so there's a tendency for overpricing -- as actual customers are not cost-sensitive. For example, as was pointed out many years ago, in one area of the country (I think it was in Houston, Texas), a simple blood test of the same quality (I forget what for) ranged in price from, IIRC, $20 to $100. But people getting the blood test were almost always paying via their employer's mandated health insurance. I.e., if they got the cheaper test, they didn't save any money for themselves, but merely for the health insurers. That removes one incentive to compete on price. (It also led insurance companies to lobby for cost controls. The market reform would've been to remove mandated health insurance.*) > But there is no evidence for this, anywhere in the > world. Your > position reminds me of apologists for the Soviet Union > arguing that it > failed because it wasn't communist *enough*. What's meant by "communist" here? If it's the defining economic feature of the Soviet system -- central economic planning -- then those apologists are completely, unequivocally wrong. Central economic planning failed (and continues to fail; in the US, e.g., the central bank is central economic planning for the money system and the recent bust is merely its latest flop) as can be seen by how poorly it compared with the output and dynamism of even the highly regulated economies of the West.** (Also, another features of the Soviet system made it hard to spot this: the lack of an open society where the success or failure of the system could be openly considered and debated.) Regards, Dan * Speaking of which, as one of the uninsured for many years, had I thought I needed health insurance at the time and we were under a free market, I'd probably opt for a very high deductible, those lower my premium. I wouldn't want health insurance to pay for routine visits, but for catastrophic/unlikely events like me getting serious illness or suffering massive trauma. Think if car insurance covered oil changes and tire rotation. (In the US, car insurance is mandated anyhow, so it's already got a monopoly price baked in.) My guess is the cost of car insurance would rise by orders of magnitude and then people would call for nationalizing car insurance. ** Not to mention, Mises showed theoretically why this was so and predicted its failure early on. He even took Lenin's New Economic Policy as evidence for his view being correct -- and others have seen it as an open admission that central economic planning can't work. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 11 16:34:44 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:34:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] SUBJECT lines (RE: libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0D7A6792683A442BB7915B0FABE24453@DFC68LF1> Please change the subject line to reflect the contents of the posts. Many thanks, Natasha Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 11:20 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance On 5/11/09, dan_ustwrote: > * Also, there's the curious but usually unnoticed phenomenon of big > firms calling for regulations. Why is this? It seems to me this is > often to create regulatory hurdles that smaller competitors will find it harder to leap over. > E.g., recently in the US Walmart voiced its support for raising the minimum wage. > Does anyone honestly believe Walmart did so because it was feeling > particularly altruistic (even if altruistic with federal power)? No, > it seems to have been a good public relations move, but even more a > great move to shake off competition from smaller firms who will find > it much more difficult to pay their works more. In other words, > Walmart is willing to harm itself -- absorbing higher wage money costs > -- as along as this harm is much more serious to its competition. > Just a point of correction here, as somebody, it might have been you, :) has quoted this before. This comment is back to front. I doubt very much that Walmart is worried about smaller competitors. As you should know, the usual effect of a Walmart store arriving in town is to close down all the small shopkeepers. Walmart supports increasing the minimum wage because many of its customers are minimum wage earners, so they would have a little more money to spend in Walmart. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 18:35:42 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism/was Re: The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > Dan wrote (5/7/2009 2:46pm) >> Regarding how reform should be attempted within the >> present system, I disagree that perpetuating or >> expanding the system is the correct approach. > > Yes indeed. And I commend you also for pointing out > that we can only hope to move towards eventual positions > that appeal to us, and ought not outright advocate those > eventual positions. Actually, I do think one ought to "outright advocate eventual positions."? I think, for instance, that market anarchists should advocate market anarchism and all that goes with it.? I'm just a bit pessimistic about most people, especially most intellectuals, understanding this position.? (Think of how hard it is to get intellectuals to understand Darwinian evolution.? In fact, one of the strange things I've whined about before is that some intellectuals -- especially among so called liberals -- readily accept that the living world self-organizes via biological evolution; in other words, they have no problem accepting the notion of order without a conscious plan.? Yet they can't see this happening in markets -- which they seem to see as total chaos -- unless someone sets standards, makes overall policies, guides the overall direction of the economic.? Meanwhile another set of intellectual -- usually among conservatives -- seem to have some grasp that markets can work and even will adopt Hayekian language (e.g., spontaneous order), but are vehemently against this order without a planner logic applied to the "natural world.")? But keeping quiet about it would only likely maintain this ignorance. If you'd read the articles I wrote, the ones I quoted from, you'd see I've been basically advocating market anarchism.? To be sure, sometimes I do tailor my message to a different audience: people who will be completely turned off by the word "anarchism."? In this case, I often avoid the actual word in an effort to get them to think about the ideas -- the denotation as opposed to the particular connotation.? (I've also run into people who confuse "libertarian" with "liberal" -- and they use liberal to mean not classical liberal, but welfare statist.) And I'm not saying I'm immune to this sort of thing. Still, even advocating the radical position is only likely to result in a slow evolution away from centralized statism -- not a radical break. And, of course, statism has its advocates and they're quite busy and very well supported. (Market intellectuals -- borrowing a term from George H. Smith* -- tend to be outside such support, often having to work full time outside their field and only part time in their field.) >> I think as libertarian ideas slowly spread, we will >> slowly evolve away from the coercive system. > > Why are you optimistic? What can you point to in the > last thirty or forty years that gives ground for > optimism? There are more Austrian economists in and out of academia now.? There now seems to be a groundswell of support for legalizing marijuana in the US.? There's a general (and extremely healthy) distrust of government, especially because of the Bush regime. There's now a fairly large anti-war movement. (In my view, almost all pro-war libertarians are really not libertarians at all. This doesn't mean, of course, that all anti-war types are libertarians. But war is one of the ways state power rapidly increases -- and it obviously always involves massively trampling rights from killing innocents on down.) Also, you must have missed a later paragraph, which you left but did not comment on: >> -- even if they default to practicing them >> successfully >> in most of their lives (i.e., most people do not >> initiate force in most cases to get what they want >> and live their lives) -- and lack imagination to see >> how a non-command system will work. In other words, most people generally don't initiate use force in almost all their daily transactions. (Naturally, this doesn't apply to government workers, non-government criminals (I mean actual people who violate rights -- not people engaging in victimless crimes), or people who routinely ally or use government workers or non-government criminals, such as the various corporate elites.) So, it's merely a case of getting them to apply this good habit to ever wider circles of their lives or to everyone else in society. In fact, part of the natural process of civilizing seems to be including ever wider groups of people as autonomous (in the sense of people who can't be forced into servitude) and restricting the use of force ever more. > In fact, right here on this list, we see > a great, increasing, and ongoing retrenchment away > from libertarian ideas and ideals. (It's worse year > by year.) Yes, that's kind of sad, but my view is this is partly because most people are NOT libertarian, so as Extropian and transhumanist ideas become more mainstream, they won't be so much attached to the particular and more libertarian crowd from the late 1980s, early 1990s.? (And remember, too, some early transhumanists were definitely NOT libertarians, including some members here.)? Also, some of the so called libertarians, in my view, were not really libertarians. Yes, they advocated free markets part time, but I recall certain ones -- as still seems to be the case -- advocating initiation of force for various reasons (and usually not in extreme emergencies). >> A more radical approach is not likely to >> succeed simply because most people don't >> understand libertarian principles > > That's some of it all right. But also not to be > underestimated is the feeling that most people > have that one way or the other, their own value > systems must triumph, no matter what it takes > (e.g. coercion of some kind or other). This is a general problem as well as a specific one for politics. Of course, if your value system is truly libertarian -- i.e., it disvalues coercion -- then this is no problem. The problem is how to best spread the non-coercion meme. > A classic example is the "progressive" view here > in the United States concerning the Supreme Court. > Before 1920 or 1930, the progressives were all in > favor of weakening the court---but this was merely, > it turned out, because the court did not tend at > the time to favor their policies. Ever since, it's > been the legislatures that progressives want to > weaken, and the courts to be strengthened---again, > merely because of the transient fact that current > legislatures are opposed to their agenda. > > As is so often the case, there is no principle in > operation here. Only expediency. So far as I can tell, > expediency has been uniformly increasing in the U.S. > at the expense of principle for about one hundred > and fifty years. Well, that's a general problem too. People all over the political spectrum generally are against the sort of polycentric, nomocratic approach to social change and prefer the centralized, teleocratic approach. Few see the hubris of this approach: that once you centralize power and habituate rule-breaking, then those people and those ideologies geared toward centralization and expediency will win. This is why ever more of life in managerial democracies becomes state planned and ever more politicized. Regards, Dan * Not sure if he originated the term. It's just that I got the label from reading his work. For more on Smith, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Smith From painlord2k at libero.it Mon May 11 20:28:59 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:28:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] libertarians and inheritance In-Reply-To: <4A07C634.9010805@rawbw.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A0466C7.8040709@libero.it> <4A07C634.9010805@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A088A8B.3050105@libero.it> Il 11/05/2009 8.31, Lee Corbin ha scritto: > We see this in miniature all the time, however. Every time someone > invents a new widgit, we have wealth creation. But there are myriad > mysteries here. For example, when the European countries "damage" > African economies by exporting artificially cheap food to them, how > exactly is this different from an African genius inventing a machine > that does the same thing? The main difference is that the artificially cheaper food exported is used to transfer wealth from european taxpayers to the subsided European farmers. In Africa the only people really gaining something are the politicians and the bureaucrats that monopolize the cheap imports. So, they drive out of the market the local farmers and keep the people unable to produce food for themselves. When a disruption of the commerce happen, the locals are unable to feed themselves. The marvel machine would be under the control of the persons using the produced food, so there would not be scarcity or the same level of dependency on others. At the end the difference is being able to feed themselves or needing to be feed by others. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon May 11 20:54:17 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Consent by staying?/was Re: The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <179766.44378.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 5/9/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it > : [big snip] > So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the > unjust > taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to > where?), but for > those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the > contract they have entered into? For me, there is one glaring problem with this view: the state has no right to expell people simply because they don't agree to the state's policies.* This is no different, to me, than any other criminal gang riding into town and then telling everyone, "If you don't agree with our rules, you're free to leave town." (Granted, such a gang might be marginally more tolerable than one offering the choice of "agree or die.") Just as with any criminal gang, the state has no right to demand obeisance -- in the particular case you mention, to demand payment of taxes. This would be entirely different if the state legitimately owned the country. But, in that case, the state would really not be a state, but an owner. (Note: in reality, all existing states have been nothing more than stationary bandits. Yes, they may differ in the ways they interact with their subject populations -- most allow some voice options, just as any other long lasting criminal gang will not rely on the constant exorcise of brute force -- but they remain trespassers.) Also, as a practical matter, emigrating is usually difficult -- involving uprooting yourself from your family and friends -- and there is, at present, almost no place to immigrate to that is not controlled by some government or other -- a government that will, of course, tax you. So I believe the consent by staying argument -- if that's what you're offering -- fails. Notably, it's quite similar to the argument that if people are not openly rebelling than they consent to the government ruling over them. (Note this argument -- that people who don't rebel consent to their government -- is used by pro-war statists in the US as a reason for bombing foreign civilians.) Regards, Dan "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." -- Lysander Spooner * Actual states usually allow people to emigrate, but often only with some penalty. For instance, the US government usually charges people on leaving, so that this is not really a way to escape taxation. From painlord2k at libero.it Mon May 11 21:10:00 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:10:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: <4A089428.1000105@libero.it> Il 11/05/2009 17.12, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > However, the more interesting point you make is that Obama did not > work hard for his money. I am surprised that as a supporter of > capitalism you would hold this against him. As I said in a previous > post, a definition of capitalist success could be making more and more > money while doing less and less work. This is not a possible definition of "Capitalist Success". This could be a definition of "Aristocratic Success" or "Political Success" or a definition of "Criminal Success". But I doubt that there is something like "making more money doing less work." In your example about Mr. Buffett, you imply that the work done by him could be done by any plumber or farmer with a minimum training. If it was so, there would be many Warren Buffett and Mr. Buffett would not be so special or rich. So, we can suppose that Mr. Buffett is doing something that not all people are able to do at his level of skill. And his earnings reflect how much he is able to produce for his investors. But to help you, I propose another way to classify "capitalist success": "doing the most requested works with the minimum efforts", with "most requested" defined by how much people is willing to pay for. Usually, to do a work with the minimum effort the capitalist use his capital. For example, Robinson Crosue on his island could have invested his leisure time to build a stick and a basket, so he could be able to gather more berries and keep them. Having a better berries production line would have enabled him to commerce with a hunter for game with greater profits for himself and the hunter. Now, Crosue had a competitor for the commerce of berries with the hunter but the competitor is not willing or able to invest his leisure time to build his basket and his stick and compete on the same level with Crusoe. Do this fact cause Crusoe to do "less work for more game"? I think not. He is doing more work with less efforts. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon May 11 21:31:05 2009 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:31:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japanese robot in the classroom Message-ID: <2d6187670905111431n72c2dcb1y3231420bd7c520ce@mail.gmail.com> I wonder where they will be in ten or even twenty years? http://www.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Saya-the-robot-takes-over-Tokyo-classroom/11509119435/0/ I love the picture of the kids touching her! : ) John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon May 11 22:35:18 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:35:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > ... > I know a lot of people with minimal funds who blow them on > drugs;... Ja, this I do not buy however, for if a poor young person is using the really high-end stuff like cocaine, she must be either stealing or dealing. No one will slave at a minimum wage job all week and then snort the whole paycheck up the nose on payday. They will buy cheaper drugs and get stoned every night, and still have money for actual food. I have no problem with recreational drug use. But high schoolers using cocaine is a sure indicator of foul play. I would not hire that high schooler, for her sense of the worth of money would be necessarily all messed up. > ... Usually they grow out of it when they are older and, > ironically, have more money... Sure but I would be forever suspicious of how they came into possession of that money. > ...However, the more interesting point you make is that Obama > did not work hard for his money... Actually he never claimed to have worked for it at all. I may have missed it for I didn't read the whole book, but he didn't actually claim to have had a job. The money for that cocaine cries out for an explanation. > I am surprised that as a > supporter of capitalism you would hold this against him... I wouldn't, had he some legal capitalist scheme that worked so well he had piles of money lying around. He doesn't tell us anything about that legal capitalist scheme. Why? > As I > said in a previous post, a definition of capitalist success > could be making more and more money while doing less and less > work...Stathis Papaioannou I am with you there. Stathis, how do you theorize the current reader of the free world came into possession of that cash, doing evidently NO work? Honestly Stathis, the man has some 'splainin to do, and the popular press is showing a deplorable lack of curiosity. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon May 11 23:06:21 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 16:06:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z><875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of spike .... > > ...But high schoolers using cocaine is a sure > indicator of foul play. I would not hire that high schooler, > for her sense of the worth of money would be necessarily all > messed up. Not hire, and definitely not elect as a political reader. If she had in the formative years so much money she didn't even know what to do with it, and blew it, then as a political reader she again finds herself with piles of (my) money and might blow that too. She might blow it doing such things as pouring it into doomed car companies. That these US car companies are doomed is obvious to the casual observer. Stathis you are from Italy? I am from the US, so this is MY money that is being poured down a rat hole. Not poured, that's too passive. MY money is being blasted down a rat hole with a fire hose. spike From painlord2k at libero.it Mon May 11 23:23:57 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:23:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: <4A08B38D.4090808@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 0.35, spike ha scritto: > I am with you there. Stathis, how do you theorize the current reader of the > free world came into possession of that cash, doing evidently NO work? > Honestly Stathis, the man has some 'splainin to do, and the popular press is > showing a deplorable lack of curiosity. It is a Gongoro (or a Gongora) "What is a Gongora?" "This is a guy that does not exist, but if there should not exist" "You have you seen anyone?" "No, but if we close our eyes to see not to see it!" (~ Carl Barks Donald Duck and the fetish) Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 00:10:41 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:10:41 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 spike : >> ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou >> ... >> I know a lot of people with minimal funds who blow them on >> drugs;... > > Ja, this I do not buy however, for if a poor young person is using the > really high-end stuff like cocaine, she must be either stealing or dealing. > No one will slave at a minimum wage job all week and then snort the whole > paycheck up the nose on payday. ?They will buy cheaper drugs and get stoned > every night, and still have money for actual food. ?I have no problem with > recreational drug use. But high schoolers using cocaine is a sure indicator > of foul play. ?I would not hire that high schooler, for her sense of the > worth of money would be necessarily all messed up. But students spend money on things that are a lot more expensive than drugs, like overseas holidays. Do you mistrust all backpackers? >> ... Usually they grow out of it when they are older and, >> ironically, have more money... > > Sure but I would be forever suspicious of how they came into possession of > that money. Well, their employer pays them $1000 a week net and they have $1000 a week to spend or save as they choose. >> ...However, the more interesting point you make is that Obama >> did not work hard for his money... > > Actually he never claimed to have worked for it at all. ?I may have missed > it for I didn't read the whole book, but he didn't actually claim to have > had a job. ?The money for that cocaine cries out for an explanation. > >> I am surprised that as a >> supporter of capitalism you would hold this against him... > > I wouldn't, had he some legal capitalist scheme that worked so well he had > piles of money lying around. ?He doesn't tell us anything about that legal > capitalist scheme. ?Why? > >> As I >> said in a previous post, a definition of capitalist success >> could be making more and more money while doing less and less >> work...Stathis Papaioannou > > I am with you there. ?Stathis, how do you theorize the current reader of the > free world came into possession of that cash, doing evidently NO work? > Honestly Stathis, the man has some 'splainin to do, and the popular press is > showing a deplorable lack of curiosity. If a student gets by on less than a few hundred dollars a week, I don't think it's reasonable to assume he must be a thief unless proved otherwise. It would be different if he owned expensive sports cars, or something. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Tue May 12 01:29:21 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:29:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> > > 2009/5/12 spike : > >> ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou > >> ... > >> I know a lot of people with minimal funds who blow them on > drugs;... > > > > Ja, this I do not buy however, for if a poor young person > is using the > > really high-end stuff like cocaine, she must be either > stealing or dealing. ... > > But students spend money on things that are a lot more > expensive than drugs, like overseas holidays... I do confess I am puzzled at how students today afford overseas holidays. I don't recall that being done when I was in high school, but that is the point: back in the late 70s, which is the timeframe 0bama was describing, the minimum wage was 2.90 an hour, and cocaine was about 100 bucks a gram, which represents a week's pay. > Do you mistrust all backpackers?... Not at all; I am one myself. But that doesn't cost much. Again, things are different now. One seldom sees hitchhikers. Did any of you guys used to do that? I did. Backpacking is an excellent value for one's limited funds, in enjoyment per dollar. Part of the reason I backpack is that I am a natural tightwad. ... > ...Well, their employer pays them $1000 a week net and they have > $1000 a week to spend or save as they choose... A thousand a week? We were discussing minimum wage earners. Those guys are good for about 300 a week, ja? I haven't the foggiest clue what cocaine is worth today. Anyone know? Normal inflation might not apply to that stuff, since it is supply driven. Hell maybe it is relatively a lot cheaper now. Of course the time in question is 1979. > > If a student gets by on less than a few hundred dollars a > week, I don't think it's reasonable to assume he must be a > thief unless proved otherwise. It would be different if he > owned expensive sports cars, or something... Stathis Papaioannou Ja, again we are making the specific case of cocaine, a special case of conspicuous consumption. Back in the depression (the original recipe, not this one) we heard urban legends of bankers smoking cigars wrapped in hundred dollar bills. I don't know if that really ever happened. If we saw a big Hollywood star today smoking 100 dollar bill wrapped cigars, we would think nothing of it, or saw a teenager smoking normal cigars, no law against that. But if an unemployed indolent teen is smoking 100s, we know something is up bigtime. Cocaine is (and was back then) the equivalent of smoking 100s. You do make a thought-provoking point. Plane tickets have gone waay down relative to minimum wage since thirty years ago, waaaaay down. I recall flying across the country for a bit over 800 bucks in 1979, from college. I recently bought a round-trip from SF to New York for 370. Minimum wage has more than tripled in that time. Stathis, do you have a theory on how the fearless reader managed to snort cocaine without a job? I do. spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue May 12 02:11:18 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:11:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM, spike wrote: > ...if a poor young person is using the > really high-end stuff like cocaine, she must be either stealing or dealing. This "conclusion" -- if I dare to call it that -- is defamatory, presumptuous, and based on... what evidence? You are not a drug user yourself. Have near zero experience with any drug culture. Yet you are drawing conclusions and making assertions like you know something. Get yourself to a narcotics anonymous meeting and talk to some real coke users, then come back to the subject after gathering some facts and thinking about them. You are Republican in your inclinations, so your "stealing or dealing" options are suspect of being based more in your tribal distrust of Obama than in any assemblage of fact. It would be equally "fair and balanced" for me to observe that "stealing and dealing" is a fairly concise description of what Republicans do, or to observe that your employment at LockMart is fully funded by taxpayers dollars taken by force from taxpayers, redistributed to you for no commercially productive purpose -- for no purpose at all beyond buying your vote so those higher up thieves can authorize yet more theft and waste of yet more taxpayer dollars. Can you spell "accomplice". But because you are my friend I would never say that. Consequently, and sadly, I cannot claim to be free of the taint of corruption. Small note: stealing and dealing are challenging and risky endeavors requiring no small amount of thought, creativity, initiative, emotional discipline, and courage. Stripped of moral and legal prejudices, stealing or dealing are hard work indeed. But white boys born to privilege or good fortune, or both, rarely get a chance to see the world from this hard rock perspective of "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." > ?The money for that cocaine cries out for an explanation. To you, because you don't approve of him, but otherwise, nobody cares. He was a kid ferchristsake. This is pure Clinton-blow-job bullshit. Since then he's gone to college, to Harvard Law, was president there of the Law Review, worked as an attorney, as a Harvard Law Prof, as an Illinois state senator, and as a US Senator. And now he's PotUS, will likely be so for the next eight years, followed by another democrat, and then another. (OK, the dems will surely screw this up, clueless, spineless, and corrupt as they are, but for the next eight years Obama is gonna ream the Republicans real "horror show".) The worm has turned and you need to get over it. > ...how do you theorize the current reader of the > free world came into possession of that cash, doing evidently NO work? Hmmmm, let's see. You said "evidently", right? He actually did work, you just don't have the info. He had a prosperous friend. He had a prosperous white friend. He had a prosperous white girlfriend. He escorted (or "escorted")white Hawaiian tourist babes. (These are some of many non-prejudicial possible answers. See how many you can come up with.) Best, Jeff Davis Can we please get extropian now? Please? Put yourself on moderation, Spike. From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue May 12 02:13:12 2009 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:13:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: <0D07D4A6336B4E87AA8E159C12ECA82A@patrick4ezsk6z> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > > You do make a thought-provoking point. Plane tickets have gone waay down > relative to minimum wage since thirty years ago, waaaaay down. I recall > flying across the country for a bit over 800 bucks in 1979, from college. > I > recently bought a round-trip from SF to New York for 370. Minimum wage > has > more than tripled in that time. Be that as it may, I'm old enough to remember when flying was NOT uncomfortable (and they even fed you)! Now the airlines have taken to torturing people in those "coach" seats. I'm 5'6" and weigh around 125 pounds - I can't imagine how people over 200 pounds get in ... Olga From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 04:09:45 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:09:45 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <4A089428.1000105@libero.it> References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A089428.1000105@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 painlord2k at libero.it : > Il 11/05/2009 17.12, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > >> However, the more interesting point you make is that Obama did not >> work hard for his money. I am surprised that as a supporter of >> capitalism you would hold this against him. As I said in a previous >> post, a definition of capitalist success could be making more and more >> money while doing less and less work. > > This is not a possible definition of "Capitalist Success". > This could be a definition of "Aristocratic Success" or "Political Success" > or a definition of "Criminal Success". > But I doubt that there is something like "making more money doing less > work." If you make money at a higher hourly rate, then you are considered more successful. This means more money for less work. The hourly rate can be averaged out to include any study or training: there's not much point to it (from a capitalist perspective) if the time spent working but not earning money won't be at least repaid when when you do start earning. > In your example about Mr. Buffett, you imply that the work done by him could > be done by any plumber or farmer with a minimum training. If it was so, > there would be many Warren Buffett and Mr. Buffett would not be so special > or rich. No, I think he was just lucky, as most studies of investors show that they are no more likely to be successful in the future if they have been successful in the past. But even if in fact he was successful because he was smart or because he risked his capital, it doesn't change the fact that he made a lot of money doing a little work a *lot* less work than someone has to do to obtain the dole. > So, we can suppose that Mr. Buffett is doing something that not all people > are able to do at his level of skill. And his earnings reflect how much he > is able to produce for his investors. > > But to help you, I propose another way to classify "capitalist success": > "doing the most requested works with the minimum efforts", with "most > requested" defined by how much people is willing to pay for. > Usually, to do a work with the minimum effort the capitalist use his > capital. > > For example, Robinson Crosue on his island could have invested his leisure > time to build a stick and a basket, so he could be able to gather more > berries and keep them. Having a better berries production line would have > enabled him to commerce with a hunter for game with greater profits for > himself and the hunter. > Now, Crosue had a competitor for the commerce of berries with the hunter but > the competitor is not willing or able to invest his leisure time to build > his basket and his stick and compete on the same level with Crusoe. Do this > fact cause Crusoe to do "less work for more game"? > I think not. He is doing more work with less efforts. Very few wealthy people make their money purely through their own efforts. Your Robinson Crusoe story is an example of this, but the usual capitalist way is if Crusoe could get several competitors to gather food and give him a proportion of it while he sits back. For example, he could set up a shop trading one type of food for another and keeping a profit. Now, this takes *some* work, maybe even hard work, and perhaps it helps the other hunters as well as the shopkeeper, so that everyone is happier than if there had been no shop. But the fact remains, if the shopkeeper makes a profit much larger than that of the hunters, he is effectively sponging off their work. This was the Marxists' essential criticism of capitalism: they valued hard work, and they thought that workers should be able to profit in proportion to their labour. Government welfare payments etc. was not a feature of communism. In fact, I believe that in some Soviet Bloc countries it was actually illegal to be willfully unemployed. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 04:28:45 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:28:45 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> References: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 spike : >> Do you mistrust all backpackers?... > > Not at all; I am one myself. ?But that doesn't cost much. ?Again, things are > different now. ?One seldom sees hitchhikers. ?Did any of you guys used to do > that? ?I did. ?Backpacking is an excellent value for one's limited funds, in > enjoyment per dollar. ?Part of the reason I backpack is that I am a natural > tightwad. I was thinking of the backpackers on overseas holidays, often students. This is moderately expensive: several thousand dollars, perhaps several months' pay at minimal wage rates. I confess that I could never afford this as a student but I know that many others worked and saved for a year or more in order to travel. >> ...Well, their employer pays them $1000 a week net and they have >> $1000 a week to spend or save as they choose... > > A thousand a week? ?We were discussing minimum wage earners. ?Those guys are > good for about 300 a week, ja? ?I haven't the foggiest clue what cocaine is > worth today. ?Anyone know? ?Normal inflation might not apply to that stuff, > since it is supply driven. ?Hell maybe it is relatively a lot cheaper now. > Of course the time in question is 1979. I was talking about those erstwhile drug-using students who now have reasonably well-paying jobs. You said you would wonder forever after where they got their money, once they had used cocaine as students. (To be fair, I don't know anyone who used cocaine as a student as it was and remains very expensive in Australia. But I understand that in the US it is much cheaper due to proximity to the source.) >> If a student gets by on less than a few hundred dollars a >> week, I don't think it's reasonable to assume he must be a >> thief unless proved otherwise. It would be different if he >> owned expensive sports cars, or something... Stathis Papaioannou > > Ja, again we are making the specific case of cocaine, a special case of > conspicuous consumption. ?Back in the depression (the original recipe, not > this one) we heard urban legends of bankers smoking cigars wrapped in > hundred dollar bills. ?I don't know if that really ever happened. ?If we saw > a big Hollywood star today smoking 100 dollar bill wrapped cigars, we would > think nothing of it, or saw a teenager smoking normal cigars, no law against > that. ?But if an unemployed indolent teen is smoking 100s, we know something > is up bigtime. ?Cocaine is (and was back then) the equivalent of smoking > 100s. > > You do make a thought-provoking point. ?Plane tickets have gone waay down > relative to minimum wage since thirty years ago, waaaaay down. ?I recall > flying across the country for a bit over 800 bucks in 1979, from college. ?I > recently bought a round-trip from SF to New York for 370. ?Minimum wage has > more than tripled in that time. > > Stathis, do you have a theory on how the fearless reader managed to snort > cocaine without a job? ?I do. My guess is that he saved up for a few weeks. But even if he did some dealing, well, if you don't think using the stuff is morally wrong then why would selling it be? Using and selling are both technically illegal. -- Stathis Papaioannou From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 12 05:00:21 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Will AI feel anything? Message-ID: <69784.93091.qm@web110401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> How does one measure feeling? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNb1EknEF9A Just curious Anna:) __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 05:13:05 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:13:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A07B283.50603@rawbw.com> References: <558450.34599.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A07B283.50603@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <20090512051305.GA9691@ofb.net> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:07:15PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > As is so often the case, there is no principle in > operation here. Only expediency. So far as I can tell, > expediency has been uniformly increasing in the U.S. > at the expense of principle for about one hundred > and fifty years. Increasing, as opposed to having always been present? What great stances of principle can you point to? The 3/5 compromise? The Senate? Andrew Jackson's violation of the Cherokees? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 05:33:06 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:33:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090512053306.GC9691@ofb.net> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:59:25AM -0700, Dan wrote: > --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : > >> would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy > >> years ago in America could have guessed that > >> government would come to absorb about fifty > >> percent of everyone's pay, and would soon Man, what? Tax rates right now are lower than they've been in generations. We're still in the Bush tax cuts for the upper class -- 35% on the tap bracket -- and Obama's cut them for the middle and lower class. The 30 year postwar economic boom had top taxes of 70%; Reagan in 1981 cut that bracket *down* to 50%. Yet now we have tha taxophobes talking as if 39% vs. 35% is "socialism". Lowest tax rates in decades and the GOP still talks only about tax cuts. > > You keep going on about health care, but it is one of the > > things that clearly works better when there is government > > involvement. > > I disagree, but what's your evidence for this? From my readings, it > seems to me that government involvement has made healthcare much more Well, there are lots of countries with socialized insurance (in one case, actual socialized medicine), and they all live longer at less cost than the US. Also, market health care manifestly fails to provide health care who don't have money. Or who don't have proof of payment, as might happen if someone got mugged and left unconscious. The US decided some time ago that people shouldn't die for lack of money, thus Medicaid and more fundamentally, the ER mandate to take people in. We already have socialized insurance of sorts, of an egregiously bad variety. (One that dumps the costs on hospitals, and doesn't provide for preventive care, and provides incentives not have ERs; top-notch insurance won't save you if you bleed out before you reach an emergency room.) > partly -- what might've happened had healthcare reform been in the > direction of a free market (as in, in the US, abolishing the FDA, > getting rid of the AMA's monopoly powers, and removing government > completely from provisioning and mandating healthcare). We had that back in the 19th and early 20th century. We moved away from it. Ever wonder why? > those apologists are completely, unequivocally wrong. Central > economic planning failed (and continues to fail; in the US, e.g., the > central bank is central economic planning for the money system and the > recent bust is merely its latest flop) as can be seen by how poorly it Bad call; there's good arguments that the latest flop is from deliberate lack of planning -- specifically, regulation. Ideological sabotage, not basic impossibility. We know how to regualte banking so that it is safe and boring and stable, but we've had a regime that disdained that in favor of "innovations" like CDOs and hedge funds. Voila. Conversely, we had unplanned banking in the 19th century; that generated major and frequent panics. > ** Not to mention, Mises showed theoretically why this was so and > predicted its failure early on. He even took Lenin's New Economic > Policy as evidence for his view being correct -- and others have seen > it as an open admission that central economic planning can't work. Which is why the US is defended by lowest-bidder mercenaries. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 05:18:34 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:18:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <260856.55885.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <260856.55885.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090512051834.GB9691@ofb.net> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:51:20PM -0700, dan_ust at yahoo.com wrote: > This is a key feature of social contract theory. The typical social > contract theory is an attempt to justify some socio-political order > via an analogy with a real contract -- as if all members of society > agree to some (you guessed it!) social contract. Since real world > societies of any appreciable size don't arise contractually -- viz., > people don't get together, formulate a contract, and then actually > expressly consent to it -- the problem is how to complete the analogy. > This is where tacit consent comes in. > This brings up another problem with social contracts: even were an > explicit contract signed, it wouldn't bind others or future > generations. But in the case of your country of birth, the government But these problems are true of property rights as well. I didn't consent to be born into a world where I inherit no wealth and Paris Hilton inherits $100s of millions. Why should I respect her claim to more than a fair share of the Earth's resources? Or the claim of the Sultan of Brunei? And why, in turn, should someone without even access to clean water, respect my modest life, let alone that of the egregiously wealthy? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 05:55:02 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:55:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax In-Reply-To: References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> Message-ID: <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 05:01:13PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Right that they can't afford it, but wrong that most of them are > socialist. For example, most of South and Central America for the past > century has been governed by US-supported regimes that are even more > assiduous in suppressing any sort of left wing activity (opposition As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... Thailand, a rather poor country, is working on it, and India has something. A $3000/capita country may not be doling out the latest in cancer treatments, but vaccines and antibiotics and pre-natal and basic surgeries are pretty affordable. India's also leading in some health care innovation... ...pointing at a big fallacy: universal health care and innovation aren't exclusive. Most countries with socialized insurance *also* have private doctors, hospitals, or insurance. Often just providing faster non-emergency service, or nicer hospital rooms, but there's plenty of legal room for research and innovation as well. > parties, unions, free speech) than the US itself. There are some > exceptions, like Cuba - and look at what the US did there. The And which, for all its poverty, seems to live long, unless the WHO is just trust the government statistics. > The usual pattern with economic growth in developing countries is > rapid growth at the start then a slowing down as they reach the levels > of the more developed countries. It seems that the plateau is more due Indeed. It's easier to copy developments than to create new ones. *shock* > provinces. It's not as simple as your contention that any socialist > measures inevitably lead to economic stagnation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita Behold the failure of social democracy! A Sweden that is $3000-$9000 wealthier than the United States! And Denmark, Netherlands, Finland... (Also Norway but they have oil.) PPP is a lot more favorable to the US but it's unclear how to interpret that, especially when a lot of services are free-via-governemtn and hence not purchased. Nominal GDP/capita suffers from exchange rate fluctuations but has the clarity of how much a country can import, and thus roughly how much in demand their labor or resources are. At the moment, the average Swede can outbid the average American for Japanese electronics or Kuwaiti oil. Certainly not an obvious failure. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 06:01:18 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:01:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511022826.024689d8@satx.rr.com> References: <191607.26241.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A043964.7010108@libero.it> <4A07CB7D.90602@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511022826.024689d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20090512060118.GE9691@ofb.net> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:30:17AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 11:53 PM 5/10/2009 -0700, Lee wrote: > >> Who sixty or seventy >> years ago in America could have guessed that >> government ... would soon >> be trying to impose communist health care? > > Lee, careful; this is the kind of rash statement that gives communism a > good name. Rush Limbaugh: "Obama is socialist!" Twenty year olds: "Socialism must be cool!" -xx- Damien X-) From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 12 06:06:54 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 02:06:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Education, Wealth and the future (was RE: libertarians and inheritance) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com><4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <593890E78514480A94C6BA63E16D5CE7@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <910C0F520721485BA11A66E56E18D6A6@MyComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Natasha Vita-More" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:31 PM Subject: [ExI] Education,Wealth and the future (was RE: libertarians and inheritance) > Damien, thanks. Good laugh. > > > Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More > >>the use of the >>money should be... kept out >>of the hands of government bureaucrats, who tend to use any excess >>monies to destroy the foundations of wealth-creation. > > I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating > young > humans, building roads and sewers, contributing to some portion of health > care. This sort of flagrant waste just erodes everything we hold dear, we > wealth creators. > > Damien Broderick > [Yes, it's the *bloat* that's really at fault--a vice one never encounters > in business... banking, say, or health insurance] > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Tue May 12 06:04:14 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:04:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: Jeff Davis has scolded me roundly for hammering on this topic, so do let me bring this around to something relevant to Extropian principles, and remove personalities. Before you do, check out today's (11 May 09) Dilbert: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/ Brilliant, hilarious, and relevant here. >...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou .... > > Stathis, do you have a theory... > > My guess is that he saved up for a few weeks... Indeed? > But even if he > did some dealing, well, if you don't think using the stuff is > morally wrong then why would selling it be? Using and selling > are both technically illegal. Stathis Papaioannou There is a critical difference, if the subject is a political leader. My own opinion is that all drugs should be legal. All of them! Really. And buyer beware. But dealing drugs implies tax evasion, which really is illegal as all get out. From the fed's point of view, it is worse than murder. (Recall that Al Capone was actually imprisoned for tax evasion, where he perished of natural causes.) If so, it would explain the hiring a string of tax evaders to help out in the whitehouse, and attempting to hire still more. Any government must recognize how this sort of thing mows down its own credibility. Jeff suggested the income source was prostitution. If so, I have no problem with that. I would have never thought of it, but it makes perfect sense. But again, it carries the implied tax evasion, with which I do have a big problem in political leaders. Regarding morality: I do not consider either doing drugs or even tax evasion as *morally* wrong. But it is certainly legally wrong, and I don't want those characteristics in political leaders. I want them to pay the taxes, then lower them for everyone, and cut government spending to match, drastically if necessary. Then let us deal with the consequences. Each generation should pay for its own wars. We must recognize that 2009 is a critical turning point in history, or rather it looks like it to me. This isn't politics as usual, for it appears to me we are somehow pretending that all this wild spending does not need to be paid for. But we will pay for it, repeatedly. We are acting as though we can move on past the usual economics of scarcity, the notions societies have always carried. Perhaps we can move past that *eventually* with some super advanced means of production, but in the mean time, we have corporations and capitalists that create wealth in the old fashioned way. If we discourage those corporations and capitalists, it isn't clear to me what kind of future we are entering. But it doesn't feel to me like the glorious techno-future we as extropian-minded people envisioned ten years ago. We may find ourselves crushed by the burden of the interest alone on the debts we are running up in this and the next few years. All businesses need to be bailed out or prevented from failing, rather just the opposite. Governments must not attempt to repeal the business cycle. The US has just tripled our national debt attempting to prevent a recession. But that recession is coming anyway, in fact it will likely be much worse, partly because of the billions in taxpayer dollars have been dumped into GM and Crysler, which will likely fail anyway. They must fail now: who would buy the cars, knowing the companies likely will not be around to service the warranty? We have just wasted all that taxpayer money, which takes away from individual freedom. Bailing out the car companies was madness. All our transhumanist dreams of enhancing our minds and bodies will cost money, and that money must be in the hands of individuals, who will experiment and show the rest of us the way. Governments will never pay for your brain enhancements while your neighbor is suffering from diabetes. I fear the current government spending spree is killing our future. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 12 06:50:27 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 02:50:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Throwing money at education (was: libertarians and inheritance) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com><4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <51E25222F3BA400ABC6D971498C7BBC6@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating > young humans You are absolutely correct! The dreadful Washington DC public schools spend $13,330 per student per year, think of a private school that charged that, which school do you think would be superior? I was reading a book about Hungarian scientists and the extraordinary fact that such a tiny country could produce so many great scientists, like Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Le? Szil?rd, Dennis Gabor, Edward Teller, Paul Erdos and more. All these people went to high school in the early 20's and as was the custom in Hungary at the time the class size was HUGE by today's standards, 50 to 70 students per each not very well paid teacher. Apparently throwing money at education will not solve all problems. John K Clark From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 12 09:31:51 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 05:31:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Our cryonic world References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com><4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it><7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com><4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <51E25222F3BA400ABC6D971498C7BBC6@MyComputer> Message-ID: <63192ADA5DA349468ABE74A75E27FDB8@MyComputer> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjTu8AbioiA From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 10:27:39 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:27:39 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Consent by staying?/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <179766.44378.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <179766.44378.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 Dan : >> So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the >> unjust >> taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to >> where?), but for >> those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the >> contract they have entered into? > > For me, there is one glaring problem with this view: the state has no right to expell people simply because they don't agree to the state's policies.* ?This is no different, to me, than any other criminal gang riding into town and then telling everyone, "If you don't agree with our rules, you're free to leave town." ?(Granted, such a gang might be marginally more tolerable than one offering the choice of "agree or die.") ?Just as with any criminal gang, the state has no right to demand obeisance -- in the particular case you mention, to demand payment of taxes. > > This would be entirely different if the state legitimately owned the country. ?But, in that case, the state would really not be a state, but an owner. ?(Note: in reality, all existing states have been nothing more than stationary bandits. ?Yes, they may differ in the ways they interact with their subject populations -- most allow some voice options, just as any other long lasting criminal gang will not rely on the constant exorcise of brute force -- but they remain trespassers.) The state owns the common property and has control of rules, including rules about taxation. The rules are made by the people to whom they apply (in a roundabout way). This is much better than private companies owning the country, which is what would eventually happen if free enterprise capitalism were allowed to run unchecked. Now it might bring peace of mind to the libertarian if an immigrant could sign a contract when he entered a country, so that he knew what the rules were and agreed to them, but this can't really be done with the native population. This would then mean that a native could refuse to obey any rule whatsoever, even if everyone in the country agrees it is a good one, on the grounds that he never agreed to it. For example, a native could drive as fast as he likes with impunity, arguing that had he been asked to sign a contract in which a speed limit was specified, he would have declined. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 10:37:48 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:37:48 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Will AI feel anything? In-Reply-To: <69784.93091.qm@web110401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <69784.93091.qm@web110401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 Anna Taylor : > > How does one measure feeling? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNb1EknEF9A > > Just curious > Anna:) The same question applies to other people or animals. I know I have feelings, and I assume everyone else like me also does, but how can I be sure? There is a large literature on "philosophical zombies", beings which behave as if they are conscious but in reality aren't. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 10:57:54 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:57:54 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 Dan : > I disagree, but what's your evidence for this? ?From my readings, it seems to me that government involvement has made healthcare much more costly -- especially since 1960 in the US -- and slowed down the pace of innovation. ?Of course, the latter is based on counterfactuals partly -- what might've happened had healthcare reform been in the direction of a free market (as in, in the US, abolishing the FDA, getting rid of the AMA's monopoly powers, and removing government completely from provisioning and mandating healthcare). Health care in the US costs about twice as much as it does in comparable countries and overall health outcomes in the US, by measures such as longevity and infant mortality rates (less prone to lifestyle factors), are at the lower end of the OECD range. Now it's true that the US has a mixed system, but it has a much higher weighting in private health care than most other countries. >> You >> speculate that if the mostly private health system in the >> US were >> completely deregulated, health care would become both >> cheaper and better. > > I think this is evidence. ?In the US, the costs of healthcare, for the most part, have been only loosely linked to actual service, so there's a tendency for overpricing -- as actual customers are not cost-sensitive. ?For example, as was pointed out many years ago, in one area of the country (I think it was in Houston, Texas), a simple blood test of the same quality (I forget what for) ranged in price from, IIRC, $20 to $100. ?But people getting the blood test were almost always paying via their employer's mandated health insurance. ?I.e., if they got the cheaper test, they didn't save any money for themselves, but merely for the health insurers. ?That removes one incentive to compete on price. ?(It also led insurance companies to lobby for cost controls. ?The market reform would've been to remove mandated health insurance.*) In the Australian system the government health insurer will pay the pathology lab a fixed amount for a particular test. The lab can then charge whatever it wants for the test, which might leave the patient out of pocket. In practice, most labs charge only the minimal amount, or they risk losing business. >> But there is no evidence for this, anywhere in the >> world. Your >> position reminds me of apologists for the Soviet Union >> arguing that it >> failed because it wasn't communist *enough*. > > What's meant by "communist" here? ?If it's the defining economic feature of the Soviet system -- central economic planning -- then those apologists are completely, unequivocally wrong. ?Central economic planning failed (and continues to fail; in the US, e.g., the central bank is central economic planning for the money system and the recent bust is merely its latest flop) as can be seen by how poorly it compared with the output and dynamism of even the highly regulated economies of the West.** ?(Also, another features of the Soviet system made it hard to spot this: the lack of an open society where the success or failure of the system could be openly considered and debated.) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism "Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism ? the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value ? with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation." -- Stathis Papaioannou From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue May 12 11:44:02 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:44:02 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedmanand negative income tax References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> Message-ID: <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> > As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely > embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... Speaking of Brazil... our public health care system is a mockery. Just for starters: - Public hospitals are falling appart like all the entropy of the universe is concentrated on them - The supplies for these same hospitals is in constant lack (to say the least) - The doctors, nurses and other public health employees are on strike like every other day for one reason or another - The social security system is disorganised and prone to fraud It's a very dystopic system. From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 11:45:28 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:45:28 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 spike : > All businesses need to be bailed out or prevented from failing, rather just > the opposite. ?Governments must not attempt to repeal the business cycle. > The US has just tripled our national debt attempting to prevent a recession. > But that recession is coming anyway, in fact it will likely be much worse, > partly because of the billions in taxpayer dollars have been dumped into GM > and Crysler, which will likely fail anyway. ?They must fail now: who would > buy the cars, knowing the companies likely will not be around to service the > warranty? ?We have just wasted all that taxpayer money, which takes away > from individual freedom. ?Bailing out the car companies was madness. It didn't work in Japan over the last 20 years. They tried everything the present regimes in the US and Europe are trying: deficit spending, zero interest rates, bailing out banks, outright printing of money, and none of it really had much effect. Interestingly, not even the money printing had much effect on deflation and did not cause the yen to depreciate. And the Japanese had more savings, so they were in a better position to increase personal spending and at less risk of personal bankruptcy. Some say the government should have allowed the insolvent banks to go down, and that this would have produced a short, sharp recession rather than a prolonged deflationary stagnation, but there is no way to really know. I'm in Tokyo as I write this. An interesting thing I have noticed is that there seem to be more Japanese workers doing a job that apparently one person would do elsewhere. For example, it took two people to change my money in Japan, while in Singapore and Australia it took only one. I guess this is why the unemployment rate is very low here. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have hurt efficiency: Japanese-made goods are still of the highest quality, and still competitively priced despite the strong yen. > All our transhumanist dreams of enhancing our minds and bodies will cost > money, and that money must be in the hands of individuals, who will > experiment and show the rest of us the way. ?Governments will never pay for > your brain enhancements while your neighbor is suffering from diabetes. ?I > fear the current government spending spree is killing our future. Governments will pay for *preventive* medicine, and anti-aging treatment is preventive medicine. Diabetes, atherosclerosis, cancer, Alzheimer's etc. etc. are all diseases of aging, and if they can all be prevented, you will stay younger for longer, work longer, pay taxes longer, and cost less to treat. Anti-aging treatment is not fundamentally different to what the normal health care system does anyway, and reframing it in this way would boost PR, IMHO. Some people freak out at the idea of making people live longer, stronger and smarter, but very few would argue that it is reasonable to deny their grandmother her hip replacement and anti-dementia drugs on the grounds that it constitutes unnatural enhancement. Similarly with brain enhancements: governments spend huge amounts on education because a smarter population is a more productive population, and historically only real loonies like Pol Pot have gone against this. Direct cognitive enhancement would only be an extension of this. Once people overcome their horror of it they would start to demand it, and those countries that didn't provide it for all their citizens would be left further and further behind. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 12 11:50:31 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 07:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >> As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely >> embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... > > As to the US neighbor to the north, there is an article here about health care in Canada: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Canadians+receive+poor+value+health+care+dollars/1584180/story.html Regards, MB From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 12 12:02:45 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:02:45 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 MB : >>> As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely >>> embraced universal health care. ?Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... >> >> > > As to the US neighbor to the north, there is an article here about health care in > Canada: > > http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Canadians+receive+poor+value+health+care+dollars/1584180/story.html Thearticle mentions that the Canadian public health care system is amongst the most expensive in the world, but in absolute terms, the total amount spent on health care in the US (public plus private) is something like double anywhere else in the developed world. And despite waiting lists etc. the Canadians live longer than Americans do. This is not to say that there aren't problems with the Canadian or any health care system, or any other enterprise, public or private, for that matter. Observing where one country or company does it better than another is how improvements are made. -- Stathis Papaioannou From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 13:56:44 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:56:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A089428.1000105@libero.it> Message-ID: <4A09801C.7020204@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 6.09, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > 2009/5/12 painlord2k at libero.it: > If you make money at a higher hourly rate, then you are considered > more successful. This means more money for less work. really? If I gather 1 kg of berries at hour and sell them and you gather 2 kg of berries in half an hour, are you working less than me and gaining more money than me? > The hourly rate > can be averaged out to include any study or training: there's not much > point to it (from a capitalist perspective) if the time spent working > but not earning money won't be at least repaid when when you do start > earning. You are under the false assumption that all work is the same. Are you telling me that a surgeon work less than a nurse? It is like comparing orange and apples. Not all work is the same, as a surgeon is able to do a work the nurse is unable to do. There are less surgeon than nurses. To have a working surgeon you need to invest much more scarce resources than to have a working nurse. >> In your example about Mr. Buffett, you imply that the work done by him could >> be done by any plumber or farmer with a minimum training. If it was so, >> there would be many Warren Buffett and Mr. Buffett would not be so special >> or rich. > > No, I think he was just lucky, as most studies of investors show that > they are no more likely to be successful in the future if they have > been successful in the past. But even if in fact he was successful > because he was smart or because he risked his capital, it doesn't > change the fact that he made a lot of money doing a little work a > *lot* less work than someone has to do to obtain the dole. If he is only a lucky man, you can just wait and he will lose his money. Capitalism is not gambling, albeit someone could think so if believe that capitalism is only what happen in a trade exchange. > Very few wealthy people make their money purely through their own > efforts. Usually they do the most difficult and requested works; they use their wealth, organize and coordinate the jobs of others. > Your Robinson Crusoe story is an example of this, but the > usual capitalist way is if Crusoe could get several competitors to > gather food and give him a proportion of it while he sits back. For > example, he could set up a shop trading one type of food for another > and keeping a profit. This is called "economic coordination" or "economic specialization". This would be done only if it is more practical and efficient to do. The people hunting game and the people gathering berries could exchange the goods between themselves and cut out Mr.Robinson (as he is doing nothing useful for them, you suppose). But wait! Mr. Robinson (an ex-gathers of berries) invested his leisure time to build a storage room where the berries and the game could be stored for many days. Then he stored his hand-gathered berries there and started to exchange them for game. Now, all hunters and gathers know that Mr.Robinson have this place where they can go and exchange immediately berries for game. When a hunter want berries, he can immediately go to Mr. Robinson and obtain his berries in exchange of game. The same is true for the gatherers. Suppose, for simplicity, that the game/berries exchange rate is fixed between the two groups. Now, Mr. Robinson decide that he will keep 10% of the game and 10% of the berries he trade as payment for his services. You could say this is an unjust profit, I would argue that this is the price the gathers and the hunters can choose to pay to obtain, without delay, berries or game. It is 90% immediately or 100% with a delay (a day or a week, maybe). > Now, this takes *some* work, maybe even hard > work, and perhaps it helps the other hunters as well as the > shopkeeper, so that everyone is happier than if there had been no > shop. But the fact remains, if the shopkeeper makes a profit much > larger than that of the hunters, he is effectively sponging off their > work. If the shopkeeper is doing a too large profit, someone else could undercut him doing the same job at a lower price and profit nonetheless. Hunters and gathers could return to a direct exchange if they find the cost to use Mr.Robinson services too high. So, Mr.Robinson have to limits at the prices he can charge: 1) The people using the services must find them useful enough to be willing to pay for them 2) The profits he earn must not be so large to invite others to do compete with him; usually he will profit as much as possible, then competition will show up and he will need to lower his prices. 3) The foresighted profits must be higher than doing something else. > This was the Marxists' essential criticism of capitalism: they > valued hard work, and they thought that workers should be able to > profit in proportion to their labour. Are hard work and labour the same? If the capitalist is reaping too large profits, what prevent the workers to organize themselves, pool resources and become self-employed and keep the profits for themselves? The only answers are two: 1) They are unable or unwilling to do so 2) They are prevented to do so If you want all workers to share the profits of the enterprise, you must share even the costs and the losses and the risks. For example, the workers of a plant producing cars could be required to receive their wages only when the car are materially sold and the money collected. This could be days or weeks or months after the cars are produced and the work done. So, you would see their wages change continuously every months in a not easily predictable way. Or they could build cars and sell them to dealers that will resell them to customers, but this would imply the profits would be lower and the dealers could refrain from buy cars if their inventories are too high. If the factory work at a loss, there would not be any money to pay wages, obviously or the workers could be required to cover the losses. Do you like these arrangements? I find them extremely unworkable. Do you have any suggestion that don't imply the capitalist must suck lemons and risks, profits and losses are shared proportionally and equally? And we have not covered how much pay people with different jobs. > Government welfare payments etc. > was not a feature of communism. In fact, I believe that in some Soviet > Bloc countries it was actually illegal to be willfully unemployed. Yes, it was illegal to don't hold a recognized job. The state could force you to do any job it feel you were fit or deserve or was needed. Obviously this worked so well for wealth creation and productivity. Mainly in the Siberian Gulags. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 14:05:58 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:05:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z><875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> Message-ID: <4A098246.3040107@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 1.06, spike ha scritto: > Stathis you are from Italy? I am from the US, so this is MY money that is > being poured down a rat hole. Not poured, that's too passive. MY money is > being blasted down a rat hole with a fire hose. Stathis Papaioannou sound Greek, so I suppose he is Greek or from US, maybe from Cyprus. I'm Italian and I saw money blasted in such ways. What is last is only a large debt to be repaid by the people, higher taxes, lower economic development. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 12 14:33:21 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:33:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Stathis In-Reply-To: <4A098246.3040107@libero.it> References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z> <875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike> <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A098246.3040107@libero.it> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> >>Stathis you are from Italy? > >Stathis Papaioannou sound Greek, so I suppose he is Greek or from >US, maybe from Cyprus. I must say I'm mind-boggled by this question and wild speculations. Stathis has mentioned repeatedly that he's an Australian psychiatrist, working in Melbourne. Half the force of his postings on health systems derives from his experience as a practicing psychiatric professional in Australia. Damien Broderick From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 12 14:06:41 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 07:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Lost innocence is mostly a myth/was Re: The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <113358.45347.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: >> As is so often the case, there is no principle in >> operation here. Only expediency. So far as I can >> tell, >> expediency has been uniformly increasing in the U.S. >> at the expense of principle for about one hundred >> and fifty years. > > Increasing, as opposed to having always been present?? > What great > stances of principle can you point to?? The 3/5 > compromise?? The Senate? > Andrew Jackson's violation of the Cherokees? I happen to agree with you here. It seems a certain mythical view of history underlies this discussion. It's sort of an anti-Whig view of history. The Whig view is that history is basically progressive -- moving from worse to better, an upward curve. There are some modifications, but this view of history is popular and still animates a lot of historical discussion. Whenever someone thinks "we know better now," she might be tapping into this view. (If anything, that our predecessors thought they knew better and that they corrected the mistakes of the past should give pause.) The anti-Whig view is a little different: the past was better and we've somehow lost something. Often this takes on tripartite form: 1) an idyllic or idealized past -- usually very long ago when giants walked, 2) the more recent past that corrupted this ideal, and 3) the present where we can decide to reclaim that idealized past or fall further into corruption -- typically with the choice being set in all or nothing terms: either we win or we'll be wiped out. In terms of the US and America in general, my readings of history have led me to believe there was no idealized past. Even the Founding and before were already corrupt and people and politics were much like today. This doesn't mean nothing was better or that nothing was lost, but it shouldn't make us think nothing has improved and nothing has been gained. I believe Extropians and transhumanists would do well to avoid simplistic views of history, especially to not pretend there's an easy, simple exit from real world problems. Regards, Dan From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 12 14:36:07 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 07:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The Social Market Roots of Democratic Peace Message-ID: <824283.9191.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I thought this might be of interest as peaceful interaction would seem most conducive to Extropianism and transhumanist projects: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18985/social_market_roots_of_democratic_peace.html "Democracy does not cause peace among nations. Rather, domestic conditions cause both democracy and peace. From 1961 to 2001, democratic nations engaged in numerous fatal conflicts with each other, including at least one war, yet not a single fatal militarized incident occurred between nations with contract-intensive economies-those where most people have the opportunity to participate in the market. In contract-intensive economies, individuals learn to respect the choices of others and value equal application of the law. They demand liberal democracy at home and perceive it in their interest to respect the rights of nations and international law abroad. The consequences involve more than just peace: the contract-intensive democracies are in natural alliance against any actor-state or nonstate-that seeks to challenge Westphalian law and order. Because China and Russia lack contractualist economies, the economic divide will define great power politics in the coming decade. To address the challenges posed by China and Russia, preserve the Westphalian order, and secure their citizens from terrorism, the contract-intensive powers should focus their efforts on supporting global economic opportunity, rather than on promoting democracy." Also, Mousseau gives a brief run down on Economic Norms Theory at: http://portal.ku.edu.tr/~mmousseau/Economic%20Norms%20Theory.htm I've long been suspicious of Democratic Peace Theory.* Mousseau's works seems to explain why that theory seems to have some empirical basis. Anyhow, if he's right, the take home is that those who want a more peaceful world -- even if simply to spend (or waste) the money that would've gone into security and war on national healthcare -- might do well to understand how contract-intensive economies can spread. Regards, Dan * There are two problems I've seen with the theory: a tendency to define democracy narrowly (so that when what critics might call democracies are fighting each other, one of them gets re-defined as a non-democracy) and a very small and biased data set (modern democracies were rare until the 20th century and then most of this history is either covered by the Cold War or the unipolar moment). From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 14:52:36 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:52:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 14.02, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto: > The article mentions that the Canadian public health care system is > amongst the most expensive in the world, but in absolute terms, the > total amount spent on health care in the US (public plus private) is > something like double anywhere else in the developed world. And > despite waiting lists etc. the Canadians live longer than Americans > do. The Canadians have not the same ethnic/social composition of the US, so they could live longer for genetic reasons. The Canadians are prohibited to pay for additional healthcare or they forfeited the public healthcare, so it is understandable they spend less on healthcare than the US; but there are so many clinics under the border in the US serving Canadians clients. Then, healthcare is only partially responsible of life length of people. Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. can have an effect. Hail Mary treatments are much more diffused in the US than in socialized healthcare systems. 50% of healthcare costs happen during the last one-two years of life. US healthcare is not so government-intervention-independent. It is heavily regulated. > This is not to say that there aren't problems with the Canadian or any > health care system, or any other enterprise, public or private, for > that matter. Observing where one country or company does it better > than another is how improvements are made. And competition is because they are done. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 15:20:04 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Throwing money at education (was: libertarians and inheritance) In-Reply-To: <51E25222F3BA400ABC6D971498C7BBC6@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <51E25222F3BA400ABC6D971498C7BBC6@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20090512152004.GA13864@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 02:50:27AM -0400, John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > >> I know, I know. It's scandalous how much is just thrown away educating >> young humans > > You are absolutely correct! The dreadful Washington DC public schools spend > $13,330 per student per year, think of a private school that charged that, > which school do you think would be superior? False comparison; the private school would refuse to take a lot of the public school students. Easy to get good results when you can cherry-pick. Not that there might not also be a lot of waste in poorly supervised public systems, but they have to take all the special-needs students (learning disabilities, behavior problems). Not to mention the cultural and background differences between the average DC family and the average family that can afford $13,000 a year. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 15:29:28 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:29:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedmanand negative income tax In-Reply-To: <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> References: <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <20090512152928.GB13864@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:44:02AM -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) wrote: >> As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely >> embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... > > Speaking of Brazil... our public health care system is a mockery. Just > for starters: Hmm, I'd heard otherwise from another Brazilian. The Web seems to say "underfunded", "HMOs dump high-cost patients on the public system", and "cool electronic records system the US can only dream of". -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 15:37:01 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:37:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20090512153701.GC13864@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 07:50:31AM -0400, MB wrote: > >> As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely > >> embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... > > As to the US neighbor to the north, there is an article here about health care in > Canada: > > http://www.calgaryherald.com/Health/Canadians+receive+poor+value+health+care+dollars/1584180/story.html Note that they're comparing Canada to *other countries with universal health care*. One problem I've seen cited is that Canadian hospitals get block grants; most other countries have money follow the patient. (I think Britain's NHS uses block grants too; they're not a role model, and live just a bit longer than Americans. OTOH they're pretty cheap.) Canada's also I think unique in barring docotrs from private practice of things that Canada's Medicare will pay for (or rather, most practice is private, but charging more is barred), vs. public-private competition elsewhere. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 15:50:48 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:50:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> Message-ID: <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:52:36PM +0200, painlord2k at libero.it wrote: > The Canadians have not the same ethnic/social composition of the US, so > they could live longer for genetic reasons. Problem is, US whites, being most of the US population, don't live much longer than the US average. E.g. http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/78LifeExpectancy.cfm 77.8 US vs. 78.3 white US. > The Canadians are prohibited to pay for additional healthcare or they > forfeited the public healthcare, so it is understandable they spend less A feature unique to Canada, as is being next door to the US. Spending less than the US for longer life than American whites is not unique to Canada. > Then, healthcare is only partially responsible of life length of people. > Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. can have an effect. True, but that turns "the US health care system is broken" into "the American way of life is unhealthy and broken". An interesting maneuver, to say the least. The "richest country in the world" can't provide healthy food or *sanitation*? > 50% of healthcare costs happen during the last one-two years of life. Which, BTW, means that a lot of US health care ends up being paid for by the government, via Medicare. "Hip replacements are faster in the US than Canada!" "So US Medicare is better than Canada's Medicare?" -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 16:01:03 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:01:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20090512160102.GA28666@ofb.net> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:52:36PM +0200, painlord2k at libero.it wrote: > > Then, healthcare is only partially responsible of life length of people. > > Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. can have an effect. A couple of interesting factors are chronic stress and reports that lower socioeconomic people live less long even when given the same access to health care. Some of the latter might be diet, but there are intimations that being low status is sefl-deadly. And stress is looking like a big killer. So... it's possible even a bad universal system could save lives simply by being universal, especially in combination with a strong safety net. Simply the knowledge that health care was there, unlike "lose your job, lose your insurance", combined with knowledge that one would never be reduced to desperate straits, vs. "rat race" and humiliating welfare applications, might save lives, through lack of worry and through not feeling like one was on the bottom of society. -xx- Damien X-) From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue May 12 16:14:30 2009 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:14:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Throwing money at education References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com><51E25222F3BA400ABC6D971498C7BBC6@MyComputer> <20090512152004.GA13864@ofb.net> Message-ID: <84E8700CF9AE4C8DB7508F5FD5180012@MyComputer> "Damien Sullivan" > Easy to get good results when you can > cherry-pick. Yes, and that's what makes cherry picking such a wonderful idea, it's easy to do and the results are excellent! When someone graduates from high school (at $13,330 a year) and is still reading at a second grade level it is a legitimate question to ask what the hell has been going on for the last 10 years. I think some children should be left behind, let the bottom 10% get on with their careers as drug addicts and petty criminals; it's where they're going to end up anyway regardless of how much money we throw at education. > the cultural and background differences between the average DC family and > the average family that can afford $13,000 a year. Correct again and there is absolutely nothing the public schools can do about that and it's time to stop pretending that they can. John K Clark From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 12 15:54:35 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights/was Re: The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > -0700, dan_ust at yahoo.com > wrote: >> This is a key feature of social contract theory. >> The typical social >> contract theory is an attempt to justify some >> socio-political order >> via an analogy with a real contract -- as if all >> members of society >> agree to some (you guessed it!) social contract. >> Since real world >> societies of any appreciable size don't arise >> contractually -- viz., >> people don't get together, formulate a contract, and >> then actually >> expressly consent to it -- the problem is how to >> complete the analogy. >> This is where tacit consent comes in. > >> This brings up another problem with social contracts: >> even were an >> explicit contract signed, it wouldn't bind others or >> future >> generations. But in the case of your country of >> birth, the government > > But these problems are true of property rights as > well. I didn't > consent to be born into a world where I inherit no wealth > and Paris > Hilton inherits $100s of millions. Why should I > respect her claim to > more than a fair share of the Earth's resources? Or > the claim of the > Sultan of Brunei? And why, in turn, should someone > without even access > to clean water, respect my modest life, let alone that of > the > egregiously wealthy? But (most*) libertarian property rights theories are not based on consent. Rights don't arise by consent. In fact, consent only arises because there are prior rights. For example, you can consent to give me this for that only if you have a right to this and I have a right to that. This is true of any consent argument: it presumes the consenting parties have prior rights -- even if the term "rights" is not used. My point was aimed at social contract theory. In fact, for social contract theory, consent is central; without consent, the whole of it breaks down. No consent, no contract, right?** Then the problem becomes how does this consent come about -- because, obviously, no real world governments rules by explicit consent of the governed (and most social contract theorists from Hobbes to Rawls appear to recognize the impracticality of express consent for real world governments***). Regards, Dan * There's been some debate over Hume's views on conventionalism and rights. I haven't done enough research on Hume or Hume-inspired rights theories, but I believe his view is that property rights grow out of the social conditions. I don't know how he separates the social condition from human nature -- as I believe the social part of it would be partly determined by human nature, even if in a dialectical fashion. (Dialectical determination can have one side setting the initial conditions or having more sway, no?) If this is so, it seems to me that Hume's rights theory is merely a different gloss on the human nature basis of rights -- and not really a radical alternative to most libertarian rights theories. ** Notably, libertarian minarchists -- like Rand, if I understand her views correctly -- tend to base their view of government arising and its legitimacy not on consent per se, but on human nature. Rand argued that humans needed government. Of course, she did argue that government must rule by consent, but the ultimate basis for her is human nature -- not social contract. *** Not to mention, were such necessary, there'd probably be almost no government as such consent would be limited to small groups for a limited time. From scerir at tiscali.it Tue May 12 16:26:52 2009 From: scerir at tiscali.it (scerir at tiscali.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:26:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] oops! Message-ID: <20693232.1026881242145612964.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> take me back to the sixties? http://objflicks.com/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm Non farti scappare la Promozione di Primavera. Stampa le tue foto nei formati 13x17 e 13x19 a soli 0,11 euro !!!http://photo.tiscali.it From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue May 12 16:35:04 2009 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:35:04 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedmanandnegative income tax References: <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net><02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <20090512152928.GB13864@ofb.net> Message-ID: <036101c9d31f$9b50f1f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:44:02AM -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) > wrote: >>> As it happens, post-military South America seems to have largely >>> embraced universal health care. Peru, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay... >> >> Speaking of Brazil... our public health care system is a mockery. Just >> for starters: Damien Sulivan> Hmm, I'd heard otherwise from another Brazilian. > > The Web seems to say "underfunded", "HMOs dump high-cost patients on the > public system", and "cool electronic records system the US can only > dream of". Oh yes. I forgot that part. The private health security firms really try to dump as much as they can on the public system. This only adds to the general chaos. And as for the electronic records, progress actually has been made. I admit it. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 12 16:59:41 2009 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> References: <491328.4520.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> Message-ID: <41372.12.77.168.174.1242147581.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> >> Then, healthcare is only partially responsible of life length of people. >> Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. can have an effect. > > True, but that turns "the US health care system is broken" into "the > American way of life is unhealthy and broken". An interesting maneuver, > to say the least. The "richest country in the world" can't provide > healthy food or *sanitation*? "can't provide"? The food is there, sanitation is there. Soap and water are not *that* expensive. I see people buying junk food while I'm buying whole grain flour and fruit and vegs. That is *choice*. Healthy choices are more Extropian, no? Some folks eat way too much, others practice caloric restriction. But "provide"?? Do you mean *force*? Imagine how far foodstamps could go if wholegrain oatmeal were prepared instead of packaged high-sugar cereal? Or plain water for beverages or even green tea, rather than sugar juice-drinks (what *are* those, anyway??). Or fresh vegs rather than some pre-made high-fructose laced "dinner" in a box. It's not for lack of promotion, either. Food pyramids and such are plastered on packaging everywhere, and the vitamin, sodium, carb, protein, fats content must be listed. Regards, MB From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 17:51:03 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:51:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Health care discussion In-Reply-To: <41372.12.77.168.174.1242147581.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <4A042C89.90103@libero.it> <20090512055502.GD9691@ofb.net> <02b201c9d2f6$f46a8860$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm> <41058.12.77.169.23.1242129031.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <4A098D34.6030703@libero.it> <20090512155048.GD13864@ofb.net> <41372.12.77.168.174.1242147581.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20090512175103.GA5053@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:59:41PM -0400, MB wrote: > > >> Then, healthcare is only partially responsible of life length of people. > >> Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. can have an effect. > > True, but that turns "the US health care system is broken" into "the > > American way of life is unhealthy and broken". An interesting maneuver, > "can't provide"? The food is there, sanitation is there. Soap and > water are not *that* expensive. I see people buying junk food while Dan was the one citing better food and sanitation as possible factors in lower US life expectancy. > I'm buying whole grain flour and fruit and vegs. That is *choice*. Healthy food isn't easily available in a lot of bad neighborhoods, actually. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 17:57:06 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:57:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090512175658.GB5053@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:54:35AM -0700, Dan wrote: > But (most*) libertarian property rights theories are not based on > consent. Rights don't arise by consent. In fact, consent only arises See, I'd disagree there. If someone claims some property, that claim is honored either by ability to defend the claim, or by the consent of everyone else. Whether there's a "right" is ultimately irrelevant; rights don't defend themselves. > because there are prior rights. For example, you can consent to give > me this for that only if you have a right to this and I have a right > to that. This is true of any consent argument: it presumes the > consenting parties have prior rights -- even if the term "rights" is > not used. THe original libertarians -- the 19th century left anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, and perhaps the non-libertarian Hobbes before them -- migh well say that initially everyone has a right to everything. Certainly everyone in the state of nature can walk wherever they please. To fence off some land as "my farm" is to seize land formerly available to all. -xx- Damien X-) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue May 12 18:00:24 2009 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:00:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Study: Bad boy doesn't always get the girl Message-ID: <2d6187670905121100h60023822xa99d22af089bf4c2@mail.gmail.com> I wonder how this applies to our modern society. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warring_losers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 18:12:51 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:12:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <20090512051834.GB9691@ofb.net> References: <260856.55885.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090512051834.GB9691@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4A09BC23.1040103@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 7.18, Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > But these problems are true of property rights as well. I didn't > consent to be born into a world where I inherit no wealth and Paris > Hilton inherits $100s of millions. Sue your parents. They brought you in this world. > Why should I respect her claim to > more than a fair share of the Earth's resources? 1) Because she have more power than you, so if you don't respect her, she will not respect you 2) Because you value the possibility to collaborate with her in future 3) Because not respecting her properties would adversely effect your ability to collaborate with others. > Or the claim of the Sultan of Brunei? > And why, in turn, should someone without even access > to clean water, respect my modest life, let alone that of the > egregiously wealthy? The respect for others rise from their perceived value: 1) You respect them because they are dangerous to you if you attack them 2) You respect them because you value their collaboration with you now or in future 3) You respect them because you would be valued more and considered not dangerous from others. But, if you continue to believe differently, I suppose you have nothing against people that don't respect the claims of Saudis and Iranians about their oil (their share of oil is too high, we have the same right like them to the oil of the world). And, for sure, Norwegian have the right to invade Senegal to take their fair share of sunny sea and beaches. In exchange, the senegalese could take their fair share of frozen seas and beaches. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 18:17:46 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:17:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Consent by staying?/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <179766.44378.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <179766.44378.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A09BD4A.5050900@libero.it> Il 11/05/2009 22.54, Dan ha scritto: > --- On Sat, 5/9/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it : > [big snip] >> So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the unjust >> taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to where?), but >> for those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the contract >> they have entered into? > For me, there is one glaring problem with this view: the state has no > right to expell people simply because they don't agree to the state's > policies.* This is no different, to me, than any other criminal gang > riding into town and then telling everyone, "If you don't agree with > our rules, you're free to leave town." (Granted, such a gang might > be marginally more tolerable than one offering the choice of "agree > or die.") Just as with any criminal gang, the state has no right to > demand obeisance -- in the particular case you mention, to demand > payment of taxes. Take out "the state". We are not talking about state. The example revolved around condominiums and shared private properties. We could take the example of Seasteading. Hundred persons pay to build the platform and take an equal share of the property. They decide unanimously to contribute a fixed sum per capita every year to pay for the platform reparations and renovations as a "fee to use" the platform. The shares give the owners a right to decide what to do with the platform, where the fee give the payers the right to use the platform for a fixed time. There could be payers that don't own the shares of the platform or sharers that don't pay the fee to use it as they live elsewhere. The heirs (new sharers) would be compelled to pay for the use of the platform as anyone else. If they don't pay, they could be forced out of the platform. It is true that they have not an agreement with the other 99 owners, but the 99 owners are not bound by any agreement with the heirs. The heirs can own 1% of the platform and live elsewhere or abide by the rules. They could sell their 1% to someone else interested in owning part of the platform. Or they could be forced to use and stay only in their 1% of the platform until they pay the fee. Or, in case of modular design of the platform, their module could be detached from the others. > So I believe the consent by staying argument -- if that's what you're > offering -- fails. But it is not what I advocate. My point is that people could decide what to do with their properties. People inherit the properties will inherit duties and claims. If they don't want the duties they have not claims. The fact that there is anywhere to go is not a good reason to not follow any rules. > Notably, it's quite similar to the argument that > if people are not openly rebelling than they consent to the > government ruling over them. Really democratic government are ruled by the consent of the people, so they share their government fate. If they are not really democratic, the people is captives or collaborators. In any way, what happen to them is imputable to their government, not to the other side. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From painlord2k at libero.it Tue May 12 18:28:10 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:28:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <20090512175658.GB5053@ofb.net> References: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090512175658.GB5053@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4A09BFBA.1010104@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 19.57, Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > Certainly everyone in the state of nature can walk wherever they please. > To fence off some land as "my farm" is to seize land formerly available > to all. In a "State of Nature" you can walk everywhere as you can be killed everywhere by anyone able and willing to do so. The first step out the "State of Nature" is a mutual contract, implicit or explicit, to not kill others. The second step is to mutually recognize their right to their property, like their territory and their stuff, as you want them to recognize the same right in you. A rule of thumb to check if something is a right is to see if it can be claimed and exercised by all in the same time. Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00 From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 12 18:41:48 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:41:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A09BFBA.1010104@libero.it> References: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090512175658.GB5053@ofb.net> <4A09BFBA.1010104@libero.it> Message-ID: <20090512184148.GA20420@ofb.net> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:28:10PM +0200, painlord2k at libero.it wrote: > Il 12/05/2009 19.57, Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > >> Certainly everyone in the state of nature can walk wherever they please. >> To fence off some land as "my farm" is to seize land formerly available >> to all. > > In a "State of Nature" you can walk everywhere as you can be killed > everywhere by anyone able and willing to do so. > > The first step out the "State of Nature" is a mutual contract, implicit > or explicit, to not kill others. The second step is to mutually > recognize their right to their property, like their territory and their > stuff, as you want them to recognize the same right in you. Yes, exactly, that's my point! Except that what's fairly claimed as "their property" is also subject to negotiation. -xx- Damien X-) From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 12 19:41:48 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights Message-ID: <189045.17902.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:54:35AM > -0700, Dan wrote: > >> But (most*) libertarian property rights theories are >> not based on >> consent.? Rights don't arise by consent.? In >> fact, consent only arises > > See, I'd disagree there.? If someone claims some > property, that claim is > honored either by ability to defend the claim, or by the > consent of everyone else.? The claim, naturally, will be honored by such, but this doesn't mean the right arises merely from being honored. Look at it this way. Were you to claim X is your property, why would anyone agree with your claim? Merely for the hell of it? (And even in the case where you might defend it, surely many might still disagree -- just as you might not try to rectify a theft from an armed robber, but you wouldn't say the loot actually belongs to him.) This is why most minarchist* libertarians talk about government recognizing but not creating rights. Of course, one can argue that whatever the basis is it won't do the job, but your original criticism here was that property rights are based on consent. > Whether there's a "right" is > ultimately irrelevant; > rights don't defend themselves. Actually, it is relevant because it motivates people to act in certain ways. E.g., if someone believes you have a right to X, she is far less likely to try to take X from you without your consent and far more likely to help you keep X should someone else try to take X from you without your consent. (This includes pre-theoretic notions of right -- as when a person doesn't necessarily have an elaborate theory of rights, but merely presumes it's yours by possession.) >> because there are prior rights.? For example, you >> can consent to give >> me this for that only if you have a right to this and >> I have a right >> to that.? This is true of any consent argument: >> it presumes the >> consenting parties have prior rights -- even if the >> term "rights" is not used. > > THe original libertarians -- the 19th century left > anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, I'm using the term libertarian in the peculiarly modern Anglo-American fashion -- not to be confused with other usages. > and perhaps the non-libertarian > Hobbes before them > -- migh well say that initially everyone has a right to > everything. > Certainly everyone in the state of nature can walk wherever > they please. > To fence off some land as "my farm" is to seize land > formerly available > to all. Actually, from my reading Proudhon and Bakunin had a collectivist or common property view. IIRC, too, the former did believe in a sort of private property by use standard, but this was very limited. (Any Proudhon scholars handy to set me straight on this?) More importantly, I'm not sure either would've based their view of collective or common ownership on consent. (My guess would be that they don't, but I'd have to do more research. Why do I think they don't? Well, it might obviously lead to the situation where everyone consents to, say, a Lockean private property system -- the very system they were against.) Hobbes view was a bit different -- if I understand him correctly. For him rights in the state of nature equal, I believe, capabilities and every has rights equally. So, you might have the right to kill Hobbes, but he has the same right to kill you. This, of course, conflates rights and makes them useless for any sort of analysis -- as they lead to not specific conclusions and justify anything. Now, these differences are all nice and fine, but I wasn't talking about who might disagree with libertarian rights theory, but elaborating that libertarians rights theory is not essentially consensual. In other words, in that theory, rights don't arise by consent. Regards, Dan * Minarchists believe that a minimal government -- specifically one limited to protecting individual negative rights -- is possible and the best possible form of political arrangement. I believe there are two problems with this view. One is that any such government would have to avoid violating individual negative rights, so it couldn't tax or even outlaw rival rights protectors (i.e., protection agencies), so it could never maintain by law a territorial monopoly on this. The other is that I think any real government is bound to violate rights. From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue May 12 20:37:30 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (dan_ust at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Government footprint and socialized medicine/was Re: The Circle of Coercion Message-ID: <186122.36496.qm@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > -0700, Dan wrote: >> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >>> 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : > >>>> would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy >>>> years ago in America could have guessed that >>>> government would come to absorb about fifty >>>> percent of everyone's pay, and would soon > > Man, what?? Tax rates right now are lower than they've > been in > generations.? We're still in the Bush tax cuts for the > upper class -- > 35% on the tap bracket -- and Obama's cut them for the > middle and lower > class.? The 30 year postwar economic boom had top > taxes of 70%; Reagan > in 1981 cut that bracket *down* to 50%.? Yet now we > have tha taxophobes > talking as if 39% vs. 35% is "socialism".? Lowest tax > rates in decades > and the GOP still talks only about tax cuts. I agree that income tax levels are lower and don't understand Lee's comments.? I also think that other taxes have risen and that inflation has a huge impact on this.? IIRC, too, the federal income tax was sold (it came into effect in 1913, IIRC) as an alternative to high tariffs and the [income] tax supposedly only really impacted the wealthy. There's also the problem of measuring the government's "footprint" in society.? I wouldn't speak of a certain percentage of taxation as socialism, though I'd say that, even during the era of the Reagan tax cuts, government's footprint grew.*? (And the GOP has proven itself, time and again, to be faithful to the creed of "spend spend spend.")? This is where I think spending might be a better proxy and it might be better to measure spending in absolute terms rather than relative terms -- in other words, in inflation adjusted money terms rather than as a percentage of GDP.? (On the latter, aside from GDP being mostly a meaningless measure, were it to double and, say, military spending doubled and inflation were zero, this would likely mean, even though the military spending remained the same percentage-wise, the military footprint grew -- say, maybe there were more tanks, bombs, and more places being invaded.**) >>> You keep going on about health care, but it is >>> one of the >>> things that clearly works better when there is >>> government involvement. >> >> I disagree, but what's your evidence for this?? >> From my readings, it >> seems to me that government involvement has made >> healthcare much more > > Well, there are lots of countries with socialized insurance > (in one > case, actual socialized medicine), and they all live longer > at less cost than the US. Are you certain this is evidence of "health care" that "clearly works better when there is government involvement"?? If so, then you have the US case, which is one where regulation is probably more rampant than anywhere else and this leads to higher costs and lower quality of service (despite the higher costs).? This regulation includes the FDA, which increases the overall costs of new therapies and even keeps some therapies off the market (even ones that are approved in other advanced countries); the AMA, which reduces competition in that market overall by limiting seats at medical schools and eliminating (or damn near eliminating) any competing forms of medicine; and myriad regulatory oversights that seem bent on strangling efficiency out of the system.? The surprising thing to me is actually that the US system isn't far worse. > Also, market health care manifestly fails to provide health > care who don't have money.? Not so.? There would, under a voluntary health care system be room for charity.? There seems to be some evidence that in the US this was the main way the poor got healthcare before the Medicaid program was created.? (I'll have to look up references, but I recall charts seeing inflation adjusted costs rising soonafter 1965. Coincidence?) > Or who don't have proof of payment, > as might happen > if someone got mugged and left unconscious.? The US > decided some time > ago that people shouldn't die for lack of money, thus > Medicaid and more > fundamentally, the ER mandate to take people in.? We > already have > socialized insurance of sorts, of an egregiously bad > variety.? (One that > dumps the costs on hospitals, and doesn't provide for > preventive care, > and provides incentives not have ERs; top-notch insurance > won't save you > if you bleed out before you reach an emergency room.) I disagree.? This was the rhetoric for the program -- not the reality.? And the actual result, if one looks at the data, was to drive up costs, making it ever harder for people to afford health care -- and feeding into the call for more regulation and more subsidization.? (Eventually, this lead, about ten years after Medicaid went into effect, to attempts to regulate pricing.? Why was this?? Why the uptick, above inflation, in price?)? This makes sense from an economics standpoint: anything that stimulates demand, all else being equal, will likely cause a rise in prices. >> partly -- what might've happened had healthcare reform >> been in the direction of a free market (as in, in the >> US, abolishing the FDA, getting rid of the AMA's >> monopoly powers, and removing government completely >> from provisioning and mandating healthcare). > > We had that back in the 19th and early 20th century.? > We moved away from it.? Ever wonder why? Actually, the AMA starting up in the mid-19th century and consolidated its control over the US markets by the end of that century.? The real motivation, as opposed to the offered rationale, for the AMA and the FDA seems to have been to keep out competitors. >> those apologists are completely, unequivocally >> wrong.? Central >> economic planning failed (and continues to fail; in >> the US, e.g., the >> central bank is central economic planning for the >> money system and the >> recent bust is merely its latest flop) as can be seen >> by how poorly it > > Bad call; there's good arguments that the latest flop is > from deliberate > lack of planning -- specifically, regulation. While there is some evidence that removal or changing of certain regulations (specific ones addressed in Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000) help cause the problem, this is not completely true.? This was an era of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the SEC clamping down on insider trading.? Anyone working for a publicly traded company of a decent size probably has noticed the legion of accountants that suddenly appeared to comply with the former and has had to sign documents regarding the latter.? There's always this myth with every economic crisis that up until the crisis happened government didn't exist, that we were all living under market anarchism, and had we only had the sense to put ever wise central bankers and bank regulators in charge, this wouldn't have happened. It also seems to be the case that the main cause of the current crisis was the inflation during the Bush years -- and that this was acerbated by heavy government involvement in the housing sector (especially via the government-sponsored Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but also via the CRA and the "ownership society" claptrap) and the expectation by bug financial market players that bailouts were always an option.? (The last has been the underlying expectation at least since the early 1990s -- and even earlier given Greenspan's penchant for always helping big banks whenever a crisis was in the offing.? This created, I believe, a financial culture of high risk -- one that continues -- coupled with government subsidy -- the worst of both worlds, especially if regulations are loosened.) > Ideological sabotage, not basic impossibility. I disagree.? The view you offer below is basically that regulators can foresee crises and otuguess markets.? History and theory seem to show this is not possible -- and, if they could do so, then, I submit, full blown planning on the Soviet model should work abd perform at least as well as markets. > We know how to regualte banking > so that it is safe > and boring and stable, but we've had a regime that > disdained that in > favor of "innovations" like CDOs and hedge funds.? > Voila.? Conversely, > we had unplanned banking in the 19th century; that > generated major and frequent panics. This is another myth, IMO.? Major 19th century crises, like the 1819***, 1837, and 1873 panics in the US were due not to "unplanned banking" but inflationary policies fostered by the government and other government meddling in banking and money.? Also, even during the so called "free banking" period in the US (roughly from 1837 until 1860), there was state intervention in most so called "free banks," particularly with state government mandating portfolio requirements, limiting branch banking, and requiring banks to hold state debt. In essence, too, we have had a central planner in banking in the US since 1913: the Fed.? In recent decades, too, the Fed chair has planned as much as within his power the financial markets -- almost always failing to see crises and probably, if Austrian Business Cycle Theory is correct, causing many of them.? (This alone should be proof that having a central planner dictate interest rates, money supply, and the like doesn't work.****) >> **? Not to mention, Mises showed theoretically >> why this was so and >> predicted its failure early on.? He even took >> Lenin's New Economic >> Policy as evidence for his view being correct -- and >> others have seen >> it as an open admission that central economic planning >> can't work. > > Which is why the US is defended by lowest-bidder > mercenaries. The US is not defended: those contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are by a predatory government (the US federal government) for occupation -- an offensive role, no? Also, do you agree that Lenin's NEP is evidence that Mises was right about central planning? Regards, Dan *? I mentioned this earlier, there are three basic ways modern governments are funded: taxation, borrowing, and inflation.? Taxation is typically the least popular because it's readily apparent who's being taxed -- and the taxed often can and will organize against it.? Borrowing and inflation tend to be preferred? because it's much harder to discern who will ultimately pay, making it much less likely the payers will organize and resist.? (Borrowing is like an indirect tax because, eventually, the loans will have to be repaid, so that will have to come from future taxes or future inflation.? Also, government borrowing -- since it tends to be very large and concentrated -- does compete with private borrowing, so it tends to drive up market interest rates and decrease the supply of loanable funds.? This is usually a more immediate effect than repayment of the loans.? Inflation is also like an indirect tax because holders of inflated money lose some value of that money.? However, there are time lags and path dependencies, so, again, it's very hard to tell who will ultimately pay the price -- save for generalizations like those only fixed incomes and net creditors will be harmed while those who receive the inflated money first (usually the government, the big banks, the large debtors) will benefit the most.) **? The argument offered by some neo-cons (who pretend to be libertarians) that double the economy means you need double the military is faulty for two reasons.? One, the military is unnecessary anyway, especially since its role is offensive and harms the economy.? Two, the one non-libertarians might give more weight to, there is no direct connect between the size of an economy and the percentage that must be spent on supposedly legitimate military needs.? If my worldly wealth were to double, I doubt I'd need to spend twice as much on my personal security. ***? See Rothbard's _The Panic of 1819_ for a detailed, if rather boring, examination of this crisis, its causes and aftermath. ****? Like with Soviet central planners, the Fed chair and the Fed board are not omnipotent and omniscient. Heck, recall just before the full extent of the crisis was evident and months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out, Ben Bernanke said the two mortgage lenders were in "no danger of failing." :@ And yet he still has his job. We live in strange times... From mlatorra at gmail.com Tue May 12 22:13:28 2009 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:13:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Once again: Some vitamins don't help in large doses Message-ID: <9ff585550905121513l5c332f05yce47781214a4784e@mail.gmail.com> Vitamins Found to Curb Exercise Benefits By NICHOLAS WADE Published: May 11, 2009 If you exercise to improve your metabolism and prevent diabetes, you may want to avoid antioxidants like vitamins C and E. .... ?If you exercise to promote health, you shouldn?t take large amounts of antioxidants,? Dr. Ristow said. A second message of the study, he said, ?is that antioxidants in general cause certain effects that inhibit otherwise positive effects of exercise, dieting and other interventions.? The findings appear in this week?s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. ... *Read entire article at:* http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/health/research/12exer.html?em -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 13 04:05:29 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:05:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] diversity and private schools In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> <4A07D90A.6010008@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A0A4709.2000605@rawbw.com> BillK wrote: > On 5/11/09, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> But a true market place, where some kid repeatedly >> doesn't do well or work out at some schools provides >> a "market opportunity" for entrepreneurs. > > "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" is the > motto of the Jesuits. Jesuit schools are usually boarding schools to > reduce the influence of parents and the outside world. But it was never like that the Jesuits didn't have a lot of government support. You're speaking of episodes of history in which any kind of schooling for the masses not only was not wealth- creating, but would have been forbidden anyway (unless it happened to keep to the line of the government/religious majorities of the day). > Jesuit schools constitute one of the most effective forms for the > apostolic activity of the Society of Jesus in the United States. > Jesuits and their colleagues educate over 46,000 young men and women > each year at 71 secondary or pre-secondary schools in 25 states > > The trouble with a 'market' in schools is that there is no standard to > check them by. Every crazy group will have their own schools. Even > 'good' schools will be sneaking in minor classes in creationism or > bomb-making or the art of shoplifting, and so on. You operate under the assumption that we collectively know better than we do individually. But along with Madison, I say that the real virtue of your culture is not going to be manifest collectively if it cannot be manifest individually, or by smaller groups. You will rejoice that indeed, at present, the people you agree with for the most part have the government power. You'll switch sides expediently enough, I reckon, if the tables are turned. I.e., when folks like George Bush or the religious right are in power, then you're all against centralized collectively dictated school behavior - but when your guys are in the ascendancy, well, it's a different matter. Shall we not try to find a principle here? How about the one that got the west into riches: let a thousand flowers bloom (even if that phrasing was co-opted by a certain someone else). Clearly, if the people are going to be rotten enough to want for the most part to do things you don't like individually, then they'll be just as likely to do things you don't like collectively. It also seems to me that you focus overly much on very small groups, e.g., schools that would turn out professional criminals, or schools that would turn out terrorists. Do I sense a subconscious need for uniformity? > A 'market' has to have a minimum standard to attain and a supervisory > administration to stop wrong behavior. Just like any market, from > street markets to Wall Street (we can wish!). Yes, a rather totalitarian control is absolutely needed to stop all wrongdoing. Mao did manage to end prostitution, drug use, and other vices in all Chinese cities. But no one, least of all the Chinese, would today argue that it was worth it. The wrongdoing that needs attention from government is that which has effects far, far beyond their numbers. So we have laws to protect the weak or innocent from the strong or wicked. As with so many things, imagining all the things that could go wrong in some particular private school is relatively easy, while imagining the great good that would come about in the myriads by individualization is much more difficult. It can rarely be done well except by analogy: Aren't we grateful that supermarkets are free to innovate and explore new possibilities, and to cultivate those world-wide sources of least price? Imagine what they'd be like if government run (as they were in the USSR), and people were chanting "food delivery is too important to be left to the free market!". Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 13 04:13:50 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:13:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Protected Elites In-Reply-To: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> Dan wrote: > For example, in the US, laws that prevent corporate takeovers > and the like shield management from the consequences of its > incompetence. The recent wave of subsidies to bigs banks and > large corporations likewise prevent the market from taking > down inefficience firms. The problem seems to me NOT that > Wall Street needs some governmental authority to step in to > prevent cheating, but that we need the government to stop > bailing out or otherwise shielding Wall Street insiders > from competition and from their mistakes. Yes, indeed. You may also be interested in the (not very libertarian, but rather informative) http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice "The Quiet Coup", by Simon Johnson. When we've created this awful mess by not following sound banking principles, who knows what is the best way to get off the pike that's disemboweling us? Maybe the government should buy up all the rot for the time being, sell what's good back to private enterprise, and add the balance to the trillions and trillions of national debt that doesn't seem to matter to anyone. (Now who were the people in the very first place who were from day one opposed to a balanced budget amendment?) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 13 04:25:32 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:25:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > It doesn't make sense that you say you would have taken the dole, yet > ended up retraining and (I assume) working full time. What if there > were no dole but you had, say, a couple of hundred thousand dollars > from savings or inheritance, which you could have invested for a > modest lifelong income, similar to the dole; Of course I would have preferred that. People usually take the path of least resistance, integrated over their foreseeable future (taking into account time discounting). I didn't *want* to stop doing what I was doing. I felt forced to. I felt forced to move far away and take up another line of work entirely. Charities and especially government assistance all too often keep people from making choices that will in the long run benefit them. > in fact, even easier than > the dole, since you would not have had to apply, continually justify > to the government your need, explain to others that you were on the > dole, etc. You could make the same arguments against any kind of addiction. But when you're on the hook, making the long-term best choices for oneself is not so easy. > Would the money have been an equally great or greater > personal disaster? In my case, yes, and I think that it's true for most people. A productive living confers many, many psychological benefits, as the studies will tell you (as well as a host of ancient homilies). > Should we worry that savings can corrupt moral > fibre and urge people to spend their income as > soon as they are paid, Certainly not. But go ahead if you want. The "urging" that we do to people is seldom effective (that this is the case is what was never clear to the early collectivists, who really believed that constant exhortations to the masses to contribute to the social well-being would be effective). People end up feeling quite different about money they've earned as opposed to money they've stolen or have been given. The psychological profiles are distinct. In one case there is a kind of sense of justice, and in the other a sense of injustice, just to mention one facet. The people I know or knew who were getting something for nothing rather resented the entire system, and especially hated the rich (and for some reason, especially hated Bill Gates). The mechanisms in play here are obvious. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 13 04:35:55 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:35:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A0A4E2B.5060909@rawbw.com> Dan wrote: > --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> 2009/5/11 Lee Corbin : >>> Who could even have (on this list) imagined >>> fifteen years ago that Voltaire's principle >>> would be questioned? Who sixty or seventy >>> years ago in America could have guessed that >>> government would come to absorb about fifty >>> percent of everyone's pay, and would soon >>> be trying to impose communist health care? > I disagree with Lee's rhetoric here. I don't > think it's communist healthcare; but it's > definitely not free market and healthcare > in the US has not been predominantly free > market for many decades now. Wow, that word sure touched a nerve here and there, even uncapitalized! One was supposed to read "collectivist". But really, just what is the difference? Would anyone who felt a twinge of annoyance explain just what is *not* communistic about socialized health-care? It's even a case of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Isn't it? Well? (I understand that big C Communist enthusiasts are, ah, well, rather embarrassed here in the aftermath of certain historic fiascos, but I did *not* say Soviet health care. Would the annoyance have been any less if I'd said "socialist"? Or has big S Socialism also been discredited?) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 13 04:59:42 2009 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:59:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism In-Reply-To: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A0A53BE.8050807@rawbw.com> Dan writes > Lee wrote: > >> Dan wrote (5/7/2009 2:46pm) >>> Regarding how reform should be attempted within the >>> present system, I disagree that perpetuating or >>> expanding the system is the correct approach. >> Yes indeed. And I commend you also for pointing out >> that we can only hope to move towards eventual positions >> that appeal to us, and ought not outright advocate those >> eventual positions. > > Actually, I do think one ought to "outright advocate > eventual positions."... > If you'd read the articles I wrote, the ones I quoted Oh, I did. Sorry about the above. I definitely read into one thing you'd written what I dreamily assumed had to be the case, namely that you agreed that it sounds completely unrealistic to people to talk of extreme libertarian solutions, when they can't even intuit problems with centralized education or health care. Even more important, just what really secure knowledge do we have about what is feasible in the long run? What do we know about future technical developments, possibly including the singularity and nanotechnology? These could move people with tremendous force in all sorts of conceptual directions. Pure libertarianism might seem as quaint as many 18th century ideas seem to us now. I won't argue strategy any longer with you; (I can see myself that some things are futile :). But *given* say a feudal culture circa 1000 AD that you found yourself a part of, you'd still be a classic libertarian? Me, at that point, I'd either be advocating more or less obedience to the local lord or to the king, whichever would get us into an era of free trade sooner. I see our current situation as analogous, except that unlike you or me being propelled back to 1000 AD, we are in ignorance about what social and technical developments are going to occur. The concept of free individuals having a maximum impact on what happens in their daily lives, and having to suffer a minimum from legal restraints, is entirely dependent on how evolved our culture is. We're very lucky, both historically and comparatively contemporaneously, to have as good a shot as we have to getting people to understand incremental changes. And yes, I did read you about "tailoring" your message to different audiences, and I understand. Lee From spike66 at att.net Wed May 13 05:48:58 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:48:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rich dad poor dad In-Reply-To: References: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: There is a local seminar from the author of Rich Dad Poor Dad that is being advertised on the radio. The lead-in advice to attract listeners seems like terrible advice. Perhaps some here have heard the ads. They say right up front that working and saving will never get you rich (therefore don't bother trying.) There are other notions in there that will likely prove ruinous to those who follow the advice, but consider the masses who hear the ads and do not attend the seminar. I can imagine the actual ads leading to financial ruin for millions. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 13 10:54:17 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 18:54:17 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Stathis In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A098246.3040107@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 Damien Broderick : > >>> Stathis you are from Italy? >> >> Stathis Papaioannou sound Greek, so I suppose he is Greek or from US, >> maybe from Cyprus. > > I must say I'm mind-boggled by this question and wild speculations. Stathis > has mentioned repeatedly that he's an Australian psychiatrist, working in > Melbourne. Half the force of his postings on health systems derives from his > experience as a practicing psychiatric professional in Australia. To be precise, I'm Australian-born, of Greek background, and I work as a medical officer in the Australian public psychiatry system. This should be borne in mind when reading bias in my posts. To be fair, at work I'm most often critical of the system, but I realise when talking to outsiders that I (and probably most people here) take the positive things about it for granted. I have also worked for brief periods in private general practice. -- Stathis Papaioannou From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 13 13:20:15 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 06:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Overall health and time preference/was Re: Health care discussion Message-ID: <284090.4559.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:59:41PM > -0400, MB wrote: >> >>>> Then, healthcare is only partially >>>> responsible of life length of people. >>>> Better food, sanitation, lower crime, etc. >>>> can have an effect. > >>> True, but that turns "the US health care system >>> is broken" into "the >>> American way of life is unhealthy and >>> broken".? An interesting maneuver, > >> "can't provide"?? The food is there, sanitation >> is there. Soap and >> water are not *that* expensive.? I see people >> buying junk food while > > Dan was the one citing better food and sanitation as > possible factors in lower US life expectancy. That wasn't me; that was Mirco. I don't believe I've offered any explanation of lower US life expectancy. I do think one would have to control for all sorts of factors to figure this one out. I'd be very surprised if it could be narrowed down to one factor -- unless it were some blanket one like "overall life style." >> I'm buying whole grain flour and fruit and vegs.? >> That is *choice*. > > Healthy food isn't easily available in a lot of bad > neighborhoods, actually. That's hilarious! I've lived in bad neighborhoods quite often. I've also lived without a car for long stretches. And I was into eating healthy and life extension during that time (and now). I used to walk or take a bus to places where I could buy the typically more expensive foods and things I thought would be healthier for me. I don't think the problem here is availability. However, I don't want to make light of this. Again, I'm not sure there's a simple explanation, though someone like Hoppe might offer that most poor people stay poor because they have a higher time preference -- i.e., are more present-centered. If his view has any application here, it might go like this. Poor people, sadly, tend to be more present-centered, so they just don't think in terms of a longer life; instead, they tend to favor immediate gratification over investing for a long-term reward. So, they won't walk or take the bus or train across town to get healthier food or evne think in terms of eating right at this moment for some potential pay-off -- in terms of lower risk of cancer, heart disease, chronic illness, etc. -- decades from now. Let's say Hoppe's right here. This would only be an observation. The take home for Extropians and transhumanists would not be to condemn people with higher time preferences*, but to see how to help people lower their time preference. Some of this can be done by removing certain government interferences in the economy, such as government interference in money, which tends almost always to create inflationary currencies. (How does this link to time preference? Inflation and the expectation of inflation, all else being the same, tends to encourage a more present-centered culture.) All this, of course, is predicated on time preference having this sort of overall impact on health.** Regards, Dan * This wouldn't include only the poor. After all, many middle and upper class people seem to have the same. They just start out with more, so, depending on how high their time preference is and how expensive their diversions are, they might take longer to whiddle down their wealth and health. And there's no iron law stating that time preference for anyone is locked in: a person's time preference isn't fix or locked in one direction, though I believe it's probably harder to go from a higher time preference to a lower one. ** It might be more complicated too. One can easily imagine people of ill health with a high time preference, such as a sickly wealthy man who is not so much interested in prolonging his life as in preserving and passing along his fortune or firm to his posterity or in having some other long-term -- long after he's dead -- impact on society, such as rich people who fund research foundations. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed May 13 13:42:45 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:42:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism/was Re: The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905130642p645c1597j272931e269b945ee@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:35 PM, wrote: > Actually, I do think one ought to "outright advocate eventual positions." So do I. In fact, lawyers can well be biased in favour of the adversarial system as a way to approximate the "truth" or what might be the most reasonable solution in given circumstances, but if, say, neoluddite plead for neoluddite positions and transhumanists plead for... a compromise between neoluddite and transhumanist positions, it quickly becomes a fractal exercise where the second stance become more and more elusive to identify for the "public". A "public" which may well include ourselves when we are in our "citizens'" capacity, and not in that of groups which (should) have for mission that of presenting the case for technology, posthuman change, etc., rather than that of mediating between neoluddite arguments, precautionary arguments, moderation arguments and... whom? what? -- Stefano Vaj From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed May 13 14:10:16 2009 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism Message-ID: <694716.22883.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:35 PM, wrote: >> Actually, I do think one ought to "outright advocate >> eventual positions." > > So do I. In fact, lawyers can well be biased in favour of > the > adversarial system as a way to approximate the "truth" or > what might > be the most reasonable solution in given circumstances, but > if, say, > neoluddite plead for neoluddite positions and > transhumanists plead > for... a compromise between neoluddite and transhumanist > positions, it > quickly becomes a fractal exercise where the second stance > become more > and more elusive to identify for the "public". Some of this touches on the ideas in _The Wisdom of Crowds_ by James Surowiecki, a book I believe I mentioned in this venue back in 2005, but I forget if it was discussed. (I was also a bit surprised that Surowiecki seems unaware of Hayek -- or maybe I missed something; I listened to him speak on C-SPAN and listened to the audiobook version of _The Wisdom..._") I think we can also benefit from promoting a less winner take all approach. This is where a market would work better than a planned economy: in the market, different people can try different ideas and use their particular resources to these ends, while in a planned economy, some central authority has to decide who gets what and we all have to depend on persuading that authority the wisdom of the particular path or paths we're taking. I also don't think this is a minor issue. There are feedback loops. To operate in a market society best means having to become more aware and more focused. These habits and skills are lost the less opportunity they have to be exercised, IMO. So, one can't, I think, select one type of society over another on an issue by issue basis. A certain culture and mindset prevails in each one and these clash. This is why I think real world societies tend to oscillate between being more or less centrally controlled, but never seem to stabilize at some equilibrium between the two. > A "public" which may well include ourselves when we are in > our > "citizens'" capacity, Cynical definitions: the "public" is always anyone but you; "society" is always other people; and the "community" is always those people you agree with, while everyone else is working outside of and usually against the community. :/ More cynicism: when someone talks about the "public good," she's either talking about what she approves of and likes -- or she is daft enough to believe that some elite really knows what the public good is, how to pursue, and will actually pursue it. But I get what you mean. There is, as Greg Johnson once put it, a difference between arguing like a lawyer and listening like a judge. And while both are good arrows to have in one's quiver, the "listening like a judge" one seems the hardest to obtain or use. At least, that's how I feel about it. > and not in that of groups which > (should) have > for mission that of presenting the case for technology, > posthuman > change, etc., rather than that of mediating between > neoluddite > arguments, precautionary arguments, moderation arguments > and... whom? > what? Well, I think the two roles are not separable, but, at the same time, any successful exercise is rhetoric tries to find common ground. I have confidence that with enough effort and if the parties are willing to find truth rather than just promote a narrow agenda, there'll be progress. And further I believe that common ground will probably be tilted more toward techno-progress (and cultural progress and libertarianism) than toward stopping it or turning it back. Regards Dan "Why didn't evolution make a giraffe good at carpentry so it could build a ladder?" -- Karl Pilkington From painlord2k at libero.it Thu May 14 14:48:59 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:48:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Basis of property rights and religion In-Reply-To: <20090512184148.GA20420@ofb.net> References: <230326.54490.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090512175658.GB5053@ofb.net> <4A09BFBA.1010104@libero.it> <20090512184148.GA20420@ofb.net> Message-ID: <4A0C2F5B.3000708@libero.it> Il 12/05/2009 20.41, Damien Sullivan ha scritto: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:28:10PM +0200, painlord2k at libero.it > wrote: >> The first step out the "State of Nature" is a mutual contract, >> implicit or explicit, to not kill others. The second step is to >> mutually recognize their right to their property, like their >> territory and their stuff, as you want them to recognize the same >> right in you. > Yes, exactly, that's my point! Except that what's fairly claimed as > "their property" is also subject to negotiation. What "property" is can be subject to "negotiations" but when "property" is defined it must apply to all that negotiated the agreement. It could be argued that "negotiation" is not always a talk or an exchange of writings, but could be also a refusing to [fully|partially] cooperate with others not agreeing with us. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10773/Default.aspx >> Even if it often pays to cooperate, however, our human ancestors >> would have needed to avoid being too cooperative. If my group is >> working to produce some resource?say, a communal shelter?that will >> benefit everyone equally, and I am doing a larger share of the >> work than anyone else, I will end up with lower net benefits than >> the other members of my group. This is the central social dilemma >> that bedevils most human cooperative groups. It came to the fore >> in the 1960s among social scientists as Mancur Olson?s ?logic of >> collective action?7 and as Garrett Hardin?s ?tragedy of the >> commons?,8 but this problem is as fundamental in evolutionary >> biology as it is in the social sciences. >> >> From an evolutionary perspective, if I am willing to contribute to >> the production of a shared resource, then I face an adaptive >> problem: how can I avoid being exploited by free riders who take >> the benefits I produce but don?t share in the costs of producing >> them? I could just ignore these free riders, put my head down and >> get to work. If I do that, though, the free riders will ultimately >> end up on top, since they?ll get as much benefit as I do, and for >> a lesser cost. Mathematical models of the evolution of cooperation >> consistently show that, when free riders can acquire higher net >> benefits than contributors, they will, over time, exploit >> contributors to extinction. Once that happens, of course, >> cooperation ceases to exist. Morality has decayed completely, and >> the selfish have inherited the world. >> >> My other option is to avoid getting involved with free riders to >> begin with, and it appears that natural selection has designed us >> to do just this. The main trick to adaptive cooperation is that my >> willingness to contribute must be contingent on how much my >> partners are willing to contribute. As long as my partners are >> contributing as much as I am, then I?m safe from exploitation?it?s >> when they start slacking off that I need to be concerned. >> Consequently, evolution has predisposed us to be hostile towards >> people who intentionally take group benefits without helping with >> the costs. Research by a number of social scientists (including >> myself9 ) suggests that punitive sentiment towards free riders is >> common cross-culturally, and that it results in efforts to negate >> the advantages that free riders would otherwise enjoy. So, "rights" evolve as a way to build rules enhancing trusts and cooperation that benefit all the participants on an equal foot. I suppose the problems with "socialists" is that they believe that wealthy people are, as such, exploiters and are not able to note that many proponents of "socialist policies" are really exploiters. Given our bias against exploiters, the exploiters themselves must find a way to justify with themselves and with all others their actions with "cooperative" reasons or with "fairness" reasons. The exploiters themselves need to be cooperative within their group to be successful. So they are subjected to a push to be cooperative within their inner circle-group and exploiters outside, but they must always keep up the fa?ade of cooperativeness or fairness. I suppose many of these individuals have inherited some mental traits that help them to be monists: they are able to believe two contrasting and opposing things true in the same time and use the thing that best fit them when it is expedient. The "rights" could evolve as a way to make sure exploiters are not able to hijack the punishing instincts of people against successful / wealthy cooperators. The "rights" limit how much individuals can be punished and how fast this could happen. Unfortunately, this was hijacked by exploiters as well, because they try to expand the scope of the "rights" including licenses and entitlements.(*) But the "rights" concept evolve from religion, that is a previous adaptation to keep under check the exploiters. Without some "religion" (in a very extensive sense) there is no way to force people in respecting them. The religion, and their rituals, help to tack down and identify the committed collaborators and the uncommitted exploiters on a greater degree than simply observation. They are not surely perfect, but they are a better way. Then, how religions are organized and what role models they have determine what "rights" people come to believe / respect / claim and how much they are able to cooperate. Mirco (*)For example: adulterous women that cuckold or cheat their husband in the past could be killed by their family with impunity or minor sanctions (today this is possible only in places dominated by a "tiny minority") with the introduction of "rights" in the western world, this practice fell in disuse and was shamed. with more progressive "rights" introduced in the most recent years, for example in the California, the "cuckolded" husband is forced to pay for the maintainment of the "cuckold" sons and daughters. Out of wedlock babies are no more shamed like in the past, but throwing money to the women having the babies is an hijack and a mockery of what the church did in the past when helping girls raped, forced in prostitution because they were poor or because they acted stupidly or trusting too much their lovers. Instead to solving or reducing the problem, the statists approach made it worse transferring the costs to innocent subjects. Obviously, in the long run this is unsustainable. In the long run there will be only cuckolds uninterested or unable to take care of their offspring and mothers unable or unwilling to take care of their offspring. Or there will not be cooperators willing to take care or someone else children and willing to retaliate against cheaters ans cuckolds. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00 From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu May 14 20:37:45 2009 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:37:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] "recession is going to end in about 6 weeks" In-Reply-To: <0562A09B-6F0A-4046-BAE7-959D2FDC24AA@freeshell.org> References: <7641ddc60905032014j6c31550bpa53eeaec906c7c49@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905040654h3a69066bi8d1de74774f69256@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60905052008x30fa3d0cpd56f8077b72e0dd0@mail.gmail.com> <466AEA7E-FA3B-4E7F-86D6-B1DF6921E9BB@freeshell.org> <7641ddc60905060734l601c9930k7124ccf3585be2d7@mail.gmail.com> <0562A09B-6F0A-4046-BAE7-959D2FDC24AA@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60905141337m5ac0a1efqf5438ebfc41b65fb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > > I disagree. Your statement that people always want more stuff is not > necessarily true. When it costs too much to get it, people make a rational > decision to forgo that consumption. ### Yes, we always want stuff. The only limitation is the ability to produce what we want. The ability to produce is described by labor productivity, and labor productivity is the primary determinant of long-term real incomes. If labor and capital productivity do not change, and the cost of other inputs remains the same, the cost of consumer goods (expressed in real terms, e.g. hours of work) does not change. Are you telling me you expect a long-term change in consumer behavior in the absence of changes in productivity? On what basis? -------------------------------------- Which, in turn, leads to a wage-price downward spiral. ### Krugman-ism raising its ugly head! I'll need to link to some dissections of his babysitting association parable. -------------------------------- > There is nothing particularly right or wrong about Keynesian economics nor > monetarism. They have both shown to be efficacious in understanding > behaviors of markets in certain situations. I recognize your irrational > ideological bias, ### Wait, pointing to irrational assumptions of a system of thought is a sign of irrational bias? ---------------------------------- > Remember, economics is fundamentally driven by two things - psychology and > information. > ### Exactly, which is why making the wrong assumptions about psychology leads to wrong conclusions. --------------------------------- >> ### Reverse income tax? :) >> >> Sounds like something fun to rip into, once you explain what you mean. > The reverse income tax is what some call Milton Friedman's guaranteed income > scheme, which has been discussed in another thread. ### Yeah, discussed to ignominous death. Better not to stir this can of worms again. Rafal From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed May 13 17:25:20 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 19:25:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Advocacy and libertarian optimism In-Reply-To: <580930c20905130840j304bcbb9xabcd187f6b48309b@mail.gmail.com> References: <923406.85458.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <580930c20905130840j304bcbb9xabcd187f6b48309b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905131025l3bdd219cqd42786fc994ffa04@mail.gmail.com> Sent privately by mistake,,, ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stefano Vaj Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism To: Dan On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Dan wrote: > Stefano Vaj wrote: >> A "public" which may well include ourselves when we are in >> our >> "citizens'" capacity, > > Cynical definitions: the "public" is always anyone but you; "society" is always other people; and the "community" is always those people you agree with, while everyone else is working outside of and usually against the community. ?:/ ?More cynicism: when someone talks about the "public good," she's either talking about what she approves of and likes -- or she is daft enough to believe that some elite really knows what the public good is, how to pursue, and will actually pursue it. > > But I get what you mean. ?There is, as Greg Johnson once put it, a difference between arguing like a lawyer and listening like a judge. ?And while both are good arrows to have in one's quiver, the "listening like a judge" one seems the hardest to obtain or use. ?At least, that's how I feel about it. My point is slightly different, and has to do with the fact that in order to listening (and deciding) like a judge, there must somebody before you arguing like a lawyer. Or rather, *as* a lawyer. Now, this role playing may even happening in what used to be called the inner forum, as when one single individuals makes a list of pros and cons, or of expected gains and risks, and debates a matter with oneself. But an association established in order to promote the diffusion of sports amongst the youth and their dedication to sport activities, e.g., is not in the business of analysing how it might be much better to spend one's energies in nobler activities or how sports might actually even endanger your health. *Not* that any of its members would really hope for everybody jogging to death and ignore everything else in their short remaining life. Simply, this is not its mission, as a lobbyist cannot be expected to do anything else than presenting as fairly and persuasively as possibly the angle of its employer, or a preacher that of his confession. The same apply IMHO to organised transhumanism. I am all, say, for avoiding stupid and excessive risks. But I find necessary that somebody be bold enough to ask the questions: "Shouldn't we run them?", "Do they really exist?", "What do we really risk?", "How likely is it to happen?", "Couldn't the alternative be worse?", etc. -- Stefano Vaj -- Stefano Vaj From jrd1415 at gmail.com Wed May 13 21:33:59 2009 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:33:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM, spike wrote: >...dealing drugs implies tax evasion, which really is > illegal as all get out. ?... ?If so, it would explain the hiring a > string of tax evaders to help out in the whitehouse, and attempting to hire > still more. Spike, you're trying so hard to invent -- out of whole cloth,...out of no cloth...out of thin air -- some sort of misdeed here. You've got Obama dealing, and then you've got him tax evading. If you just had a time machine, with the same striking dearth of evidence, you could blame the Lindbergh baby kidnap/murder on him, claiming perhaps that he wanted the ransom money in order to feed his habit. This ain't Dilbert, it's "The Far Side". > Jeff suggested the income source was prostitution. Not exactly. JOKINGLY, I suggested that if you want to go all Republican la la on us you could make a silly game out of conjuring up an endless stream of alternative possibilities. It seems I should have started with alien abduction, since handsome, charming, Hawaiian party guy clearly wasn't la la enough. And, having thought a bit more about it, I think it high on the list of reality-based explanations of how a guy with limited financial resources could have experimented with coke in his teens. He was young, smart, handsome, with world-class people skills -- as demonstrated by his stunning political achievements. Such a personality is going to have a social life. Well duh. And being such a class act, will hang with others of similar "quality", who will no doubt have among them individuals of financial means. In short, the more prosperous of his crowd supplied the party treats. That's the ticket. I think Occam would agree So wean yourself from the obsession with dissing him, and start thinking about proposals for the new administration about how to transition LockMart from death machine welfare queen to extropic vanguard of new paradigm life-enhancing technologies. ... > We must recognize that 2009 is a critical turning point in history, or > rather it looks like it to me. I'm inclined to agree, but the media over-hypes everything these days, so I'm not sure. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" is a time-tested strategy for getting eyeballs. But the sky doesn't fall, now does it? Hard to tell what the real situation is when one is carried along in an avalanche of bullshit. > This isn't politics as usual, for it appears > to me we are somehow pretending that all this wild spending does not need to > be paid for. A concern not raised when the shrub was spending trillions -- doubled the national debt from 5 to 10 trillion -- on destruction: destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan by bombs, destruction of the US by paying for the bombs. > But we will pay for it, repeatedly. ?We are acting as though > we can move on past the usual economics of scarcity, the notions societies > have always carried. ?Perhaps we can move past that *eventually* with some > super advanced means of production, but in the mean time, we have > corporations and capitalists that create wealth in the old fashioned way. Indeed, this is the goose that lays the golden eggs. Hoorah for that. But along with that comes the criminal minded who, in the older "old fashioned way" look for any opportunity to game the system subverting it into an unregulated and ***LEGAL*** Ponzi scheme slash casino. > If we discourage those corporations and capitalists, it isn't clear to me > what kind of future we are entering. How are we discouraging them? Taxing them to make them pay for the misdeeds of their criminal brethren? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, we're not taxing them, we're bailing them out, and then taxing the working schmo, in perpetuity. Same old same old. And the corporations and the wealthy just go on parasitizing the working man. So I ask again, where's the discouraging? > But it doesn't feel to me like the > glorious techno-future we as extropian-minded people envisioned ten years > ago. ?We may find ourselves crushed by the burden of the interest alone on > the debts we are running up in this and the next few years. Crushed by debt or crushed by the collapse of the economic system, it's still crushed. But if you try to put out the fire that's burning down the goose house (cf. "golden egg"), then maybe just maybe you save the bird. My personal view: the goose is cooked, we're over the cliff headed for the sudden stop. Game over. > > All businesses need to be bailed out or prevented from failing, rather just > the opposite. ?Governments must not attempt to repeal the business cycle. > The US has just tripled our national debt attempting to prevent a recession. > But that recession is coming anyway, in fact it will likely be much worse, > partly because of the billions in taxpayer dollars have been dumped into GM > and Crysler, which will likely fail anyway. ?They must fail now: who would > buy the cars, knowing the companies likely will not be around to service the > warranty? Well buy Toyotas, etc just like we buy Sony tvs. Globalization means global labor arbitrage, which means we reach economic equilibrium when Chinese workers and American workers command similar salaries, ie American workers are screwed. That's the new paradigm, unless we get off the old paradigm and play to our strengths: "modernization"/technical innovation mediated by investments in R&D and higher education. At the moment we're dumping everything into the toilet of militarism. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, "How's that working out for you?" > We have just wasted all that taxpayer money, which takes away > from individual freedom. ?Bailing out the car companies was madness. Destitution takes away from individual freedom. Saving the car companies is an exceedingly excellent idea, even if it requires govt subsidies. We need to protect and save jobs (ie livelihoods) during this down period or period of transition. And another personal note: I would personally prefer that rather than print money and pass the debt responsibility on to future generations of working schmos, that the rich be made to pay the whole damn bill. They came to the land of the golden goose and enjoyed the benefits, now, by any sense of justice, it's time for them to pony up and pay for the damages. If they don't like it, let them be free, free to go somewhere else. Where they gonna go, the Caymans? And if they decide to leave, fine, then let's have a nice hefty "departure tax" so they leave the necessary cash behind > All our transhumanist dreams of enhancing our minds and bodies will cost > money, and that money must be in the hands of individuals, who will > experiment and show the rest of us the way. ?Governments will never pay for > your brain enhancements while your neighbor is suffering from diabetes. ?I > fear the current government spending spree is killing our future. Our transhumanist dreams won't come from any one national group. The US is on a path to wither and die from an inability to adapt to changing times and from the debilitating recalcitrance of defects in its political and economic systems. But the world will not come to an end just because the American moment of glory does. YMMV. Best, Jeff Davis "We're a band of higher primates stuck on the surface of an atmosphere-hazed dirtball. I can associate with that. I certainly can't identify with which patch of the dirtball I currently happen to be on, and which monkey tribe happens to reside therein. Only by taking the big view we can make it a common dream, and then a reality. It's worth it." Eugen Leitl From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 14 01:41:48 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:41:48 +1000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: <4A09801C.7020204@libero.it> References: <4A04341E.6030605@libero.it> <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A089428.1000105@libero.it> <4A09801C.7020204@libero.it> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 painlord2k at libero.it : > You are under the false assumption that all work is the same. > Are you telling me that a surgeon work less than a nurse? > It is like comparing orange and apples. > Not all work is the same, as a surgeon is able to do a work the nurse is > unable to do. There are less surgeon than nurses. To have a working surgeon > you need to invest much more scarce resources than to have a working nurse. The extra time training for the surgeon is reflected in the higher pay. But there are limits: if a surgeon makes a hundred times as much as a nurse, that is unfair. The market may grant the surgeon this because there aren't a lot of surgeons. So ultimately, a person's work is valued according to supply and demand. Maybe there is no better way, but it does show that amount of work done, or productivity, is not the ultimate arbiter of a person's worth. It is possible to do very little work and get paid very handsomely for it, and figuring out how to achieve this leverage is the goal of every capitalist. >>> In your example about Mr. Buffett, you imply that the work done by him >>> could >>> be done by any plumber or farmer with a minimum training. If it was so, >>> there would be many Warren Buffett and Mr. Buffett would not be so >>> special >>> or rich. >> >> No, I think he was just lucky, as most studies of investors show that >> they are no more likely to be successful in the future if they have >> been successful in the past. But even if in fact he was successful >> because he was smart or because he risked his capital, it doesn't >> change the fact that he made a lot of money doing a little work a >> *lot* less work than someone has to do to obtain the dole. > > If he is only a lucky man, you can just wait and he will lose his money. > Capitalism is not gambling, albeit someone could think so if believe that > capitalism is only what happen in a trade exchange. The studies show that a professional investor's track record is no predictor of future success. If you take 1000 investors, and look at whether they did better or worse than the stock index, you will find that after 1 year 500 have done better, after 2 years 250 have done better, after 3 years 125 have done better, and so on. So after a few years there will be a small number who appear to have a long run of continuous success, but this is what you would expect from randomness anyway. The reason for this is that the market factors in every bit of information that affects share price, in proportion to its significance and credibility. In general, no-one can beat the market without special information not available to others. If you don't believe this then you should immediately borrow as much money as you can and follow the investment decisions of Buffett or other investors with a long string of successes. >> Very few wealthy people make their money purely through their own >> efforts. > > Usually they do the most difficult and requested works; they use their > wealth, organize and coordinate the jobs of others. > >> Your Robinson Crusoe story is an example of this, but the >> usual capitalist way is if Crusoe could get several competitors to >> gather food and give him a proportion of it while he sits back. For >> example, he could set up a shop trading one type of food for another >> and keeping a profit. > > This is called "economic coordination" or "economic specialization". > This would be done only if it is more practical and efficient to do. > The people hunting game and the people gathering berries could exchange the > goods between themselves and cut out Mr.Robinson (as he is doing nothing > useful for them, you suppose). > > But wait! > Mr. Robinson (an ex-gathers of berries) invested his leisure time to build a > storage room where the berries and the game could be stored for many days. > Then he stored his hand-gathered berries there and started to exchange them > for game. > Now, all hunters and gathers know that Mr.Robinson have this place where > they can go and exchange immediately berries for game. When a hunter want > berries, he can immediately go to Mr. Robinson and obtain his berries in > exchange of game. The same is true for the gatherers. > Suppose, for simplicity, that the game/berries exchange rate is fixed > between the two groups. > Now, Mr. Robinson decide that he will keep 10% of the game and 10% of the > berries he trade as payment for his services. > You could say this is an unjust profit, I would argue that this is the price > the gathers and the hunters can choose to pay to obtain, without delay, > berries or game. It is 90% immediately or 100% with a delay (a day or a > week, maybe). > > > >> Now, this takes *some* work, maybe even hard >> work, and perhaps it helps the other hunters as well as the >> shopkeeper, so that everyone is happier than if there had been no >> shop. But the fact remains, if the shopkeeper makes a profit much >> larger than that of the hunters, he is effectively sponging off their >> work. > > If the shopkeeper is doing a too large profit, someone else could undercut > him doing the same job at a lower price and profit nonetheless. > Hunters and gathers could return to a direct exchange if they find the cost > to use Mr.Robinson services too high. > So, Mr.Robinson have to limits at the prices he can charge: > 1) The people using the services must find them useful enough to be willing > to pay for them > 2) The profits he earn must not be so large to invite others to do compete > with him; usually he will profit as much as possible, then competition will > show up and he will need to lower his prices. > 3) The foresighted profits must be higher than doing something else. > >> This was the Marxists' essential criticism of capitalism: they >> valued hard work, and they thought that workers should be able to >> profit in proportion to their labour. > > Are hard work and labour the same? > If the capitalist is reaping too large profits, what prevent the workers to > organize themselves, pool resources and become self-employed and keep the > profits for themselves? > The only answers are two: > 1) They are unable or unwilling to do so > 2) They are prevented to do so > > If you want all workers to share the profits of the enterprise, you must > share even the costs and the losses and the risks. > For example, the workers of a plant producing cars could be required to > receive their wages only when the car are materially sold and the money > collected. This could be days or weeks or months after the cars are produced > and the work done. So, you would see their wages change continuously every > months in a not easily predictable way. > Or they could build cars and sell them to dealers that will resell them to > customers, but this would imply the profits would be lower and the dealers > could refrain from buy cars if their inventories are too high. > If the factory work at a loss, there would not be any money to pay wages, > obviously or the workers could be required to cover the losses. > > Do you like these arrangements? > I find them extremely unworkable. > > Do you have any suggestion that don't imply the capitalist must suck lemons > and risks, profits and losses are shared proportionally and ?equally? > > And we have not covered how much pay people with different jobs. I'm not saying the capitalist system is not useful for allocating resources. But it does happen that some people, whether through luck, intelligence, wealthy parents or whatever, are able to command a huge proportion of the world's resources relative to other people who seem to work just as hard. Capitalism is OK with the fact that a fashion model earns hundreds of times as much as a theoretical physicist, because that is what the market pays. "That is what the market pays" is the ultimate criterion of productivity and worth, and therefore the reason why someone drawing a subsistence welfare payment is morally in the wrong. I don't agree with this, but I suspect we have come up against basic ethical principles, and hence impasse. -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu May 14 04:47:00 2009 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:17:00 +0930 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?Intellectual_Property_=97_A_Libertarian_Cr?= =?windows-1252?q?itique?= Message-ID: <710b78fc0905132147t35d5424ckd123475b65ca8cb0@mail.gmail.com> Intellectual Property ? A Libertarian Critique tl;dr, but it looks interesting. http://c4ss.org/content/521 "In this study, Kevin Carson reviews libertarian perspectives on ?intellectual property?; the ethics of the practice itself and the harms resulting from it. He finds that IP is an artificial, rather than natural, property right; creating scarcity rather than managing it. In that capacity, it has acted as an unjust and irrational state subsidy to corporate capitalism ? distorting markets, doing violence to the concept of real property rights, forcibly transfering wealth to parasitic cartels and generally having a pernicious impact on the US domestic and global economies that is difficult to overstate. He concludes by debunking the myth of IP as supposedly necessary for incentive reasons." The full paper: http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/intellectual-property-a-libertarian-critique.pdf -- Emlyn http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting http://emlynoregan.com - main site From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 14 04:59:05 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 23:59:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Dear Extropes: I'm selling my Australian house and about to move my personal library from Melbourne, Australia, to San Antonio, Texas. A relative has been kindly (and exhaustingly) packing up the roughly 5000 books into book boxes, plus personal papers, and a few other not terrifically large objects. My guess is that it might amount to half a 20' container or maybe less. I'm having trouble getting feedback from the shippers who advertise online. I fill in their forms, send them off, and hear nothing back. The only one who's been responsive to date is Grace Removals (an Aussie company with international connections), and even they are slow to reply and don't provide much information. Anyone have suggestions based on their own transnational shipping experience, even if it's not Australia or New Zealand=>USA? Do such firms typically bring a container to the house and pack away one's goodies on the spot? Is Customs, insurance and any other paperwork done by the moving company? (If I were in Oz now I'd probably do that myself, but alas I'm not.) Mostly I want all this damned clutter out of the house ASAP, so the place can be shown to potential purchasers without looking like a madman's midden. How long the process takes after that is less important; that is, I don't mind if my stuff is stored for a while awaiting shipping, if that's cheaper. Anything else I should be aware of? Thanks, folks. Damien Broderick From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu May 14 05:01:51 2009 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] I am the very model of a singularitarian Message-ID: <975505.2023.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Clark mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8 I'm not too sure of this one. The music is good, the graphics are nice and the guy is pretty funny. I still don't understand the significant differences between Singulatarians, Extropians or Transhumanisms to have an opinion but I really enjoyed Ted Talks and the most amazing thing was that of the speaker. Just my 2 cents:) Anna __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From spike66 at att.net Wed May 13 00:32:23 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:32:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Stathis In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> References: <0597642752DA493B91DBEBE2944D8E81@patrick4ezsk6z><875A369FC924447C99122C55853EEF13@spike><4A04341E.6030605@libero.it><9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike><4A098246.3040107@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] Stathis > > > >>Stathis you are from Italy? > > .... > Stathis has mentioned repeatedly that he's an Australian > psychiatrist, working in Melbourne... > > Damien Broderick Ja, I know he is there now, but for some reason I had the notion he was a transplant. Don't know what gave me that idea. Statis, have you always been from Australia? spike From brian at posthuman.com Fri May 15 05:16:52 2009 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:16:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4A0CFAC4.4090502@posthuman.com> No ideas on any of that, sorry. But I did read yesterday that container shipping is still near recent super low prices. Costs to ship a container from China to Europe apparently went as low as $150 recently, but have rebounded a bit to $300 from what I read. So make sure you push for a really good and reduced price when you are making a deal. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at att.net Fri May 15 05:28:12 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:28:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <518F9FBA92CD48E2934E466D087E7806@spike> > Damien Broderick > ... > Mostly I want all this damned clutter out of the house ASAP, > so the place can be shown to potential purchasers without > looking like a madman's midden... Damien Broderick Damien you are far too modest sir. Consider Steve McQueen's motorcycle collection. The bikes were worth a cool fortune simply because McQueen owned them; his name is on the title. Your home in Australia should be worth at least half again it's market value simply for your having owned it. Apologies I know nada about shipping. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 15 06:29:47 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:47 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Stathis In-Reply-To: References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <4A098246.3040107@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090512092919.024d9170@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/13 spike : > Ja, I know he is there now, but for some reason I had the notion he was a > transplant. ?Don't know what gave me that idea. ?Statis, have you always > been from Australia? Yes, always. My parents were born in Greece. 28.5% of the population of Melbourne is foreign-born, compared to 20.4% for New York, 27.1% for London, 17.6% for Paris, and a whopping 45.7% for Toronto. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 15 06:38:33 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:38:33 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Circle of Coercion In-Reply-To: <4A0A4E2B.5060909@rawbw.com> References: <617521.78544.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A4E2B.5060909@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/13 Lee Corbin : > Would anyone who felt a twinge of annoyance explain > just what is *not* communistic about socialized > health-care? It's even a case of "from each according > to his ability, to each according to his need". > Isn't it? Well? I think it's an American thing to say that something is not socialist when it is. The word does not have such negative connotations in other countries. Communist, on the other hand, is usually used only to refer to Marxist-Leninists. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Fri May 15 06:32:24 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:32:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike><6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: ...On Behalf Of Jeff Davis >... > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM, spike wrote: > > >... > > Spike, you're trying so hard to invent -- out of whole > cloth,...out of no cloth...out of thin air -- some sort of > misdeed here... Jeff you are right. I take back everything. I saw something that gave me great hope that all will be well, or at least all will be approximately neutral. Or perhaps all will be not as horrifying as I had feared. Earlier this evening in discussion with a friend offlist, he commented: > So relax. Get some perspective. Practice your critical thinking > skills... To which I replied: ...I will relax as soon as our government realizes this latest budget is sheer madness. Actually I think they will, soon. A few minutes after posting that comment, I read this and posted thus: >Well I'll be damn. I am a prophet! A seer I tells ya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/obama-deficit-unsustainab_n_203726. html This is the actual quote, which causes me to think 0bama gets it: "We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt." Holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy." Well yes. I have been wondering for some time now, what in the hell is going to happen when interest rates start to go back up? Where are we going to get the money? Prostitution? ... > > > Jeff suggested the income source was prostitution. > > Not exactly. JOKINGLY... I was joking too Jeff. I was swinging on your vine there. > ...In short, the > more prosperous of his crowd supplied the party treats. The book makes it sound like he was buying. But it matters not, for no one cares, nor do I care, what anyone did as a teenager, just so long as he and the other two (Reid and Pelosi) stop spending that way NOW. I am more liberal that you, Jeff, more than anyone, for I think all drugs should be legal, all abortions are fine with me, all the liberal everything is fine, the military should be no larger than necessary, but the federal government should be out of most of what it is doing. Completely. In my view they would do little more than operate the military and maintain the interstate highway system. The fed could pay off the social security debt by selling its land (yes including the national parks, and shame on our generation for devouring those), stop collecting new social security, for everyone now recognizes it as a ponzi scheme. Then let the stategovernments compete against each other, with their differing tax schemes. Then every American can have it her own way, and the power lusters would go down to the state level. > > So wean yourself from the obsession with dissing him... OK I am done with that. >... and > start thinking about proposals for the new administration > about how to transition LockMart from death machine welfare > queen to extropic vanguard of new paradigm life-enhancing > technologies... Better military technologies do exactly that. Consider the advances in warfare in the 20th century. World War 1 saw men facing each other in trenches, firing at close range, poison gas, human wave attacks, etc. A more horrifying scenario could scarcely be imagined. The second world war was scarcely less deadly. It was still kill the other guy, war of attrition, carpet bombing and nuclear weapons, but by the time the proxy wars of the 50s and 60s came along they realized the ideal was not to slay the adversary but merely to wound him, for then the enemy needed to use his resources to carry off and care for the injured. As weapons become more accurate, the amount of necessary explosive is reduced. The newest warfare paradigms are a logical extrapolation: one carries the weapons aboard a drone, operated by guys in an air conditioned office in Nevada somewhere, and shoots not at the soldiers but rather at the trucks, armor and missiles. The logical extension of shooting to wound the enemy gives way to the new paradigm of not shooting the enemy soldiers at all, but rather to send them home perfectly healthy, for the super accurate tiny missiles are not particularly effective as anti-personnel weapons anyway. But they are great for punching a small clean hole all the way thru the engine of a truck, disabling it. And such a wonderful name too: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chinalake20-2009apr20,0,7799907.story This approach eliminates a lot of problems. No war refugees to protect and feed, no prison camps to have your own soldiers photographing themselves misbehaving, none of your guys being taken prisoner and being asked their name, rank and serial number just before a tiny minority saws his goddam head off, no Private Ryans to rescue, no expensive planes being shot down, no wrecked buildings to pay for, reduced carbon dioxide emissions due to all that motorized armor that no longer runs, no stressed out soldiers going crazy and slaying their comrades, no reason for concern over the sexual orientation of the joystick jockey sitting in the next cubicle, no husbands or children missing their mothers who have gone off to war. Now, given that technology, do we still call them death machines? Jeff I would call them life machines. > ... > ...Hard to tell what the > real situation is when one is carried along in an avalanche > of bullshit... Very much agree. There was one story which sounds so outlandish I do not know yet if I believe it. In the second week of February, the president was reported to have whipped up some enormous emergency that was so urgent he persuaded congress to vote upon a stimulus bill of enormous and unprecedented scale, a document with over a thousand pages, and gave them no time to read the thing. So they passed it, in a partisan manner, but the president was not sitting outside the chambers ready to sign it immediately, but rather went on vacation for several days. I must believe Fox made this up, for it is far too absurd to believe. Any bill which is too big to read is too big to ratify. > > This isn't politics as usual, for it appears to me we are somehow > > pretending that all this wild spending does not need to be paid for. > > A concern not raised when the shrub was spending trillions -- > doubled the national debt from 5 to 10 trillion -- on > destruction: destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan by bombs, > destruction of the US by paying for the bombs... On the contrary, the concern was raised by me, and I proposed a solution at the time, which I will repeat. We pass an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget. Each year's spending is limited by the previous year's tax income. The only exception is if the president declares the executive privelege provided by the war powers act, at which time she can exceed the previous year's income, BUT: if those war powers are enacted, the president has NO OTHER POWERS than running that war to its conclusion. There are no speeches, no committees, no nothing, most importantly no POWERS other than commander of the military. That president effectively becomes a lame duck military commander until peace is restored. This will discourage the power lusters and will encourage the president to live within her means or get the war over quickly. ... > > And another personal note: I would personally prefer that > rather than print money and pass the debt responsibility on > to future generations of working schmos, that the rich be > made to pay the whole damn bill... Jeff the problem with this approach is that there are two critically different definitions of the term rich. To you and me, rich means those who HAVE a ton of money. To the government, rich means those who currently MAKE a ton of money. What you already own is irrelevant to the government for that isn't taxable. Only what you make is what the government can tax. The rich already pay the whole damn bill, if you define rich the way the government does. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 15 07:13:49 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:13:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/13 Lee Corbin : > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> It doesn't make sense that you say you would have taken the dole, yet >> ended up retraining and (I assume) working full time. What if there >> were no dole but you had, say, a couple of hundred thousand dollars >> from savings or inheritance, which you could have invested for a >> modest lifelong income, similar to the dole; > > Of course I would have preferred that. People > usually take the path of least resistance, > integrated over their foreseeable future > (taking into account time discounting). > > I didn't *want* to stop doing what I was doing. > I felt forced to. I felt forced to move far > away and take up another line of work entirely. > Charities and especially government assistance > all too often keep people from making choices > that will in the long run benefit them. I'm still not sure I understand: are you saying that if you had modest savings you would not have found another job? Where I live it takes about 5 to 7 years savings for someone on the average wage in order to sustain themselves at the level of the dole for the rest of their life. So most people could retire before they're 30, if they would be satisfied with the dole. Is this a problem? Should we advise children against thrift, on the grounds that it promotes laziness and will lead to the country's ruin? > People end up feeling quite different about money they've > earned as opposed to money they've stolen or have been > given. The psychological profiles are distinct. In one > case there is a kind of sense of justice, and in the > other a sense of injustice, just to mention one facet. Some people feel guilty about being on welfare payments, but then they should also feel guilty about receiving insurance payments in excess of the premiums they have paid, even when they have legitimately fulfilled the criteria for the payout. > The people I know or knew who were getting something for > nothing rather resented the entire system, and especially > hated the rich (and for some reason, especially hated > Bill Gates). The mechanisms in play here are obvious. The people I know who hate the rich are those who work for a living. Those on welfare payments see the rich as justification that getting money in excess of the value of the work that you do is OK. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 15 07:23:50 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:23:50 +1000 Subject: [ExI] rich dad poor dad In-Reply-To: References: <9E1A884AFC564B069233389E7007C37C@spike> <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: 2009/5/13 spike : > > > There is a local seminar from the author of Rich Dad Poor Dad that is being > advertised on the radio. ?The lead-in advice to attract listeners seems like > terrible advice. ?Perhaps some here have heard the ads. ?They say right up > front that working and saving will never get you rich (therefore don't > bother trying.) ?There are other notions in there that will likely prove > ruinous to those who follow the advice, but consider the masses who hear the > ads and do not attend the seminar. ?I can imagine the actual ads leading to > financial ruin for millions. It's true that working and saving will never get you rich. The trick is to come up with a scheme that legally transfers other peoples' savings to you at a rate greatly in excess of the value of the work you put into it. Then, to make yourself feel better, you say that *by definition* the work you put into the scheme must be equal to the money you have managed to extract, since the value of work is whatever the market will bear. -- Stathis Papaioannou From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri May 15 07:34:36 2009 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:34:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rich dad poor dad In-Reply-To: References: <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: <2d6187670905150034n3ce21044o3faf89d37c6eee43@mail.gmail.com> My understanding of the Rich Dad Poor Dad franchise is that getting an education and good paying job & steadily saving up for retirement is seen as just not enough to make it to the "good life" at a relatively young age. And so the premise of the franchise creator is that you need to start up your own small business and grow it as you keep your day job, and then at a certain point you quit your job and focus on your company. Or is there more to the basic premise of Rich Dad Poor Dad? John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 15 09:51:01 2009 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:51:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 17:13 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I'm still not sure I understand: are you saying that if you had modest > savings you would not have found another job? Where I live it takes > about 5 to 7 years savings for someone on the average wage in order to > sustain themselves at the level of the dole for the rest of their > life. So most people could retire before they're 30, if they would be > satisfied with the dole. Is this a problem? I don't think you've done your calculations correctly: Average full time salary in Aus is very close to 50k, which leaves 40k after tax if you don't owe HECS (37 otherwise). Dole is 15k with rent assistance, but before all the other benefits (concession card, telephone assistance, etc). If you assume you are happy to live on the same amount of money while working full time as you are on the dole (very hard, much more expensive to have to get out of the house every day and also to keep work-stress manageable without money), you can save 25k per year. 7 years gives you 175k, good for under 12 more years of dole equivalent. 7 on/12 off is not a terrible split, and I hope I can do that, but it's not 7 on/infinity off. (Disclaimer: I only got out of the dole because they started hassling me with the dole diary. That was work.) From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 15 10:08:49 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:08:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On 5/15/09, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > I don't think you've done your calculations correctly: > Average full time salary in Aus is very close to 50k, which leaves 40k > after tax if you don't owe HECS (37 otherwise). Dole is 15k with rent > assistance, but before all the other benefits (concession card, > telephone assistance, etc). If you assume you are happy to live on the > same amount of money while working full time as you are on the dole > (very hard, much more expensive to have to get out of the house every > day and also to keep work-stress manageable without money), you can save > 25k per year. 7 years gives you 175k, good for under 12 more years of > dole equivalent. 7 on/12 off is not a terrible split, and I hope I can > do that, but it's not 7 on/infinity off. > You are forgetting the wondrous magic of compound interest. (Not unusual - the secret is known only to a few) ;) It starts slow, like all exponentials, but the end is wonderful! BillK From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 15 10:47:11 2009 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 20:47:11 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1242384431.4202.28.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 10:08 +0000, BillK wrote: > On 5/15/09, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > I don't think you've done your calculations correctly: > > Average full time salary in Aus is very close to 50k, which leaves 40k > > after tax if you don't owe HECS (37 otherwise). Dole is 15k with rent > > assistance, but before all the other benefits (concession card, > > telephone assistance, etc). If you assume you are happy to live on the > > same amount of money while working full time as you are on the dole > > (very hard, much more expensive to have to get out of the house every > > day and also to keep work-stress manageable without money), you can save > > 25k per year. 7 years gives you 175k, good for under 12 more years of > > dole equivalent. 7 on/12 off is not a terrible split, and I hope I can > > do that, but it's not 7 on/infinity off. > > > > > You are forgetting the wondrous magic of compound interest. > (Not unusual - the secret is known only to a few) ;) > > It starts slow, like all exponentials, but the end is wonderful! > An amount of interest equal to the inflation rate is assumed in the above calculations to keep the dollars constant. Most banks will give you only 1 or 2 percent above the inflation rate on secure investments. This translates to less than the avoided costs of having a full-time job that I mentioned above (but go on and add another 3.5k on the first year after quitting if you like, it doesn't change the equation by much). Also remember that you are living off your principal, ie your money doesn't grow ever-larger. From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 15 11:06:54 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:06:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: <1242384431.4202.28.camel@localhost> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> <1242384431.4202.28.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On 5/15/09, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > An amount of interest equal to the inflation rate is assumed in the > above calculations to keep the dollars constant. Most banks will give > you only 1 or 2 percent above the inflation rate on secure investments. > This translates to less than the avoided costs of having a full-time job > that I mentioned above (but go on and add another 3.5k on the first year > after quitting if you like, it doesn't change the equation by much). > Also remember that you are living off your principal, ie your money > doesn't grow ever-larger. > See? I said that most people don't appreciate the magic. :) You don't retire as soon as the interest received = dole payment. The exponential has hardly started by then. Wait until the interest received is more than you can reasonably spend. And don't think of it as just interest received. Capital appreciation is just as good. BillK From painlord2k at libero.it Fri May 15 12:48:51 2009 From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:48:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] diversity and private schools In-Reply-To: <4A0A4709.2000605@rawbw.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090503171909.022dfee0@satx.rr.com> <4A0443CD.6080004@libero.it> <7.0.1.0.2.20090508104012.07981888@satx.rr.com> <4A07BF24.3060304@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511011047.024bfe00@satx.rr.com> <4A07C7F2.1020800@rawbw.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090511020825.0234dcf8@satx.rr.com> <4A07D90A.6010008@rawbw.com> <4A0A4709.2000605@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <4A0D64B3.8030209@libero.it> Il 13/05/2009 6.05, Lee Corbin ha scritto: > BillK wrote: >> "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man" is the >> motto of the Jesuits. Jesuit schools are usually boarding schools to >> reduce the influence of parents and the outside world. Remember that you are discussing places and times where there was not mass transportation at cheap prices. So it was not easy to travel even for few miles every day. Or the school was in a major city or it was difficult to have it large enough to make economic sense. I suppose they were often located in some Jesuits convent, so this also ask for a place large enough to host a convent. > But it was never like that the Jesuits didn't > have a lot of government support. You're speaking > of episodes of history in which any kind of > schooling for the masses not only was not wealth- > creating, but would have been forbidden anyway > (unless it happened to keep to the line of the > government/religious majorities of the day). The Jesuits had a lot of government support (and hate) because they were good at what they did. Chinese asked Jesuits to cast cannons for them in the XVI century, because they didn't know how to do it. They were so good that some were in use until late XIX century. The problem is they are too much good at what they do. Then, I must disagree with the fact that mass schooling was not wealth creating. Mass schooling was wealth creating already in the Middle Age and it happened in the Middle Age. Rodney Star citing Spufford write that, from a statistic, in the 1338 in Florence near half of the school age population went to school. And the level of instruction of the people in Venice, Genoa and Milan was similar. The schooling was needed and requested by the local merchants and producers. The standardization of the schooling was so good that so many diaries, documents, business records are written with similar calligraphy (compare them with today attitude with lazy and near illegible calligraphy by physicians and others). Half of the population of a city is "mass schooling" for me. The problem was that 90% of the population lived outside the cities. But given the numbers in the main city, I believe that a large part of the people know how to read and write and compute at a basic level. They would probably learn it in an informal way. > You will rejoice that indeed, at present, the people > you agree with for the most part have the government > power. You'll switch sides expediently enough, I > reckon, if the tables are turned. No difference here. When they are the government all is good, all work well. Before and after it is only hell. > Shall we not try to find a principle here? > How > about the one that got the west into riches: > let a thousand flowers bloom (even if that phrasing > was co-opted by a certain someone else). He was interested in cutting them out after the blooming. We are interested in let them growing if they are not harmful to others. > Clearly, if the people are going to be rotten enough > to want for the most part to do things you don't > like individually, then they'll be just as likely > to do things you don't like collectively. Or, as Mises wrote: >> It is not mankind, the state, or the corporative unit that acts, >> but individual men and groups of men, and their valuations >> and their action are decisive, not those of abstract collectivities. >> Epistemological Problems of Economics, p. 153 > It also seems to me that you focus overly much on > very small groups, e.g., schools that would turn > out professional criminals, or schools that would > turn out terrorists. Do I sense a subconscious > need for uniformity? >> A 'market' has to have a minimum standard to attain and a supervisory >> administration to stop wrong behaviour. Just like any market, from >> street markets to Wall Street (we can wish!). > Yes, a rather totalitarian control is absolutely > needed to stop all wrongdoing. Mao did manage to > end prostitution, drug use, and other vices in all > Chinese cities. But no one, least of all the > Chinese, would today argue that it was worth it. Did he really do it? ;-) > The wrongdoing that needs attention from government > is that which has effects far, far beyond their > numbers. So we have laws to protect the weak or > innocent from the strong or wicked. > As with so many things, imagining all the things > that could go wrong in some particular private > school is relatively easy, while imagining the > great good that would come about in the myriads > by individualization is much more difficult. It > can rarely be done well except by analogy: Well, a bigger sponsor of public schooling was Hitler, that was a socialist. We know how good he did and how successful he was in teaching. > Aren't we grateful that supermarkets are free to > innovate and explore new possibilities, and to > cultivate those world-wide sources of least price? > Imagine what they'd be like if government run (as > they were in the USSR), and people were chanting > "food delivery is too important to be left to the > free market!". Let look at the leftist politicians supporting of public schooling and where they send their children: 1) They send their children in public schools in wealthy neighbours where poor people can not send their children. 2) They send their children in private schools Anyone know a successful politician that send his/her children to a crime ridden / low standard school? Mirco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.29/2114 - Release Date: 05/14/09 06:28:00 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 15 13:26:29 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:26:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Protected Elites In-Reply-To: <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905150626y3262b664oa213e5d0c5814dad@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> For example, in the US, laws that prevent corporate takeovers >> and the like shield management from the consequences of its >> incompetence. > > Yes, indeed. You may also be interested in the (not very libertarian, > but rather informative) > http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice One big point that is largely ignored in transhumanist lists and that should know in principle a convergence of "libertarian/anarco-capitalist/social Darwinist" and of "socialist/communitarian", as well as of most transhumanists in general, I daresay, is that what we are living in is a neo-feodal society, where circulation of the ?lites is reduced to a minimum, and social mobility is largely a myth, the few examples of which have usually little to do with IQ, but rather with purely physical features (as in "marriage, show business and sport"). Yet, most of the time people are complaining about the fact that we would be living under the "law of the jungle" where the fittest would crash without pity the less lucky, or in a "socialist" society where competition and the action of the "invisibile hand" would be hindered by state regulation and/or by masses oppressing the geniuses. I submit that both scenarios are largely imaginary from a sociological point of view, and that our social system is instead largely aimed at protecting interests which are largely parasitic in their nature from a social point of view, and accordingly very wary of any kind of major techno-economical change. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 15 13:31:46 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:31:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Advocacy and libertarian optimism In-Reply-To: <4A0A53BE.8050807@rawbw.com> References: <852647.10086.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A53BE.8050807@rawbw.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905150631s1b6bdfb2m745da86e7b5ffb3d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > But *given* say a feudal culture circa 1000 AD > that you found yourself a part of, you'd still > be a classic libertarian? Me, at that point, > I'd either be advocating more or less obedience > to the local lord or to the king, whichever would > get us into an era of free trade sooner. Actually, when I say that I live in a neo-feodal society, above all in Europe and especially after the sixties, I may be unjustly disparaging feodalism, in the sense that when we use that term we inevitably refer to its "consolidated" and crystallised version. Instead, the establishment of feodalism itself was certainly a violent age, but also an age of great opportunities, of cultural changes and of great social mobility, actually probably greater than what we know today. -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Fri May 15 13:23:17 2009 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:23:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <4A0CFAC4.4090502@posthuman.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> <4A0CFAC4.4090502@posthuman.com> Message-ID: > Brian Atkins ... > But I did read yesterday that container shipping is still > near recent super low prices... Brian Atkins Another idea is to hire an idler to saw the binding off of the books, then scan the pages into PDFs, then you email your library to Texas. I don't want to cut up my books either, but it carries the advantage that you can enlarge the text to any arbitrary size, or you can have the computer read them to you, and most importantly, you can text search the books. I buy far fewer paper books than I once did, but now it really bothers me that they have no search feature. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 15 14:31:13 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6DA9DF8585104CC69BD13ABD5E29A544@DFC68LF1> I use UPS and pay the few bucks for insurance for my goods. They are comparatively inexpensive and reliable. The phone number for international shipping is number is 1-800-782-7892. (They do ship from Australia to US) (I don't like to fill out on-line forms because I need to speak with a person, get his/her name and a reference number.) Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:59 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem Dear Extropes: I'm selling my Australian house and about to move my personal library from Melbourne, Australia, to San Antonio, Texas. A relative has been kindly (and exhaustingly) packing up the roughly 5000 books into book boxes, plus personal papers, and a few other not terrifically large objects. My guess is that it might amount to half a 20' container or maybe less. I'm having trouble getting feedback from the shippers who advertise online. I fill in their forms, send them off, and hear nothing back. The only one who's been responsive to date is Grace Removals (an Aussie company with international connections), and even they are slow to reply and don't provide much information. Anyone have suggestions based on their own transnational shipping experience, even if it's not Australia or New Zealand=>USA? Do such firms typically bring a container to the house and pack away one's goodies on the spot? Is Customs, insurance and any other paperwork done by the moving company? (If I were in Oz now I'd probably do that myself, but alas I'm not.) Mostly I want all this damned clutter out of the house ASAP, so the place can be shown to potential purchasers without looking like a madman's midden. How long the process takes after that is less important; that is, I don't mind if my stuff is stored for a while awaiting shipping, if that's cheaper. Anything else I should be aware of? Thanks, folks. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 15 15:01:13 2009 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 01:01:13 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology of "Entitlements" In-Reply-To: <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> References: <297079.88779.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A03B8A8.3010505@rawbw.com> <4A07BAA9.1010408@rawbw.com> <4A0A4BBC.1010306@rawbw.com> <1242381061.4202.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: 2009/5/15 Alejandro Dubrovsky : > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 17:13 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> I'm still not sure I understand: are you saying that if you had modest >> savings you would not have found another job? Where I live it takes >> about 5 to 7 years savings for someone on the average wage in order to >> sustain themselves at the level of the dole for the rest of their >> life. So most people could retire before they're 30, if they would be >> satisfied with the dole. Is this a problem? > > I don't think you've done your calculations correctly: > Average full time salary in Aus is very close to 50k, which leaves 40k > after tax if you don't owe HECS (37 otherwise). ?Dole is 15k with rent > assistance, but before all the other benefits (concession card, > telephone assistance, etc). ?If you assume you are happy to live on the > same amount of money while working full time as you are on the dole > (very hard, much more expensive to have to get out of the house every > day and also to keep work-stress manageable without money), you can save > 25k per year. ?7 years gives you 175k, good for under 12 more years of > dole equivalent. ? 7 on/12 off is not a terrible split, and I hope I can > do that, but it's not 7 on/infinity off. The dole is $453.30 a fortnight, or $11,785.80 a year for a single person (the aged pension is somewhat higher than the dole): http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_rates.htm The average wage in Australia is $63,154 per year: http://www.britzinoz.com/info/wages.htm After tax, that leaves $49,218 per year: http://www.ato.gov.au/scripts/taxcalc/calculate_tax.asp Subtract from this $11,785.80 and you are left with $37,432.20 per year in savings. Now, it depends on what investment return you can get on this money. If you invest it at 5% per annum then after 5 years you will have $206,839.10 and after 7 years $304,777.4. If you retire at 7 years and continue to get a 5% income return that's $15238.70 per annum, preserving your capital. I did not include rent assistant and non-cash benefits, nor the extra costs associated with work; on the other hand, I also did not include any tax deductions or the 9% superannuation contribution, which you can't access until you're 60 but which will allow you to draw down on some of your capital every year without running out of money by then. In any case, even in a worst case scenario everyone happy to subsist on the dole could retire in their 30's. > (Disclaimer: ?I only got out of the dole because they started hassling > me with the dole diary. ?That was work.) The idea of the dole in Australia is that if you can work you shouldn't receive it. But even if this weren't the case, I've never heard of a situation in a country where there is a labour shortage because the dole is too high or too easy to get. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri May 15 15:40:00 2009 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:40:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?Intellectual_Property_=97_A_Libertarian_Cr?= =?windows-1252?q?itique?= In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0905132147t35d5424ckd123475b65ca8cb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0905132147t35d5424ckd123475b65ca8cb0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20905150840w66e14e4dtbacbbf10578c4b7d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Emlyn wrote: > Intellectual Property ? A Libertarian Critique > > tl;dr, but it looks interesting. > > http://c4ss.org/content/521 > "In this study, Kevin Carson reviews libertarian perspectives on > ?intellectual property?; the ethics of the practice itself and the > harms resulting from it. He finds that IP is an artificial, rather > than natural, property right. I am always amazed how much some libertarian thinkers owe to religious biases, such as a view of law based not on political choices of a given community based on its chosen goals, but rather what "nature" would dictate. Intellectual property is only a tool, no less and no more than land property or toothbrush property. In particular, it has been established in order to provide remuneration to R&D research investment which would be otherwise prevented by a typical "free ride" unraveling. Now, there are no doubts that today it may hinder here and there innovation more than stimulate it (as latifundium used to reduce agricultural output). But *this* is the issue that needs to be discussed. In particular, why transhumanists of all possibile people should care about what is "natural" and what is not? -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 15 15:42:59 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:42:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] anti-capitalist propaganda, was: retrainability of plebeians In-Reply-To: References: <6C86109683854030BFCEAE9ADE53997A@spike> Message-ID: On 5/15/09, spike wrote: > This is the actual quote, which causes me to think 0bama gets it: > > "We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall > meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay > interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's > future with more and more debt." > > Holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing > interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, > Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy." > > Hmmmm. This strikes me as rather an odd remark for Obama to make. After all, he has previously criticized the Republicans for deficit spending. It is not a sudden new discovery for him. And it is his huge deficit budget which is causing the future problems. Is he a hypocrite? Or, maybe, after his 100 days, he is realizing that he has been led by the nose by all the crooked financiers and he is starting a push back against them. Interesting. BillK From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri May 15 16:05:03 2009 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:05:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30905150905y56f0abeam9d103835321587e6@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Anyone have suggestions based on their own transnational shipping > experience, even if it's not Australia or New Zealand=>USA? Yes. Keep in mind, this was almost 9 years ago, so my memory is hazy... We used Crown Relocations http://www.moveoverseas.co.uk/web/webcountry.nsf/uk-home.htm They seem to specialize in expat relocation and shipping. They were pretty great as movers went. Brought the shipping containers to the door. (We used 2 1/2 40 footers) We packed the small stuff in boxes, they packed everything else, loaded it, took it to the ship, etc. We arranged our own movers to pick up at Port of Los Angeles. Crown may have US partners to get yours to Texas. We had minimal breakage, considering we moved an entire 2 story villa full (Damien will know what I mean) of stuff with a family of four. Shipping took 6 - 8 weeks, if I remember correctly. Paperwork definitely had to be filled out and maintained by you, since they may not be picking up at US end and any customs charges are your responsibility. They were good with faxing appropriate forms where they needed to go, etc., but as always, I'd keep on top of them. I'd guess everything is emailable now. Make sure there are no customs charges moving stuff back to the US. I don't think there should be on used goods. I vaguely remember a one-time, customs fee-free move, but that might have been TO New Zealand and not TO the US. I think everyone on our shows used Crown and I don't remember anyone complaining about them (beyond the normal inconveniences when one moves). I have no idea how much they cost compared to other means, since we long ago threw away the paperwork (and I think the shows picked up some of the costs). PJ From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 15 17:13:58 2009 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:13:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <6DA9DF8585104CC69BD13ABD5E29A544@DFC68LF1> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> <6DA9DF8585104CC69BD13ABD5E29A544@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <19FE8EA198674154A716C231EA322CB5@DFC68LF1> Damien, you might want to go to this site: http://www.movingscam.com/ Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:31 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem I use UPS and pay the few bucks for insurance for my goods. They are comparatively inexpensive and reliable. The phone number for international shipping is number is 1-800-782-7892. (They do ship from Australia to US) (I don't like to fill out on-line forms because I need to speak with a person, get his/her name and a reference number.) Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:59 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem Dear Extropes: I'm selling my Australian house and about to move my personal library from Melbourne, Australia, to San Antonio, Texas. A relative has been kindly (and exhaustingly) packing up the roughly 5000 books into book boxes, plus personal papers, and a few other not terrifically large objects. My guess is that it might amount to half a 20' container or maybe less. I'm having trouble getting feedback from the shippers who advertise online. I fill in their forms, send them off, and hear nothing back. The only one who's been responsive to date is Grace Removals (an Aussie company with international connections), and even they are slow to reply and don't provide much information. Anyone have suggestions based on their own transnational shipping experience, even if it's not Australia or New Zealand=>USA? Do such firms typically bring a container to the house and pack away one's goodies on the spot? Is Customs, insurance and any other paperwork done by the moving company? (If I were in Oz now I'd probably do that myself, but alas I'm not.) Mostly I want all this damned clutter out of the house ASAP, so the place can be shown to potential purchasers without looking like a madman's midden. How long the process takes after that is less important; that is, I don't mind if my stuff is stored for a while awaiting shipping, if that's cheaper. Anything else I should be aware of? Thanks, folks. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 15 14:04:34 2009 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:04:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] seeking advice with a shipping problem In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090513234806.022b31e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Do such firms typically bring a container to the house and pack away one's goodies on the spot? Is Customs, insurance and any other paperwork done by the moving company? Last time I made an international move, from Japan back to the US, all the details and formalities were handled by the shipping company: Checklists of all items, value for customs, packing, shipping, storage, delivery and unpacking. All the paperwork for the particular export/customs requirements was prepared and handled by them, but it was necessary that I or my agent be present at the origin to verify descriptions of items being packed and sign the forms since what I was shipping and declaring was ultimately my responsibility. As for books, it has been a great pleasure (but initially a lot of work) to have my several hundred book library converted to digital form. - Jef From sean.zuzu at gmail.com Fri May 15 16:06:18 2009 From: sean.zuzu at gmail.com (zuzu) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:06:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Intellectual_Property_=E2=80=94_A_Libertarian_Cri?= =?utf-8?q?tique?= In-Reply-To: <580930c20905150840w66e14e4dtbacbbf10578c4b7d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0905132147t35d5424ckd123475b65ca8cb0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20905150840w66e14e4dtbacbbf10578c4b7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Emlyn wrote: >> Intellectual Property ? A Libertarian Critique >> >> tl;dr, but it looks interesting. >> >> http://c4ss.org/content/521 >> "In this study, Kevin Carson reviews libertarian perspectives on >> ?intellectual property?; the ethics of the practice itself and the >> harms resulting from it. He finds that IP is an artificial, rather >> than natural, property right. > > I am always amazed how much some libertarian thinkers owe to religious > biases, such as a view of law based not on political choices of a > given community based on its chosen goals, but rather what "nature" > would dictate. > > Intellectual property is only a tool, no less and no more than land > property or toothbrush property. In particular, it has been > established in order to provide remuneration to R&D research > investment which would be otherwise prevented by a typical "free ride" The "free-rider problem" isn't a problem at all. The problem is the need for _business models_ that remunerate the act of R&D itself, rather than relying on a state monopoly for exclusive use of that R&D after it's already been done. In other words, imagine people with cancer today paying $100 each for a lab to discover its cure, the lab agrees, and they do find the cure. Everyone currently with cancer who paid the $100 gets the cure, but the cure isn't limited to them. Anyone who subsequently gets cancer receives the cure "for free". Does this diminish the cure for those who paid the $100 to begin with in anyway? At the time (and time-preference is key), paying $100 was the only way to be cured of cancer, even if everyone else gets to "free ride" later on. As for the lab, they presumably profited from the initial $100-per-person payment for discovering a cure, and they are now free to discover other cures likewise in the future. They are not entitled to _rent-seeking_ on this cancer cure in perpetuity. Furthermore, referring to the monopoly privileges of copyright, patent, and trademark as "intellectual property" conflates it with real property law. (As has been said, there's no actual rivalry or excludability with ideas as there are with material goods.) > unraveling. Now, there are no doubts that today it may hinder here and > there innovation more than stimulate it (as latifundium used to reduce > agricultural output). But *this* is the issue that needs to be > discussed. > > In particular, why transhumanists of all possibile people should care > about what is "natural" and what is not? From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 15 19:02:42 2009 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:02:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Protected Elites In-Reply-To: <580930c20905150626y3262b664oa213e5d0c5814dad@mail.gmail.co m> References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> <580930c20905150626y3262b664oa213e5d0c5814dad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090515135652.02510498@satx.rr.com> At 03:26 PM 5/15/2009 +0200, Stefano wrote: >what we are living in is a neo-feodal >society, where circulation of the ?lites is reduced to a minimum, and >social mobility is largely a myth, the few examples of which have >usually little to do with IQ, but rather with purely physical features >(as in "marriage, show business and sport"). When James James Andrew Andrew Rogers was a frequent poster on this list, he denied that fervently, offering data suggesting a quite remarkable degree of USian turnover in the upper reaches of the plutocracy. At least half the billionaires had parents who were poor or middle class, that sort of thing. I find it hard to believe, and even if it's true there might be some power law that gives those right at the very top of the curve incomparably more sway over the nation's/globe's running, and most of those might well be multi-generational elites. Data, anyone? Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 15 19:25:49 2009 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:25:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Protected Elites In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090515135652.02510498@satx.rr.com> References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> <580930c20905150626y3262b664oa213e5d0c5814dad@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090515135652.02510498@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/15/09, Damien Broderick wrote: > When James James Andrew Andrew Rogers was a frequent poster on this list, > he denied that fervently, offering data suggesting a quite remarkable degree > of USian turnover in the upper reaches of the plutocracy. At least half the > billionaires had parents who were poor or middle class, that sort of thing. > I find it hard to believe, and even if it's true there might be some power > law that gives those right at the very top of the curve incomparably more > sway over the nation's/globe's running, and most of those might well be > multi-generational elites. Data, anyone? > This is a reference to the Forbes rich list of 2007. They found 946 billionaires, of which 60% made their own fortunes. Two-thirds of the 2006 list got even richer in 2007. Some people see this as a growing demonstration of the growing gap between a few very rich people accumulating ever greater wealth and the great majority getting poorer. (Regardless of whether the rich inherited their wealth or gained it through business means). BillK From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri May 15 19:44:10 2009 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:44:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Protected Elites In-Reply-To: References: <365406.92257.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4A0A48FE.5030800@rawbw.com> <580930c20905150626y3262b664oa213e5d0c5814dad@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20090515135652.02510498@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20090515194410.GA8238@ofb.net> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 07:25:49PM +0000, BillK wrote: > This is a reference to the Forbes rich list of 2007. > They found 946 billionaires, of which 60% made their own fortunes. 1) How many because of the dot-com or real-estate bubbles, or CEO compensation of dubious economic justification? 2) What exactly does "made their own fortune" mean? Bill Gates is a lot wealthier than his parents... but Wikipedia calls them upper middle class: prominent lawyer father, mother served on bank board of directors, her father was a bank president. The mothers at h