x-posted to misc.int-property from comp.lang.lisp
While the MIT license is my favorite free software license for code
that I want to give away with no strings attached, the recent
discussion over the LGPL[1] & LLGPL[2] has got me thinking that
perhaps another Lisp friendly license in the spirit of the LLGPL might
be desirable. I'm also interested in something that has more brevity
and deals with another IP issue: patents.
IANAL, so the last thing I should be doing is writing a software
license, contract, or whatever one cares to call such a beast. In
spite of that, it seems to me that writing a license is not much
different from writing computer code. Computer code is just less
forgiving of mistakes ;-).
What I would like is feedback, particularly pro bono legal feadback,
to see if my idea is worth pursuing and if so, how it can be improved
and given a reasonable chance at standing up in a court of law if it
ever came down to it.
I present to you my (possibly quite naive) software license:
Common Source Code License
Version 0, November 2005
By
David Steuber
This is a plain language contract between you, the user of the covered
source code files, and the author. This contract grants you certain
privileges to posses and use the covered source code (source or code).
The language of this license is to be interpreted as standard
U.S. English. Any term of art used retains its meaning. If you do
not agree to all of the conditions of this license then you must
destroy all copies of the code in your possession in all its forms and
refrain from further distributing the code.
You may use and distribute the code in any way you wish. In
consideration, you agree to the following conditions:
1: The code is distributed "AS IS" with no warranty of any kind. You
assume full risk for using the code and agree to indemnify the
author for your use of the code. If your jurisdiction does not
allow you to assume full responsibility for the use of the code,
then you may not use it.
2: You will provide a copy of the source with any software that uses
it. The copy may be distributed on the same media or from the
same location if distribution is by electronic means. In any
event, the source must be easily obtainable by an end user for
inspection. This license must be included and all copyright
notifications must be preserved.
3: The source code is a copyrighted work of literature.
4: If you make any modifications to the covered source, you will
provide those modifications to the author and make them available
as per condition #2. Seperate files are not considered
modifications unless they redefine or augment functionality in the
covered source. The modified code must be covered by this
license and marked as a derivative work.
5: Source code is human readable and intended for humans to read and
understand how a program works. Source code is not actually a
program by it self. The code is speech like any other speech
intended to pass on knowledge. The fact that it can be processed
by machine is irrelevant. Since the code merely describes a
process, you may not assert any patent claims against the author
or other users.
6: Because different languages have different methods of using code
such as static linking, dynamic linking, direct inclusion of
source, etc, this license makes no distinction as to which method
is used to include the code with other works. Other works may use
the code in whatever manor is technically most appropriate.
Condition #3 applies only to portions of works that extend the
code, not to the work that uses the code. Your duty is to share
your improvements but not your own original work.
7: Machine or human translations of the code are subject to the same
conditions as the code it self.
8: You may not prohibit reverse engineering of a program that uses the
code.
9: If any portion of this contract is held unenforceable or invalid by
any court of law, the remaining portions shall be in full force.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
In article <··············@david-steuber.com> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>3: The source code is a copyrighted work of literature.
Serves no purpose. First of all, at least in United States copyright
law, the term is "literary work", which is defined in 17 USC 101.
But more importantly, the copyright status of the source code is
defined by the statute, not anything you say in a license. If it
is protected by copyright under the statute, then the clause adds
nothing. If, for some reason, it is not protected by copyright
under the statute (for example, an unlawful derivative work under
17 USC 103(b)), then saying tht it is doesn't make it so.
So, at best, the clause just reminds people of the copyrighted
nature of the source code, something that a proper copyright
notice would do better, and at worst misrepresents the copyright
status.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Common Source Code License
[CSCL]
> 4: If you make any modifications to the covered source, you will
> provide those modifications to the author and make them available
> as per condition #2. Seperate files are not considered
> modifications unless they redefine or augment functionality in the
> covered source. The modified code must be covered by this
> license and marked as a derivative work.
GPL gives more freedom to the users: the users can modify and use GPL
sources without having to contribute their modifications.
Only when they further distribute GPL sources, they must pass allong
their modifications to preserve the freedom GPL gives to the users.
Note that GPL never impose to pass the modifications _back_ to the
author, only down the distribution chain, to the users.
can keep your patches must share your patches
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
can distribute | BSD | GPL,BSD,CSCL |
derived. +-------------------------+-------------------------+
must not distribute | GPL,BSD | CSCL |
derived. +-------------------------+-------------------------+
The pass _back_ the modification is only for the benefit of the
patcher: to have a change to see his modifications incorporated into
the main trunk so his life is easier with the next version. The
authors never guarantee the inclusion of the patches.
--
"Indentation! -- I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!"
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> x-posted to misc.int-property from comp.lang.lisp
>
> While the MIT license is my favorite free software license for code
> that I want to give away with no strings attached, the recent
> discussion over the LGPL[1] & LLGPL[2] has got me thinking that
> perhaps another Lisp friendly license in the spirit of the LLGPL
> might be desirable.
That seems, IMHO, unlikely. The last thing the world needs--again,
IMHO--is yet another "open" license. In the best case no one will use
it. In the worst case enough people will use it that now folks who
want to use code with different provenance will have yet another
license that they have to check to see if it interacts in any weird
way with the other licences on other code they want to use. It really
seems that between MIT/BSD, GPL, and LGPL (and possibly LLGPL) a
developer who wants to share their code have all the options they
need. If I just want to give away my code and let anyone use it
however they want the MIT/BSD (sans advertising clause) license
accomplishes that while letting me declaim warranty so folks can't sue
me when my code causes a meltdown at a nuclear reactor; if I want to
make a pure contribution to the Free Software commons, so that only
folks who are willing to live by the strictures of share-and-share
alike can use my code, use the GPL. And if I want to allow other
developers to use my code however they wish yet would feel put upon if
someone took my code and used it without sharing any improvements they
might make then use the LPGL. And to be safe if we're talking about
Lisp code, use the LLGPL, which at least has been vetted by some
lawyers.
> I'm also interested in something that has more brevity and deals
> with another IP issue: patents.
At this point brevity seems of little merit--someone who's going to
use your code in a situation where they really need to care about
licenses you're going to have to get some actual lawyers to look at
it. On the other hand, if you just use a well-known license the chance
that it's already been vetted by lawyers is high.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
Thanks for the feedback.
What I am coming away with is that I'm better of just dropping this
idea and sticking with MIT/BSD or [L[L]]GPL.
I'm still concerned about the patent issue. In a patent, a process is
supposed to be described well enough that anyone can reproduce it (as
I understand how patents work in the United States). Computer code is
a description of a process in formal language. In my mind, this means
that you should be able to code a patented process with no fear. But
this is not how the courts ruled in the DeCSS case. They even ruled
that simply telling someone where to find the code was a violation!
Something is seriously broken.
Disallowing reverse engineering as is seen in many EULA's is also
something I object to in principle.
I've removed condition #3 and modified the section on altering the
source so that it is not more restrictive than the GPL. But unless
there is consensus that I have a good idea for a license that is
considerably better than the LLGPL or LGPL I'll just let the matter
drop.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
On 20 Nov 2005 16:58:57 -0500, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> What I am coming away with is that I'm better of just dropping this
> idea and sticking with MIT/BSD or [L[L]]GPL.
>
> I'm still concerned about the patent issue. In a patent, a process is
> supposed to be described well enough that anyone can reproduce it (as
> I understand how patents work in the United States). Computer code is
> a description of a process in formal language. In my mind, this means
> that you should be able to code a patented process with no fear. But
> this is not how the courts ruled in the DeCSS case. They even ruled
> that simply telling someone where to find the code was a violation!
> Something is seriously broken.
I don't believe that the DeCSS disputes involved patents. I don't
understand your explanation of why coding a patented process
would be okay.
Isaac
Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>I don't believe that the DeCSS disputes involved patents. I don't
>understand your explanation of why coding a patented process
>would be okay.
Would buying a DVD imply a license to download decoding code in
order to view the DVD on a Linux machine?
--
Rahul
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:51:51 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi
<·········@XReXXIXmXw.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>
>>I don't believe that the DeCSS disputes involved patents. I don't
>>understand your explanation of why coding a patented process
>>would be okay.
>
> Would buying a DVD imply a license to download decoding code in
> order to view the DVD on a Linux machine?
If it does, the argument is not intuitive to me. Would you flesh
it out a bit. It seems to me that the presence of an access control
measure which must be cracked in order to allow viewing the DVD on a
Linux machine implies that the license does not extend quite that far.
Isaac
Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>> Would buying a DVD imply a license to download decoding code in
>> order to view the DVD on a Linux machine?
>If it does, the argument is not intuitive to me. Would you flesh
>it out a bit. It seems to me that the presence of an access control
>measure which must be cracked in order to allow viewing the DVD on a
>Linux machine implies that the license does not extend quite that far.
If you bought a DVD, and discovered that your DVD player would not play
it, would you conclude that your buying that DVD did not imply a license
to view it?
--
Rahul
From: Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet
Subject: Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <dls3ee$25d2$1@toad.stack.nl>
In article <············@blue.rahul.net>,
Rahul Dhesi <·········@XReXXIXmXw.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>>If it does, the argument is not intuitive to me. Would you flesh
>>it out a bit. It seems to me that the presence of an access control
>>measure which must be cracked in order to allow viewing the DVD on a
>>Linux machine implies that the license does not extend quite that far.
>
>If you bought a DVD, and discovered that your DVD player would not play
>it, would you conclude that your buying that DVD did not imply a license
>to view it?
If you bought a DVD, and discovered you had to saw off the outer 1"
to get it to fit your in-car DVD player, would you conclude that
that DVD wasn't supposed to be used in the car?
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> If you bought a DVD, and discovered you had to saw off the outer 1"
> to get it to fit your in-car DVD player, would you conclude that
> that DVD wasn't supposed to be used in the car?
If you bought a kitchen knife and discovered it cuts herbs just fine,
but not huge chunks of meat with bones, would you conclude that it's not
only not meant for that purpose, but that it's also not permitted to use
it for that purpose?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
From: Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet
Subject: Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <dls590$2b7e$1@toad.stack.nl>
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>> If you bought a DVD, and discovered you had to saw off the outer 1"
>> to get it to fit your in-car DVD player, would you conclude that
>> that DVD wasn't supposed to be used in the car?
>
>If you bought a kitchen knife and discovered it cuts herbs just fine,
>but not huge chunks of meat with bones, would you conclude that it's not
>only not meant for that purpose, but that it's also not permitted to use
>it for that purpose?
I actually have a kitchen knife whose packaging said "not for
professional use". I'm not sure what will happen if I violate
that restriction though.
In this case, it's not just a matter of using a DVD in a situation
where it's not "meant" to be used. You have to hack (in both senses
of the word) the software to get it to work on Linux. To me that
would suggest I'm doing something out of the ordinary. And it would
be prudent in a situation like that to check the manual to see if
that would create problems (loss of warranty, for one).
Anyway, the packaging of the disc should tell me that it will
only play on PCs that run Windows. Then I can avoid buying it.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> In this case, it's not just a matter of using a DVD in a situation
> where it's not "meant" to be used. You have to hack (in both senses
> of the word) the software to get it to work on Linux. To me that
Most people don't do it themselves, but merely use packaged software
(VLC, MPlayer...) to view their stuff.
> would suggest I'm doing something out of the ordinary. And it would
> be prudent in a situation like that to check the manual to see if
> that would create problems (loss of warranty, for one).
But *all* that you do is decoding the movie on the DVD into a format
that you can watch. I.e. it's just a DeCSS + MPEG to NTSC (for
instance) conversion. *All* data that you'll ever get anywhere will
need decoding and encoding, that's the nature of information, nothing
out-of-the-ordinary about it.
> Anyway, the packaging of the disc should tell me that it will
> only play on PCs that run Windows. Then I can avoid buying it.
Well, a game should say it'll only run on a PSX or whatever, because
it's executable code for a certain platform. A DVD is just
interpretable data -- a movie. The *purpose* of DVDs is to decode them
into light and sound signals.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>
> In this case, it's not just a matter of using a DVD in a situation
> where it's not "meant" to be used. You have to hack (in both senses
> of the word) the software to get it to work on Linux.
Well, no.
The only software which potentially needs to be modified is your DVD
player. You almost certainly don't need to hack that in the nefarious
sense of the word -- it's probably an open-source player which you may
perfectly legitimately modify.
The DVD movie itself contains no software which you need to hack.
Plus, many Linux distributions will come with DeCSS-enabled players
anyway.
> To me that would suggest I'm doing something out of the ordinary. And it
> would be prudent in a situation like that to check the manual to see if
> that would create problems (loss of warranty, for one).
Well, my player comes with no warranty, to the extent permitted by law,
anyway.
I'm looking at my Dark Star DVD. Nothing on the case suggests that
using a player capable of reversing the encryption would void its
warranty.
But that's something of a no-brainer: any player which can show the
movie correctly must reverse the encryption.
> Anyway, the packaging of the disc should tell me that it will
> only play on PCs that run Windows. Then I can avoid buying it.
The packaging in the UK doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything about
its ability to be played in any device, except that it's a region 2 DVD.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:08:07 +0000 (UTC), Rahul Dhesi
<·········@XReXXIXmXw.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>
>>> Would buying a DVD imply a license to download decoding code in
>>> order to view the DVD on a Linux machine?
>
>>If it does, the argument is not intuitive to me. Would you flesh
>>it out a bit. It seems to me that the presence of an access control
>>measure which must be cracked in order to allow viewing the DVD on a
>>Linux machine implies that the license does not extend quite that far.
>
> If you bought a DVD, and discovered that your DVD player would not play
> it, would you conclude that your buying that DVD did not imply a license
> to view it?
No I would not conclude that just from the fact that the DVD would not
play in my player. That does not mean that there is an implied license
to circumvent an access control mechanism that prevents playing in my
player even if I am ignorant about the access control mechanism.
Isaac
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
>
>> I don't believe that the DeCSS disputes involved patents. I don't
>> understand your explanation of why coding a patented process
>> would be okay.
>
> Would buying a DVD imply a license to download decoding code in
> order to view the DVD on a Linux machine?
Since you bought, in good faith, a medium carrying a movie, and you as a
normal user don't know about stuff like encryption, you should expect to
be able to view it.
To me this means that *of course* you can use *any* software you like on
Linux to view it, given that that software's license (say, GPL) allows
you to use it.
When you buy a DVD, what you really buy is the content to view as often
as you wish.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Since you bought, in good faith, a medium carrying a movie, and you as a
> normal user don't know about stuff like encryption, you should expect to
> be able to view it.
>
> To me this means that *of course* you can use *any* software you like on
> Linux to view it, given that that software's license (say, GPL) allows
> you to use it.
>
> When you buy a DVD, what you really buy is the content to view as often
> as you wish.
Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Circumventing a
technological access control on a copyrighted work is illegal in the
U.S.
I'm not sure if your post was meant as wishful thinking, or if you're
actually unaware of that; if the latter, check out
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_consequences.pdf
among many other resources.
-cody
·············@gmail.com wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Since you bought, in good faith, a medium carrying a movie, and you as a
>> normal user don't know about stuff like encryption, you should expect to
>> be able to view it.
>>
>> To me this means that *of course* you can use *any* software you like on
>> Linux to view it, given that that software's license (say, GPL) allows
>> you to use it.
>>
>> When you buy a DVD, what you really buy is the content to view as often
>> as you wish.
>
> Unfortunately, things are not that simple. Circumventing a
> technological access control on a copyrighted work is illegal in the
> U.S.
>
> I'm not sure if your post was meant as wishful thinking, or if you're
> actually unaware of that; if the latter, check out
I'm aware of reality. Whoever has the gold, makes the rules. My post
was only to indicate the moral right the consumer has to actually *view*
the movie he bought.
IMHO, if enough people would stop caring about certain insane/clearly
wrong aspects of law, the law would lose in the long run. That's
because today's dictatorships are open, or based on the tacit agreement
of their subjects. Everybody disagreeing with government results in
either a change of the law to appease the people, or in a faster
coming-out of the police state underneath.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On 20 Nov 2005 16:58:57 -0500, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com>
wrote:
>Thanks for the feedback.
>
>What I am coming away with is that I'm better of just dropping this
>idea and sticking with MIT/BSD or [L[L]]GPL.
>
Yes. Please drop the idea. You've made a very serious but very common
mistake in thinking your ability to write programs somehow qualifies you
to write legal documents. If you *REALLY* have a viable need to create
yet another new license to meet *YOUR* specific goals, start by talking
to the real lawyers at the OSI (www.opensource.org) and the Creative
Commons
>I'm still concerned about the patent issue. In a patent, a process is
>supposed to be described well enough that anyone can reproduce it (as
>I understand how patents work in the United States). Computer code is
>a description of a process in formal language. In my mind, this means
>that you should be able to code a patented process with no fear. But
>this is not how the courts ruled in the DeCSS case. They even ruled
>that simply telling someone where to find the code was a violation!
>Something is seriously broken.
>
>Disallowing reverse engineering as is seen in many EULA's is also
>something I object to in principle.
>
>I've removed condition #3 and modified the section on altering the
>source so that it is not more restrictive than the GPL. But unless
>there is consensus that I have a good idea for a license that is
>considerably better than the LLGPL or LGPL I'll just let the matter
>drop.
David Steuber wrote:
> Disallowing reverse engineering as is seen in many EULA's is also
> something I object to in principle.
But when you disassemble code that's for instance on a CD, you don't
have to agree to anything at all (because you don't have to install it).
Just just go ahead with the executable. Or maybe somebody else
installed the software and you sit down to rev-eng it ;)
AFAIK in Germany and the USA most EULA's aren't really legal anyway,
because you never agreed to it when you bought the software. But IANAL.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> a description of a process in formal language. In my mind, this means
> that you should be able to code a patented process with no fear. But
> this is not how the courts ruled in the DeCSS case. They even ruled
> that simply telling someone where to find the code was a violation!
> Something is seriously broken.
I made a bone headed mistake here. The DeCSS cases was about the
DMCA, not patents. D'oh!
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
On 9301 day of my life David Steuber wrote:
> I made a bone headed mistake here. The DeCSS cases was about the
> DMCA, not patents. D'oh!
IMHO, DeCSS case was in Europe (Norway?), but DMCA is USA law :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:28:42 +0600, Ivan Boldyrev
<···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> wrote:
> On 9301 day of my life David Steuber wrote:
>> I made a bone headed mistake here. The DeCSS cases was about the
>> DMCA, not patents. D'oh!
>
> IMHO, DeCSS case was in Europe (Norway?), but DMCA is USA law :)
>
A number of people in the US were sued for providing links to
sites with information on DeCSS. Brunner for example was sued
in California for misappropriation of trade secrets. Others were
sued under the DMCA.
Isaac
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <87fypnaae7.fsf@p4.internal>
>>>>> "I" == isaac <·····@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
[...]
I> A number of people in the US were sued for providing links to
I> sites with information on DeCSS. Brunner for example was sued
I> in California for misappropriation of trade secrets. Others
I> were sued under the DMCA.
OTOH, AFAIK, David Touretzky was not bothered by any legal action for this:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
(and we know him here at comp.lang.lisp to boot).
BM
Isaac wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:28:42 +0600, Ivan Boldyrev
> <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> wrote:
>> On 9301 day of my life David Steuber wrote:
>>> I made a bone headed mistake here. The DeCSS cases was about the
>>> DMCA, not patents. D'oh!
>> IMHO, DeCSS case was in Europe (Norway?), but DMCA is USA law :)
>>
>
> A number of people in the US were sued for providing links to
> sites with information on DeCSS. Brunner for example was sued
> in California for misappropriation of trade secrets. Others were
> sued under the DMCA.
Yeah, that's just sick. How can you sue for providing *information*,
even if it's information on how best to stab people with your kitchen knife?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On 9302 day of my life Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> A number of people in the US were sued for providing links to sites
>> with information on DeCSS. ...
Indeed.
> Yeah, that's just sick. How can you sue for providing
> *information*, even if it's information on how best to stab people
> with your kitchen knife?
Well, in USA information about copyright protection systems is
protected (by DMCA), but information about nuclear reactors is not:
<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0105.html#3>.
It seems USA is not good place to live :)
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Ok people, move along, there's nothing to see here.
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> It seems USA is not good place to live :)
That largely depends on your point of view.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>
> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>
> That largely depends on your point of view.
Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>
>>> It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>
> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
And for that you pay how much in reduced salary, taxes etc.?
(asks another German)
(The USA have very high taxes too, but that's because of the war, and
because they went the same way as Germany during the last decades.
Ireland for instance has on average HALF the taxes, that is, just 25% of
what people earn. If the Irish want vacation, they have the money to
afford just that on their own.)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>>
>>>> It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>>
>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>
> And for that you pay how much in reduced salary, taxes etc.?
> (asks another German)
>
> (The USA have very high taxes too, but that's because of the war, and
Nope. Taxes are lower. Can you say "record deficit"...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
>> (The USA have very high taxes too, but that's because of the war, and
>
> Nope. Taxes are lower. Can you say "record deficit"...
Um, doesn't that simply mean that the government jets out even *more*
money than the already-lots-of money it takes from people?
I've only heard that US taxes aren't really low anymore.
And as I say, the tens of billions for a useless war could be one reason
for that deficit ;)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>>> (The USA have very high taxes too, but that's because of the war, and
>>
>> Nope. Taxes are lower. Can you say "record deficit"...
>
> Um, doesn't that simply mean that the government jets out even *more*
> money than the already-lots-of money it takes from people?
Yes. And taxes are lower, revenue is down and spending is through the roof!
> I've only heard that US taxes aren't really low anymore.
I don't think this is correct, depending on what time frame you have in
mind. Since Bush took office taxes have been cut. And revenue is down (not
always a given with lower taxes).
> And as I say, the tens of billions for a useless war could be one reason
> for that deficit ;)
One of many!
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> I don't think this is correct, depending on what time frame you have in
> mind. Since Bush took office taxes have been cut.
This doesn't matter.
What matters is the depenses, since sooner or later you will have to
pay for them.
Reducing the taxes without first reducing the depenses is just trying
to impress the dumbs.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
"Pascal Bourguignon" <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>> I don't think this is correct, depending on what time frame you have in
>> mind. Since Bush took office taxes have been cut.
>
> This doesn't matter.
> What matters is the depenses, since sooner or later you will have to
> pay for them.
What matters depends on the issue being discussed, now doesn't it? "Taxes
have been cut" matters to the question "are taxes higher".
> Reducing the taxes without first reducing the depenses is just trying
> to impress the dumbs.
Yes. Or in this case, to please your corporate sponsors who are lined up at
the corporate welfare trough.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> > David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> >
> >> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> >>
> >>> It seems USA is not good place to live :)
> >> That largely depends on your point of view.
>
> > Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>
> And for that you pay how much in reduced salary, taxes etc.?
> (asks another German)
For just the vacation? That's impossible to tell. For everything,
the vacation, transit, healthcare, the overall maintenance of a
society with a shocking (for an American) lack of poverty, maybe 1-4
weeks' pay. That's my best estimate, anyway.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>> And for that you pay how much in reduced salary, taxes etc.?
>> (asks another German)
>
> For just the vacation? That's impossible to tell. For everything,
> the vacation, transit, healthcare, the overall maintenance of a
> society with a shocking (for an American) lack of poverty, maybe 1-4
> weeks' pay. That's my best estimate, anyway.
Well, your employer pays you less than he would, because he is forced to
pay vacation. Not you choose, but the state. Healthcare also has to be
paid and you may not even choose from a free market how much insurance
you want (if you live healthy, maybe you want to save on insurance?).
If the SPD gets its plan through, you are even forced to a unified
insurance that will dictate what will be covered and what won't.
My dad recently had a problem in his eye, and he needed some laser
therapy, otherwise he'd have gone blind. The (public) insurance didn't
pay a thing. He had to pay �2000 of his own. Well, then why is he
forced to pay maybe �700 every month if they won't even cover really
threatening stuff like this??
Lack of poverty?: well, we have WIDESPREAD unemployment. Ok, they all
get �300 or so a month (which isn't bad), but our country is becoming
more wasteland every day.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> >>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
> >> And for that you pay how much in reduced salary, taxes etc.?
> >> (asks another German)
> > For just the vacation? That's impossible to tell. For everything,
> > the vacation, transit, healthcare, the overall maintenance of a
> > society with a shocking (for an American) lack of poverty, maybe 1-4
> > weeks' pay. That's my best estimate, anyway.
>
> Well, your employer pays you less than he would, because he is forced
> to pay vacation.
Like I said, vacation is a part of it, but you (literally) can't
consider it in isolation. My best estimate is that if I had my same
job in the US, my take-home, after taxes, transit, cars, insurance
(health and otherwise), etc. -- that is, my disposable income -- would
be 1-4 weeks' pay higher than in Germany. However, for that money, I
get *time*, and all the social benefits. And despite the hysterical
worries of some Germans, I'm much more worried that the US will break
its promises and let old people starve to death than Germany will.
Most of my taxes in either country are social securit, so that's a
very big deal.
> Lack of poverty?: well, we have WIDESPREAD unemployment. Ok, they all
> get �300 or so a month (which isn't bad), but our country is
> becoming more wasteland every day.
Yes yes, I've heard Germans complain about this to no end, and I've
seen what y'all complaining about. It's bad, and the German ruling
class shouldn't be let off the hook for it. Nonetheless, there is no
such thing as poverty, as understood by poor and working-class
Americans, in Germany. Poverty in the US is more like poverty in
South Africa than Germany (both qualitatively, and by most
quantitative measures). Individuals can rise higher and can fall
lower, but mostly, individuals stay in exactly the same place as the
rest of their class, which for most people in the US is wallowing in
misery. Germans should be outraged every time their country becomes
more American, as it spells doom for most.
All that said, if I were paid 150k and lived in Santa Barbara, it'd be
all good. But that's not the alternative.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> However, for that money, I
> get *time*, and all the social benefits.
Sure, that might be a good thing. But why does your employer/government
choose for you how many weeks (6) vacation you get? Your employer is
required by law to set aside some money or those six weeks when you're
not working, so you can take the time off.
In what way would it be worse if you simply got that money and could
manage it yourself (i.e. higher salary), so you had the choice to: pay
some of your mortgage, take a trip to the caribbean, or maybe just save
it for next year...?
My point is that the vacation money *has* to be paid anyway. In Germany
you simply don't have any command over that money; you have to take six
weeks of basically (well, maybe you can do paid overtime).
>> Lack of poverty?: well, we have WIDESPREAD unemployment. Ok, they all
>> get �300 or so a month (which isn't bad), but our country is
>> becoming more wasteland every day.
>
> Yes yes, I've heard Germans complain about this to no end, and I've
> seen what y'all complaining about. It's bad, and the German ruling
> class shouldn't be let off the hook for it. Nonetheless, there is no
> such thing as poverty, as understood by poor and working-class
> Americans, in Germany. Poverty in the US is more like poverty in
> South Africa than Germany (both qualitatively, and by most
> quantitative measures). Individuals can rise higher and can fall
> lower, but mostly, individuals stay in exactly the same place as the
> rest of their class, which for most people in the US is wallowing in
> misery. Germans should be outraged every time their country becomes
> more American, as it spells doom for most.
In the USA people USED to be able to rise up better from the lower
classes. In the current USA that's not the case, but that's because
lots of US laws and regulations already resembles lots of European
bureaucracy.
> All that said, if I were paid 150k and lived in Santa Barbara, it'd be
> all good. But that's not the alternative.
That's true.
I don't want all of the US, but they have certain good points. And I
can't see how it's better to have someone work and get paid low wage,
than to have millions in Germany just diddling their thumbs and still
getting paid (by welfare), because employing them costs much more than
the low wages by themselves, i.e. huge overhead.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> In what way would it be worse if you simply got that money and could
> manage it yourself (i.e. higher salary), so you had the choice to: pay
> some of your mortgage, take a trip to the caribbean, or maybe just
> save it for next year...?
It would be worse in the way that now the employer decides how much
vacation you have. For most people it is not as simple as telling
the boss, 'Hey, I'll take a couple of weeks off'.
--
-asbjxrn
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On 27 Nov 2005 04:40:18 +0100, Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
>
> > Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> >> In what way would it be worse if you simply got that money and could
> >> manage it yourself (i.e. higher salary), so you had the choice to: pay
> >> some of your mortgage, take a trip to the caribbean, or maybe just
> >> save it for next year...?
>
> > It would be worse in the way that now the employer decides how much
> > vacation you have. For most people it is not as simple as telling
> > the boss, 'Hey, I'll take a couple of weeks off'.
>
> Hmm. So in Norway, what happens if you decide you don't want to work
> for that employer any more? He can shoot you, or have you arrested?
> No? So when you say "the employer decides", what you really mean is
> "sure, the employee decides whether to work under those conditions,
> and if nobody wants to do that the employer has no recourse and will
> quickly have to either offer better conditions or go out of business,
> but I'm pretty sure there are people willing and able to do the job
> for less money and/or less vacation time than I am...and I'm perfectly
> happy to let those people starve, if not actually kill them myself, to
> protect `my' job", right?
Wrong answer.
I'm lucky enough that I have education and skills that enable me to
choose my job to some degree. Not everyone does. Where I live (No, not
Norway) there are people that work 365 days a year, basically 24
hours/day and that for a salary of around US$250/mth (Plus food and a
mattress to sleep on.)
This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
off, minimum wage etc.
(And for the "they chose the job, and if they don't like it, they can
just leave": it's hard to tell whether they know what they're going
to, and for the first months/year(?) their salary goes to cover agency
fees and their ticket here so they can't just leave if they want to.)
--
-asbjxrn
Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> Wrong answer.
> I'm lucky enough that I have education and skills that enable me to
> choose my job to some degree. Not everyone does. Where I live (No, not
Unfortunately not. One would expect that the differences in income that
exist would be enough to motivate some people, but you can see them
sitting around doing nothing ("studying sucks"), no homework, not even
paying attention in class. But hell, it's their choice, so why pull out
a club and force them to study (as might be thinkable)? Tough sh**.
Funny thing, that decades ago we didn't have those ADD kids and
everybody could just do their homework. People finishing school in my
country could actually read and spell, and do basic math.
Ok, I didn't do much homework myself, and sometimes they fired me from
class, because I was chatting with neighbors or not conforming to the
Gleichschaltung in general, but somehow I got through. And with 25 you
might almost count me as a member of generation ADD.
> Norway) there are people that work 365 days a year, basically 24
> hours/day and that for a salary of around US$250/mth (Plus food and a
> mattress to sleep on.)
Well, I would strongly recommend that they do something else. The
majority of people could if they gave a rat's ass about studying a bit,
while a small minority indeed can't get a decent education and has to
live off welfare. But we shouldn't have that minority dictate politics
for the other 95+%.
> This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
> one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
> off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
> exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
> off, minimum wage etc.
If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming that
they do a fair amount of work.
I can only repeat what economists say, and I suppose they have a reason
for saying it: salaries move to match the workers' productivity, of
course influenced by supply and demand. If a certain job pays very
little, while another one pays a lot, that's shouting "we don't need any
more people for work A, so do something else" and "get an education to
fill the demand for job B".
I wonder what these people would do in Socialism. Probably the state
would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already full,
and they don't meet any other requirements. Or pay them for
thumb-diddling. Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage that's
"not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job instead
of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for the pay
you get).
> (And for the "they chose the job, and if they don't like it, they can
> just leave": it's hard to tell whether they know what they're going
> to, and for the first months/year(?) their salary goes to cover agency
> fees and their ticket here so they can't just leave if they want to.)
What agencies, the agency that gets them the job? That sounds like a
steep price indeed, compared to just reading newspaper job ads.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
>> This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
>> one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
>> off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
>> exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
>> off, minimum wage etc.
>
> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming that
> they do a fair amount of work.
Comments like this only show a shocking detachment from reality. I do not
believe in crying "I'm a victim" and doing nothing about it, but neither do
I except this kind of "they get what they deserve" contempt for other human
beings. Clearly people need to take responsibility for their choices and
not wait around to be rescued, but just as clearly people with the power and
the will to mistreat others need to be controled by laws.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
> ····················@individual.net...
>> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
>>> This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
>>> one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
>>> off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
>>> exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
>>> off, minimum wage etc.
>> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
>> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming that
>> they do a fair amount of work.
>
> Comments like this only show a shocking detachment from reality. I do not
> believe in crying "I'm a victim" and doing nothing about it, but neither do
> I except this kind of "they get what they deserve" contempt for other human
> beings. Clearly people need to take responsibility for their choices and
> not wait around to be rescued, but just as clearly people with the power and
> the will to mistreat others need to be controled by laws.
No, it's just the left-wing anarchist position that people shouldn't
support their exploitation, but rather cooperate with each other. My
"selling their produce" is just a suggestion how they could still exist
in a capitalist society. Contrast this with no possibility for a
capitalist to exist in a socialist society.
But in Germany, I've seen many many people in school where I know
exactly why they don't get jobs and stuff. I mean, even I didn't really
cooperate there, but when you see students just doing nothing all day,
starting at age 12 or 14, and continuing until they either get chucked
out of school, or until they become pot-smoking students (I have nothing
against pot, but to illustrate things a bit :D) that live off
state-money and spend maybe 20+ semesters at school, again, doing
nothing all day.
I learnt nothing at school (and rambling against public schools would be
another topic), but I spent *part* of my free-time reading, apart other
things English books back then. I guess that already three years later
I was way past this majority of students my age.
With 25 now I think I know maybe four or five times what I knew when I
was 14, while I'd estimate that others know maybe 1.5 times the amount
back then. This was mostly just reading (really affordable) books, some
use of public libraries, and hanging out at the university. I didn't
attend many classes there either, but instead of smoking pot I read
about stuff that I was really interested in.
See where the gap comes from? Motivation, not lack of opportunity.
Maybe the one thing public schools could be good for is motivating those
people who will surely end up with little or no future, but even there
they seem to fail.
I don't hold contempt for anybody, I simply see those people's current
state of affairs as a logical consequent of their actions during the
past 12 years, and I'm not at all surprised by the outcome.
To your last point: OF COURSE people need to be hold in check against
using force over others, and of course mistreat (in whatever way) is a
crime. I don't think any political position would disagree here, though
some leftists and conservatives might argue that the state (i.e. a
select group of people) should have arbitrary power over people, for the
sake of (forced) "equality" or "order".
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
From: Nils M Holm
Subject: Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <dmedp2$vjt$1@online.de>
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Well, I would strongly recommend that they do something else. The
> majority of people could if they gave a rat's ass about studying a bit,
> while a small minority indeed can't get a decent education and has to
> live off welfare. But we shouldn't have that minority dictate politics
> for the other 95+%.
Today it /may be/ five percent that really have no choice (although
I would say it is more, much more), but if we do not care about them,
tomorrow it may be 10 percent, and then 20, 30, and so on.
In fact there are countries where 95% of the population have no choice,
and the remaining 5% argue in exactly the same way as you do.
In Germany, we are on the way to 10+ percent already, as the constitutial
court just decided that tuition fees /are/ legal. So much for the same
right to decent education for everyone. Welcome back to the 19th century.
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <87ek51xg0t.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
Nils M Holm <····@t3x.org> writes:
> Today it /may be/ five percent that really have no choice (although
> I would say it is more, much more), but if we do not care about them,
> tomorrow it may be 10 percent, and then 20, 30, and so on.
Huh? "Caring" about those who have no choice at the expense of those who do
increases the number of people who have no choice, as having no choice
is getting more convenient, and having a choice is getting more expensive.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Nils M Holm wrote:
> Today it /may be/ five percent that really have no choice (although
> I would say it is more, much more), but if we do not care about them,
> tomorrow it may be 10 percent, and then 20, 30, and so on.
Exactly that's why we have to create the right framework for investment
and job creation. Our government was doing the opposite (for at least
20 years now), and I doubt the new one will change that.
> In fact there are countries where 95% of the population have no choice,
> and the remaining 5% argue in exactly the same way as you do.
No, really. If 95% of the population let themselves be exploited by a
meager 5%, that's just stupid. They could switch to alternative
currencies (say, just trade without money), so the 5% would be left in
the rain, or to join the other 95% to build a new country.
Also, I believe most/all of those countries have severe corruption,
military oppression etc., so the freedom argument wouldn't apply at all.
> In Germany, we are on the way to 10+ percent already, as the constitutial
> court just decided that tuition fees /are/ legal. So much for the same
> right to decent education for everyone. Welcome back to the 19th century.
Oh come on. Traditionally in the US there was more upward mobility, and
there are more poor students studying than in Germany, despite the
fortune you have to pay for college.
In Germany it's going to cost �1000/year to study, and if your parents
don't earn much, you'll even receive additional money from the
government. No really, there's absolutely no excuse not to study, even
if they abolished Baf�g und made college fees �5000/year.
An after-college job will probably pay �10000/year more, so it shouldn't
be too hard to pay the credit back.
As to the right to decent education: I haven't seen *any* decent
education in Germany the last 25 years. But I haven't seen private
universities, maybe those are better, but I don't believe it, since they
are based on the same system (just like private high schools can't
provide *really* good teaching in Germany).
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> > Norway) there are people that work 365 days a year, basically 24
> > hours/day and that for a salary of around US$250/mth (Plus food and a
> > mattress to sleep on.)
>
> Well, I would strongly recommend that they do something else. The
> majority of people could if they gave a rat's ass about studying a
> bit, while a small minority indeed can't get a decent education and
> has to live off welfare. But we shouldn't have that minority dictate
> politics for the other 95+%.
Small minority? Maybe: it's 150.000 out of a population of 4.3 million.
The Idea is that you create laws that protect the ones that can't
(For whatever reason) fight for themselves.
> > This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
> > one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
> > off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
> > exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
> > off, minimum wage etc.
>
> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming
> that they do a fair amount of work.
I guess you missed the part where they have _no_ off days, and work
every waking hour? When are they supposed to do this? And with their
limited salary going to pay off debt or "kept safe" by the employer
there may be some difficulties of producing anything.
> > (And for the "they chose the job, and if they don't like it, they can
> > just leave": it's hard to tell whether they know what they're going
> > to, and for the first months/year(?) their salary goes to cover agency
> > fees and their ticket here so they can't just leave if they want to.)
>
> What agencies, the agency that gets them the job? That sounds like a
> steep price indeed, compared to just reading newspaper job ads.
Agency goes overseas, attracts suitable employees with more or less
accurate descriptions of the possible job. Employee signs up, "no fee
payable up front, we'll just deduct from you salary once you start
working", once here employee is in debt and basically in a prison.
This is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates what a "let
employer and employee negotiate without interference" might mean for
the less fortunate (or lazy if you insist.) who don't have much
negotiating power. Me, I'm glad slavery have mostly become history.
I also think "EA spouse" indicate that not only the ones at the bottom
of the social ladder may end up being exploited if no checks are in place.
Reading material:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/14/opinion/edbowring.php
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020724ag.htm
--
-asbjxrn
Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> Small minority? Maybe: it's 150.000 out of a population of 4.3 million.
> The Idea is that you create laws that protect the ones that can't
> (For whatever reason) fight for themselves.
You don't need laws (that will always distort markets and favor certain
groups), you only have one distribution rule: negative income tax.
Those who don't earn enough get some in addition. Everybody else pays a
little tax (maybe 20%). Leave the rest to the dynamics of people.
Oh, and of course there's still family, charity, friends...
>> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
>> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming
>> that they do a fair amount of work.
>
> I guess you missed the part where they have _no_ off days, and work
> every waking hour? When are they supposed to do this? And with their
> limited salary going to pay off debt or "kept safe" by the employer
> there may be some difficulties of producing anything.
Some people will need help from charity, a little extra money. Most
don't and can work and save money.
> Agency goes overseas, attracts suitable employees with more or less
> accurate descriptions of the possible job. Employee signs up, "no fee
> payable up front, we'll just deduct from you salary once you start
> working", once here employee is in debt and basically in a prison.
Oh, the agencies that tell girls in Russia that they can be a model or
dancer in Germany and ship them here for a huge payment? Yeah, I
believe in the Easter bunny too, and I buy from every spam email I get!
> This is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates what a "let
> employer and employee negotiate without interference" might mean for
> the less fortunate (or lazy if you insist.) who don't have much
> negotiating power. Me, I'm glad slavery have mostly become history.
You alone, but we have organizations, charities, unions, loose groups on
the internet...
> I also think "EA spouse" indicate that not only the ones at the bottom
> of the social ladder may end up being exploited if no checks are in place.
Depends, for some time some people do it if it pays well.
I've read Death March by Ed Yourdon and only thought: hey, why doesn't
just one company make a more sane project and attract good workers? And
they are out there...
It will always take good ideas and good management to bring better
things to this world, but there is no reason why that can't happen in
capitalism with a clear, known playing field. I don't want a world
where I have to bribe the state first so they like me.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Oh, the agencies that tell girls in Russia that they can be a model or
> dancer in Germany and ship them here for a huge payment? Yeah, I
> believe in the Easter bunny too, and I buy from every spam email I get!
HAHA, yea, aren't they stupid?
No I was not talking about smuggling girls out of Russia. From your
tone I get the feeling you think I'm talking about some hypothetical
example.
I'm not. These are "foreign domestic workers" who are "specifically
exempt from the Employment Act, which provides minimum days off and
maximum weekly hours." They constitute 3% of the population, and 50%
of them have no days off.
Why? Employers (in this case individual persons.) of course want the
most for their money and there is a virtually unlimited supply of
workers who does not have any advanced skills to offer so competition
becomes centered on price. Which brings me back to my original point:
If there are no regulated minimum amount of annual leave, it will
be decided by what your employer agrees to.
These girls can quit once debt is paid back and the contract fulfilled
of course, but they often support their family back home and don't
have any work opportunities there.
--
-asbjxrn
Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> I'm not. These are "foreign domestic workers" who are "specifically
> exempt from the Employment Act, which provides minimum days off and
> maximum weekly hours." They constitute 3% of the population, and 50%
> of them have no days off.
Ok. My guess is that they're better of this way, because their home
country sucks, or because this way they can feed their whole family at
home with just themselves working full-time.
It sounds repulsive that some people in some countries only earn "$0.50"
a day, but when living costs are similar, who are we to judge?
> Why? Employers (in this case individual persons.) of course want the
> most for their money and there is a virtually unlimited supply of
Sure, just like consumers want a good price from an efficient corporation.
> workers who does not have any advanced skills to offer so competition
> becomes centered on price. Which brings me back to my original point:
Yes, maybe there isn't thaaat much work, and hiring ten cheap workers is
cheaper than getting one person an education. I guess this in turn
depends on how efficient the educator/institution works.
In Germany we have many very educated taxi drivers, because the cost of
education so far has been paid by government (i.e. the exact cost was
invisible to the regular citizen).
> If there are no regulated minimum amount of annual leave, it will
> be decided by what your employer agrees to.
Well, if there is as much work as people (i.e. little work), prices for
work will fall, but so will wages in turn. It will end up in some kind
of (good or bad) balance.
But usually there are well-paying jobs too, and most people have the
opportunity to get an education (unless you are 40, father of three, in
debt, and have to pay for education in your country).
> These girls can quit once debt is paid back and the contract fulfilled
> of course, but they often support their family back home and don't
> have any work opportunities there.
Yes. I can't follow their choices, as I'm in a better situation.
Either life home is very very bad (rule of the fist, not even the hint
of the concept of economy) so they choose to earn money here to feed
their family, or someone forced them into their work. It should be a
known fact that you may not simply work (a legal, regular job) in a
country where you don't have a work permission.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
> > Wrong answer.
> > I'm lucky enough that I have education and skills that enable me to
> > choose my job to some degree. Not everyone does. Where I live (No, not
>
> Unfortunately not. One would expect that the differences in income
> that exist would be enough to motivate some people, but you can see
> them sitting around doing nothing ("studying sucks"), no homework, not
> even paying attention in class. But hell, it's their choice, so why
> pull out a club and force them to study (as might be thinkable)?
> Tough sh**.
>
Its very dangerous to generalise what you observe in your own local
microcosm to a general theory about unemployment. for example, you are
in your mid 20's and I'm in my mid 40's. In my little microcosm, I
don't see many lazy pot smoking dropouts who are not looking for
work. Instead, I see lots of previously hard working individuals who
have been retrenched or made redundent due to falling company profits
that are unable to obtain new jobs - often because younger potential
employees with a potentially longer useful worklife are getting the
jobs - often because they are prepared to work for less as they don't
have the same financial committments (yet).
> Funny thing, that decades ago we didn't have those ADD kids and
> everybody could just do their homework. People finishing school in my
> country could actually read and spell, and do basic math.
Decades ago you could easily pick up a non-skilled job or an
apprenticship which didn't require much education and you would likely
hold the same job most of your life. Now that we have moved into a
more technically based employment market you want to blame those who
may not be as gifted with technical ability or are not as adept at
learning (especially abstract concepts)? Yeah, that seems really
fair.
Also, just because we didn't have the label ADD decades ago doesn't
mean it didn't exist. Decades ago you could get a job without needing
the ability to read and write and often people with varying learning
disorders just slipped through the system and found a job which didn't
require those skills. Those sort of jobs are the ones that were first
to be automated and the first to disappear. Now we are noticing that a
lot of people having problems getting work seem to have a common
disorder or inability to learn at the same rate or proficiency as the
"norm", so we give it a label.
Here is a true story. I have someone who comes and does some cleaning
for me once a week. Her husband, Ron, who is 56 has just lost his job
because he hurt his back. Ron was a carpenter and a very good one. He
has been working constantly since he started at the age of 15. Now, 56
is too young to retire, but Ron's chances of getting another job are
pretty much non existent. He can no longer work in his trade and he
can barely read and write, but he has a wealth of knowledge gained in
over 40 years of hard physical work (the physical work that led to his
back giving out). Ron won't succeed at job retraining because his
basic education is too poor and essentially its too late to do much
about it. I tried to get him some work at the local college where
building and carpentry apprentices do some of their courses, but he
wasn't eligable because his reading/writing skills were not good
enough. Essentially, despite working as hard as he could most of his
life and despite having acquired valuable skills, Ron is pretty much
on the garbage heap. I guess its his fault for not paying more
attention in school and becoming more educated? Maybe it could just be
that the world moved on and now he is simply redundent as a human?
>
> Ok, I didn't do much homework myself, and sometimes they fired me from
> class, because I was chatting with neighbors or not conforming to the
> Gleichschaltung in general, but somehow I got through. And with 25
> you might almost count me as a member of generation ADD.
>
Ah yes, the old "I did it for myself and therefore anyone else who
doesn't its their own fault" arguement. Of course there is no need to
look any deeper and consider issues like differences in home life,
social situations, economic situations, intellectual differences etc
etc. All that is just far to difficult to quantify, so better to just
blame it on the victim.
> > Norway) there are people that work 365 days a year, basically 24
> > hours/day and that for a salary of around US$250/mth (Plus food and a
> > mattress to sleep on.)
>
> Well, I would strongly recommend that they do something else. The
> majority of people could if they gave a rat's ass about studying a
> bit, while a small minority indeed can't get a decent education and
> has to live off welfare. But we shouldn't have that minority dictate
> politics for the other 95+%.
95+% of what? The total number of unemployed, the number of unemployed
under 30 years, under 20 years? The thing I find interesting about
these types of arguments is they tend to be based on the belief that
the majority of people are unemployed because they want to be and that
the majority of social security payments is made to lazy unemployed
drug smoking hippies who just want to live off the hard earned tax
dollars of those enterprising capitalists trying to live the dream of
wealth and power. Absolute hogwash. For most industrialised countries
with a comprehensive welfare scheme, the majority of money paid is for
pensions (old age, disabled/sickness etc) and unemployement benefits is one of
the smaller catagories.
The argument that all you have to do is work hard and educate yourself
and you will be successful is naive. I know a
considerable number of people who have worked very hard, quite a few
with Phds in practicle areas like resource engineering, natural
resource management, agriculture, botany, soil science etc and despite
constantly attempting to get a job have not been successful. I know
quite a few with jobs that are not in their chosen field and in fact
are fairly low skilled, such as admin assistants or entry level
clerical positions. this is after 8+ years of tertiary studies. I know
others, who after spending long periods attempting to get any job they
can have become so disillusioned they have just given up. There are no
guarantees of success and we should be very careful about judging
those less fortunate.
>
> > This is in a rich country, and most of these workers are imported from
> > one of the poorer neighboring countries. While these people are better
> > off working like this instead of starving, I still say they are
> > exploited and deserve some protection in the form of mandatory days
> > off, minimum wage etc.
>
> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming
> that they do a fair amount of work.
>
This assumes far too many things. Firstly, it assumes they can produce
something they can sell without needing to obtain/purchase any
infrastructure or have the capital to setup their co-op. It assumes
they are not so exploited they can take the risk of losing what little
they have. It assumes they have the knowledge and confidence to do it
and it assumes enough of them will agree for long enough to make
anything ahppen. Very easy to make such assumptions from the position
of an outside observer.
> I can only repeat what economists say, and I suppose they have a
> reason for saying it: salaries move to match the workers'
> productivity, of course influenced by supply and demand. If a certain
> job pays very little, while another one pays a lot, that's shouting
> "we don't need any more people for work A, so do something else" and
> "get an education to fill the demand for job B".
>
Oh dear, more one-eyed Kenysian economics - totally ignoring the other
side of the equation, that of supply and demand and how it applies to
labor, not just production. A low wage doesn't necessarily mean "We
don't need any more workers for this job" - it can just as easily mean
"We have lots of unemployed desperate workers, so we can pay them very
little and they will do the job and keep our profits high".
Why is it the "blame" seems to always be dumped on the employee and
nothing on the employer who has changed the employment landscape to
increase their profits. I'm not saying the employer should take all
the responsability, but I believe they should take some - if they
introduce automation and remove unskilled/low-skilled jobs to increase
their profits, they should also contribute to the re-skilling of their
labor - lets face, employees with more money consume more, so wouldn't
it be in their interest to ensure the greater majority of people can
consume more - surely this will provide better long term profits than
simple replacement of labor by automation?
> I wonder what these people would do in Socialism. Probably the state
> would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already
> full, and they don't meet any other requirements. Or pay them for
> thumb-diddling. Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage
> that's "not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job
> instead of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for
> the pay you get).
>
I think it was Walenstein who argued that you couldn't have a
socialist economy within a capitalist world. I suspect the reason that
socialism has not succeeded in any significant way is that we do
essentially live within a capitalist world and the main motivator is
money/wealth/capital. I personally agree with Marx that capitalism has
an inherent contradiction. I don't agree with him that it can/will be
destroyed when the workers rise up and take back the means of
production. The problem with his assumption is that it doesn't take
into account individual motivation. While we are still primarily
motivated by individual gains/benefits, a socialist state is not very
difficult from a capitalist one - the means of production is just
controlled by the state instead of a few percent of
individuals. Therefore, there is no point in considering what would
happen to those without jobs within a "socialist state" because it
would need to be a socialist planet with a different motivational
imperitive before you would observe any real difference.
> > (And for the "they chose the job, and if they don't like it, they can
> > just leave": it's hard to tell whether they know what they're going
> > to, and for the first months/year(?) their salary goes to cover agency
> > fees and their ticket here so they can't just leave if they want to.)
>
> What agencies, the agency that gets them the job? That sounds like a
> steep price indeed, compared to just reading newspaper job ads.
>
Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder how many jobs you have had to look
for. These days, many employers outsource their hiring process to
various agencies and you don't even get a look in unless you are put
forward by an agency.
I wish I had a time machine and could travel forward 30 years or so
and ask again your opinions on this stuff. I suspect your views will
change a lot over that time. I don't mean to discount your opinions -
I don't agree with them, but they are just as valid as mine. However,
I suspect you may be in for a few surprises!
Nothing about life is fair. Where you end up and the road you have to
travel to get there is more influenced by luck than by planning and
hard work. Education and hard work will go a long way towards getting
you into a position to better take advantage of the good luck when it
comes along, but there are no guarantees. We should all be very
careful about judging others based on what we can observe about them
in a relatively short moment as we seldom know what road they have
traveled to get there.
Tim
P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
with such a strong conservative or individualist political
leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
attracts or what - just an observation.
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> [...]
> Here is a true story. I have someone who comes and does some cleaning
> for me once a week. Her husband, Ron, who is 56 has just lost his job
> because he hurt his back. Ron was a carpenter and a very good one. He
> has been working constantly since he started at the age of 15. Now, 56
> is too young to retire, but Ron's chances of getting another job are
> pretty much non existent. He can no longer work in his trade and he
> can barely read and write, but he has a wealth of knowledge gained in
> over 40 years of hard physical work (the physical work that led to his
> back giving out). Ron won't succeed at job retraining because his
> basic education is too poor and essentially its too late to do much
> about it. I tried to get him some work at the local college where
> building and carpentry apprentices do some of their courses, but he
> wasn't eligable because his reading/writing skills were not good
> enough. Essentially, despite working as hard as he could most of his
> life and despite having acquired valuable skills, Ron is pretty much
> on the garbage heap. I guess its his fault for not paying more
> attention in school and becoming more educated? Maybe it could just be
> that the world moved on and now he is simply redundent as a human?
The problem is with the rules. Why do you let one centralized
dicatorly administration tell you who you can hire for teaching? Free
the education system and let each school take the responsability of
hiring whoever they want.
> [...]
>> I can only repeat what economists say, and I suppose they have a
>> reason for saying it: salaries move to match the workers'
>> productivity, of course influenced by supply and demand. If a certain
>> job pays very little, while another one pays a lot, that's shouting
>> "we don't need any more people for work A, so do something else" and
>> "get an education to fill the demand for job B".
>
> Oh dear, more one-eyed Kenysian economics - totally ignoring the other
> side of the equation, that of supply and demand and how it applies to
> labor, not just production. A low wage doesn't necessarily mean "We
> don't need any more workers for this job" - it can just as easily mean
> "We have lots of unemployed desperate workers, so we can pay them very
> little and they will do the job and keep our profits high".
>
> Why is it the "blame" seems to always be dumped on the employee and
> nothing on the employer who has changed the employment landscape to
> increase their profits. I'm not saying the employer should take all
> the responsability, but I believe they should take some - if they
> introduce automation and remove unskilled/low-skilled jobs to increase
> their profits, they should also contribute to the re-skilling of their
> labor - lets face, employees with more money consume more, so wouldn't
> it be in their interest to ensure the greater majority of people can
> consume more - surely this will provide better long term profits than
> simple replacement of labor by automation?
You are still within the erroneous communist mindframe, where you have
on one side the baby-eating capitalist employer, and on the other side
the poor exploited employees. This is silly.
The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
When the employers demand less employees, the salaries drop, the cost
of work drops, and then more employees can becore employers, thus
demanding more employees, therefore the salaries increase. This is a
beneficial circle.
The problems arrise when politicians meddle with this, for example
with laws that prevent employers to fire employees, or to lower the
salaries below a minimum, or when raising artificially the cost of
work with taxes and imposed welfare cotisations.
> [...]
>> I wonder what these people would do in Socialism. Probably the state
>> would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already
>> full, and they don't meet any other requirements. Or pay them for
>> thumb-diddling. Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage
>> that's "not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job
>> instead of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for
>> the pay you get).
>>
>
> I think it was Walenstein who argued that you couldn't have a
> socialist economy within a capitalist world. I suspect the reason that
> socialism has not succeeded in any significant way is that we do
> essentially live within a capitalist world and the main motivator is
> money/wealth/capital.
> [...]
The real reason as shown by Von Mises, is that in a socialist
economy, you don't have the feedback of the market: you cannot know
the prices of anything therefore you cannot take any intelligent
economic decision.
> [...]
> P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
> say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
> knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
> would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
> with such a strong conservative or individualist political
> leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
> attracts or what - just an observation.
You can consider any kind of rules (laws), as software. Perhaps not
procedural software, but indeed in Lisp we have some openess toward
more declarative kind of software. This is also the same in
biological system, with stuff like genetic programming. When you drop
a rule, a law, an ADN, etc, in these kinds of system, you're
effectively programming for an outcome. If the outcome you get
doesn't please you, then you have to debug the software. If you
cannot debug it because the software is proprietary or the laws are
imposed from an unconcerned authority, or because you don't have the
competence and techniques to do it, then you're doomed: get fired, get
ill, get unsellable buggy software.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> > Oh dear, more one-eyed Kenysian economics - totally ignoring the other
> > side of the equation, that of supply and demand and how it applies to
> > labor, not just production. A low wage doesn't necessarily mean "We
> > don't need any more workers for this job" - it can just as easily mean
> > "We have lots of unemployed desperate workers, so we can pay them very
> > little and they will do the job and keep our profits high".
> >
> > Why is it the "blame" seems to always be dumped on the employee and
> > nothing on the employer who has changed the employment landscape to
> > increase their profits. I'm not saying the employer should take all
> > the responsability, but I believe they should take some - if they
> > introduce automation and remove unskilled/low-skilled jobs to increase
> > their profits, they should also contribute to the re-skilling of their
> > labor - lets face, employees with more money consume more, so wouldn't
> > it be in their interest to ensure the greater majority of people can
> > consume more - surely this will provide better long term profits than
> > simple replacement of labor by automation?
>
> You are still within the erroneous communist mindframe, where you have
> on one side the baby-eating capitalist employer, and on the other side
> the poor exploited employees. This is silly.
>
No, I would suggest your in the erroneous right wing capitalist
manifesto which only sees things based on the demand for labor and
overlooks the other side, the supply and its impact. As I stated, this
is one-eyed and part of the reason things got so screwed up when
people tried applying Kenysian economics.
I made no reference to communism in the above paragraphs, but simply
point out that if you (or anyone else) is going to put forward and
argument which uses the demand for labor as its justification, you
also need to include the effect of the supply of labor. You should
also note that I explicitly stated it WAS NOT the employer who should
sholder all responsability - it should be a shared responsability
between employee and employer.
I also find your reference to "...erroneous communist mindframe, where you have
on one side the baby-eating capitalist employer, and on the other side
the poor exploited employees." to be a very poor attempt at using
the emotive cliche of the "evil communist" to be a pretty cheap shot
for someone who has any conviction in their argument. I clearly stated
it was not the sole responsability of the employer and made absolutely
no reference to them being evil or deliberately exploitative.
> The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially depressed. If
the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get artificially
inflated.
> When the employers demand less employees, the salaries drop, the cost
> of work drops, and then more employees can becore employers, thus
> demanding more employees, therefore the salaries increase. This is a
> beneficial circle.
Putting aside the question of how employees obtain the necessary
capital to become employers, your "beneficial circle" only works when
there is no big difference between supply and demand. As soon as
demand for labor outstrips supply, wages will increase and as soon as
the supply exceeds the demand, they will drop. This is basic demand
and supply economics - but to create a "beneficial circle" by only
cnsidering the demand side only creates a distorted representation of
the system.
The problem with this demand and supply is that it sounds very simple
and when you are talking about production/manufacturing, it is fairly
straight forward. If the supply of some commodity other than labor is
too high, the balance becomes re-addressed by factories closing down
etc. If demand exceeds supply, factories are built to meet that
demand. However, labor is more complex because we are dealing with
other humans - you cannot just kill off some to reduce the supply and
you cannot just build them to meet demand. We have issues of morality,
justice and decency to contend with (well at least most of us do).
> The problems arrise when politicians meddle with this, for example
> with laws that prevent employers to fire employees, or to lower the
> salaries below a minimum, or when raising artificially the cost of
> work with taxes and imposed welfare cotisations.
Yes, to some degree I agree. Part of the problem is changing government
powers between left and right. The left does what it can to restrict
the labor supply to increase wages, the right does what it can to
increase the supply to force wages down and the employee is left in
the mess that results.
However, I do not agree with a totally free open market. Capitalism is
an inherently greedy paradigm which values the individual over the
group too much. This is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not least of
which is the fact the individual has a very short term view of things
and rarely cares about what they leave behind. In the past, the only
thing which placed any constraints on what was done under the need for
profit was individual morality concerning right and wrong (and is a
little too close to the "benevolent dictator" for my liking). The rise
of corporate capitalism is even worse because there is no individual
with a moral conscience at the helm.
I find it interesting that many of those on the right argue that the
whole reason things are in a mess is because governments and the like
have interfered in this delicate magic capitalist market and that if
they just left it alone, after an initial period of "settling down"
everything would be fine and we wold be in a golden age. Yet, when
capitalism was first developing there were very few government
controls or restrictions and to all intents we did have a free open
market, yet this is the same environment that fostered the devleopment
of trade unions, communism and socialism. Why did these develop if the
system was so good and fair - was it really just lazy uneducated
workers who wanted to have a slice of the pie without putting in any
of that wonderful entrepreneurial spirit? Maybe it was the result of
the unfetted greed of capitalism?
>
> > [...]
> >> I wonder what these people would do in Socialism. Probably the state
> >> would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already
> >> full, and they don't meet any other requirements. Or pay them for
> >> thumb-diddling. Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage
> >> that's "not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job
> >> instead of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for
> >> the pay you get).
> >>
> >
> > I think it was Walenstein who argued that you couldn't have a
> > socialist economy within a capitalist world. I suspect the reason that
> > socialism has not succeeded in any significant way is that we do
> > essentially live within a capitalist world and the main motivator is
> > money/wealth/capital.
> > [...]
>
> The real reason as shown by Von Mises, is that in a socialist
> economy, you don't have the feedback of the market: you cannot know
> the prices of anything therefore you cannot take any intelligent
> economic decision.
You miss my point (and cut it out), the problem isn't as simple as Von
Mises puts it because its still argueing based on capital. this is why
socialism has failed - the fundamental notion of value and reward in
any pseudo socialist state within a capitalist world is still tied to
capital. While you measure value/success/efficiency in terms of
capital, you only create an even more flawed model if you are also
trying to deny the role of capital in such an economy.
To create a truely socialist economy, you wold need to devise some
other value system which didn't depend on capital
(i.e. money/power/wealth). However, this is probably nearly impossible
(except on Star Trek!) and is also why I do not agree with communism
or socialism (though I'd still prefer to be called a
communist/socialist than a right wing conservative). The basic problem
is what motivates us as individuals - as long as its
wealth/power/capital, then we are stuck with capitalism, like it or
not.
>
> > [...]
> > P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
> > say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
> > knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
> > would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
> > with such a strong conservative or individualist political
> > leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
> > attracts or what - just an observation.
>
> You can consider any kind of rules (laws), as software. Perhaps not
> procedural software, but indeed in Lisp we have some openess toward
> more declarative kind of software. This is also the same in
> biological system, with stuff like genetic programming. When you drop
> a rule, a law, an ADN, etc, in these kinds of system, you're
> effectively programming for an outcome. If the outcome you get
> doesn't please you, then you have to debug the software. If you
> cannot debug it because the software is proprietary or the laws are
> imposed from an unconcerned authority, or because you don't have the
> competence and techniques to do it, then you're doomed: get fired, get
> ill, get unsellable buggy software.
>
In that case, based on the quality of most software, we are all
doomed!
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> > The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
>
> Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
> labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially
> depressed. If the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get
> artificially inflated.
There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price for
labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it reflects the
point where the supply and demand curves intersect. Would you say
that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated when there is a
freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Jini, CORBA, UML)
In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> > > The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
> >
> > Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
> > labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially
> > depressed. If the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get
> > artificially inflated.
>
> There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price for
> labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it reflects the
> point where the supply and demand curves intersect. Would you say
> that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated when there is a
> freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this debate
are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There are methods
of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them into animal feed)
that are simply not considered acceptable to apply to excess labor.
Furthermore, the global quality metric is a vector, not a scalar. If
one person is living like a king while nine people starve that is not
necessarily considered "better" than having all ten people living
modestly even if the total dollar value of the former situation exceeds
that of the latter. There are other non-linear effects as well (like
the fact that producing labor has a much longer lead time than producing
oranges, or just about anything else for that matter).
That is why simple-minded analysis of the situation is wrong at both
extremes of the political spectrum.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> > There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price
> > for labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it
> > reflects the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
> > Would you say that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated
> > when there is a freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
>
> There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this
> debate are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There
> are methods of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them
> into animal feed) that are simply not considered acceptable to apply
> to excess labor.
That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "artificial"
about the price of labor being subject to supply and demand.
More importantly, labor is far more dynamic than oranges. People
can move to places where the demand for their skills is higher, they
can apply their skills to different problems, and they can learn new
skills. No one is suggesting the solyent green solution.
> Furthermore, the global quality metric is a vector, not a scalar.
> If one person is living like a king while nine people starve that is
> not necessarily considered "better" than having all ten people
> living modestly even if the total dollar value of the former
> situation exceeds that of the latter.
Your implicit assumption, and that of many who oppose free
markets, is that economics is a zero-sum game. It most definitely is
not. Wealth is _created_, especially when people are able to reap the
rewards of doing so.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> > > There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price
> > > for labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it
> > > reflects the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
> > > Would you say that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated
> > > when there is a freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
> >
> > There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this
> > debate are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There
> > are methods of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them
> > into animal feed) that are simply not considered acceptable to apply
> > to excess labor.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "artificial"
> about the price of labor being subject to supply and demand.
Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that there
is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
> More importantly, labor is far more dynamic than oranges. People
> can move to places where the demand for their skills is higher,
Orange trees can be transplanted too. But that's rarely done because
it's easier to just grow a new orange tree.
> they
> can apply their skills to different problems, and they can learn new
> skills.
True, but while they are learning those new skills they still have to
eat, and so do their teachers. They have to have access to books or
computers or other training materials. Very few people are able to
acquire new skills simply by meditating. There are people with so few
resources at their disposal that telling them to acquire new skills is
like telling an orange seed sitting on the sidewalk in Manhattan to grow
into an orange tree.
> No one is suggesting the solyent green solution.
Actually, if someone suggests treating labor the same way we treat
oranges (and someone did) that's pretty much exactly what they are
suggesting.
> > Furthermore, the global quality metric is a vector, not a scalar.
> > If one person is living like a king while nine people starve that is
> > not necessarily considered "better" than having all ten people
> > living modestly even if the total dollar value of the former
> > situation exceeds that of the latter.
>
> Your implicit assumption, and that of many who oppose free
> markets, is that economics is a zero-sum game. It most definitely is
> not. Wealth is _created_, especially when people are able to reap the
> rewards of doing so.
Not at all. I am a capitalist, but I believe that some markets need to
be regulated for the common good. There are ways of dealing with an
oversupply or oranges (like turning the excess into fertilizer) that
most people would not want to see applied to an oversupply of labor. To
paraphrase Soylent Green (since you brought it up), lassez-faire
capitalists seem to lose sight of the fact that LABOR IS PEOPLE. You
shouldn't treat labor as a commodity not because there aren't sound
economic reasons to do so, but because treating *people* as a commodity
has all kinds of consequences that people find distasteful. An excess
orange lying in the street is not a problem; most people would not say
that about an excess laborer in the same predicament.
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> > That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing
> > "artificial" about the price of labor being subject to supply and
> > demand.
>
> Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that
> there is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
Money is an optimization to make exchange easier. Supply and
demand are objective phenomena that exist independently of money. If
people used barter exclusively, supply and demand would still be
issues.
> > Your implicit assumption, and that of many who oppose free
> > markets, is that economics is a zero-sum game. It most definitely
> > is not. Wealth is _created_, especially when people are able to
> > reap the rewards of doing so.
>
> Not at all. I am a capitalist, but I believe that some markets need
> to be regulated for the common good.
"Capitalist" is an almost meaningless term. It typically is used
by people in favor of using force against other people. Those in
favor of using force are often described as "communist", "socialist",
or "fascist" (no, I'm not conflating the three); by giving those who
oppose the use of force a name ending in "ist", they suggest that
those who advocate force are morally equivalent to those who do not.
A more useful distinction is between those who support free
markets and those who do not. Free markets are what result from a
more general respect for and protection of individual liberty.
"Regulations" on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
> There are ways of dealing with an oversupply or oranges (like
> turning the excess into fertilizer) that most people would not want
> to see applied to an oversupply of labor. To paraphrase Soylent
> Green (since you brought it up), lassez-faire capitalists seem to
> lose sight of the fact that LABOR IS PEOPLE. You shouldn't treat
> labor as a commodity not because there aren't sound economic reasons
> to do so, but because treating *people* as a commodity has all kinds
> of consequences that people find distasteful. An excess orange
> lying in the street is not a problem; most people would not say that
> about an excess laborer in the same predicament.
I agree with you. I suspect that we share many of the same
social goals. Where we differ is on the means to achieve those
goals. Government regulations always have negative consequences.
Government social programs are always inefficient and frequently
counterproductive. Government protection of the environment is for
sale to the highest bidder, both in terms of money and votes.
Government never creates wealth.
Freedom is not just an absolute good in and of itself. Freedom
_works_. Private charities get people out of poverty. Private land
owners (including organizations like the Sierra Club) have a vested
interest in protecting their part of the environment. Wealth is
created only by individuals and organizations who are subject to the
feedback of the free market, and that wealth increases the standard of
living for everyone.
Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. It is, however, the
best possible solution available. Individual liberty, and the free
markets that result, can be messy, confusing, loud, crude, and
thoroughly confusing. The closer we get to the ideal, the better off
we all are.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
Patrick May wrote:
> I agree with you. I suspect that we share many of the same
> social goals. Where we differ is on the means to achieve those
> goals. Government regulations always have negative consequences.
> Government social programs are always inefficient and frequently
> counterproductive.
This last sentence is what I wish most people would think about. It's
all cool to make a law to help poor people (even if it's against
freedom, but that's not my point here), but the problem and point is,
that most of these reforms actually make things *worse* for the poor.
It's really insulting how self-appointed humane leftists fight for stuff
that makes things worse, and then brag about how humane they are and how
they want to help workers ...
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Patrick May wrote:
> > I agree with you. I suspect that we share many of the same
> > social goals. Where we differ is on the means to achieve those
> > goals. Government regulations always have negative consequences.
> > Government social programs are always inefficient and frequently
> > counterproductive.
>
> This last sentence is what I wish most people would think about. It's
> all cool to make a law to help poor people (even if it's against
> freedom, but that's not my point here), but the problem and point is,
> that most of these reforms actually make things *worse* for the poor.
How do you know? It's very hard to do a control experiment. Can you
cite a source (and I mean actual data, not just another right wing nut
proclaiming it to be true)?
> It's really insulting how self-appointed humane leftists fight for stuff
> that makes things worse, and then brag about how humane they are and how
> they want to help workers ...
It's really annoying how right wing nuts make proclamations without any
supporting evidence.
Here are some facts.
Before there was social security there were many more seniors living in
poverty than there are now. Before the ascendance of trade unions in
the US the average worker's standard of living was much lower than it is
now. Before government regulation of the stock market there was the
great crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
rg
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme
Date:
Message-ID: <uy836dj5i.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Ron Garret <·········@sybjarg.pbz> [2005-11-30 10:40:00 -0800]:
>
> Here are some facts.
>
> Before there was social security there were many more seniors living
> in poverty than there are now. Before the ascendance of trade unions
> in the US the average worker's standard of living was much lower than
> it is now. Before government regulation of the stock market there was
> the great crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
While I am all for trade unions for unskilled labor, I have to remind
you that the simple temporal coincidence does not prove much.
Technological advances and working mothers are a significant source of
increase in "average worker's standard of living".
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.iris.org.il http://pmw.org.il/ http://www.honestreporting.com
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.
In article <·············@gnu.org>, Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> wrote:
> > * Ron Garret <·········@sybjarg.pbz> [2005-11-30 10:40:00 -0800]:
> >
> > Here are some facts.
> >
> > Before there was social security there were many more seniors living
> > in poverty than there are now. Before the ascendance of trade unions
> > in the US the average worker's standard of living was much lower than
> > it is now. Before government regulation of the stock market there was
> > the great crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
>
> While I am all for trade unions for unskilled labor, I have to remind
> you that the simple temporal coincidence does not prove much.
I agree. That's why I didn't draw any conclusions, I just cited the
facts.
> Technological advances and working mothers are a significant source of
> increase in "average worker's standard of living".
Working mothers have only been a significant factor since the seventies,
but the middle class standard of living started rising almost
immediately after the end of WWII. And significant technological
advancement had begun in the industrial revolution.
Again, I agree that it is tricky to draw conclusions from these facts.
But they certainly do not support the simple-minded thesis that freedom
is an unalloyed good.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> While I am all for trade unions for unskilled labor, I have to remind
>> you that the simple temporal coincidence does not prove much.
>
> I agree. That's why I didn't draw any conclusions, I just cited the
> facts.
Well, as far as temporal coincidences go, since the end of the '70s
Germany corrupted the original Social Market Economy into some regulated
Leviathan, the debt rose quickly, and the economy started to slow down
(with temporal lag, though). I'm sure there are also comparisons that'd
work for the US and heavy regulations in recent decades.
> Again, I agree that it is tricky to draw conclusions from these facts.
My above ones are just for fun. :)
> But they certainly do not support the simple-minded thesis that freedom
> is an unalloyed good.
I haven't yet seen where lack of freedom would contribute to living
standards. Google for some index of the world's most wealthy countries,
the highest living standards, the lowest taxes, the greatest economic
freedom, the greatest freedom in general, and you'll see there are many
relationships.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >> While I am all for trade unions for unskilled labor, I have to remind
> >> you that the simple temporal coincidence does not prove much.
> >
> > I agree. That's why I didn't draw any conclusions, I just cited the
> > facts.
>
> Well, as far as temporal coincidences go, since the end of the '70s
> Germany corrupted the original Social Market Economy into some regulated
> Leviathan, the debt rose quickly, and the economy started to slow down
> (with temporal lag, though).
Ron's first law again: All extreme positions are wrong.
> > Again, I agree that it is tricky to draw conclusions from these facts.
>
> My above ones are just for fun. :)
>
> > But they certainly do not support the simple-minded thesis that freedom
> > is an unalloyed good.
>
> I haven't yet seen where lack of freedom would contribute to living
> standards. Google for some index of the world's most wealthy countries,
> the highest living standards, the lowest taxes, the greatest economic
> freedom, the greatest freedom in general, and you'll see there are many
> relationships.
No doubt. I think it's certainly better to err on the side of freedom,
but to say that absolute individual freedom is a panacea is just as
wrong as saying that absolute government control is a panacea. Once
again: all extreme positions are wrong.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> No doubt. I think it's certainly better to err on the side of freedom,
> but to say that absolute individual freedom is a panacea is just as
> wrong as saying that absolute government control is a panacea. Once
> again: all extreme positions are wrong.
I fail to see how absolute individual freedom is an extreme position -
assuming that no one has the freedom to hurt, enslave, or steal from
you - you have the right to defend yourself against any of those
infringements on your freedom.
Government intervention, on the other hand, is extreme because it's
always backed up by a gun at the end of the line. Don't want to keep
your lawn below the minimum height? Get fined. Don't pay the fine
repeatedly? Get arrested. Defend your freedom? Get shot. Just
because most people do what they are told doesn't mean the threat of
violence is not there.
In my view, allowing people to do what they want with their own lives
and property is the most moderate view you can take. Asserting that
any one person has the right to restrict the freedom of another person
is extreme to me.
The absolute question is - are you willing to kill anyone who resists
their loss of freedom? Of course, with most people you won't have to.
But, the tool for restricting freedom is always violent force.
In article <·······················@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Aaron Sokoloski" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > No doubt. I think it's certainly better to err on the side of freedom,
> > but to say that absolute individual freedom is a panacea is just as
> > wrong as saying that absolute government control is a panacea. Once
> > again: all extreme positions are wrong.
>
> I fail to see how absolute individual freedom is an extreme position -
> assuming that no one has the freedom to hurt, enslave, or steal from
> you - you have the right to defend yourself against any of those
> infringements on your freedom.
You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
position, and you have all the complications that come with trying to
navigate the middle of the road. If I crank up my stereo am I hurting
you? What if you can't sleep? If I live upstream from you and I dump
my sewage into the creek, am I stealing from you? If you are forced by
circumstance to choose between working twelve hours a day seven days a
week to pay for the basic necessities of life or starving, are you
enslaved?
> Government intervention, on the other hand, is extreme because it's
> always backed up by a gun at the end of the line. Don't want to keep
> your lawn below the minimum height? Get fined. Don't pay the fine
> repeatedly? Get arrested. Defend your freedom? Get shot. Just
> because most people do what they are told doesn't mean the threat of
> violence is not there.
Yes, but what if your unsightly lawn is hurting me? This is not as
implausible as it sounds. There are studies that show that failing to
perform basic maintenance leads eventually to higher crime rates.
> In my view, allowing people to do what they want with their own lives
> and property is the most moderate view you can take. Asserting that
> any one person has the right to restrict the freedom of another person
> is extreme to me.
I make no such assertion. I say that sometimes we have to collectively
limit individual freedom for the common good. Government is the
mechanism by which we do that.
> The absolute question is - are you willing to kill anyone who resists
> their loss of freedom? Of course, with most people you won't have to.
> But, the tool for restricting freedom is always violent force.
Do you have a better suggestion for how to deal with psychopaths who
think that what they want to do trumps everyone else?
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
>
> That's not "limiting freedom" any more than gravity is limiting your
> freedom to fly.
But gravity *is* limiting my freedom to fly. That one constraint is
natural while the other is artificial does not change the fact that they
are both limiting.
> On the contrary, your hurting, enslaving and/or
> stealing from Aaron would be a case of limiting (his) freedom.
Yes, that would be my point. Absolute individual freedom is not only
wrong/bad/undesirable, it's actually *impossible*.
> >> In my view, allowing people to do what they want with their own lives
> >> and property is the most moderate view you can take. Asserting that
> >> any one person has the right to restrict the freedom of another person
> >> is extreme to me.
>
> > I make no such assertion. I say that sometimes we have to collectively
> > limit individual freedom for the common good.
>
> "Saying" it is different from "asserting" it, is it?
>
> [Are you playing with words; Aaron said "one person has the right to",
> and you're saying "collectively" and trying to pretend that's
> different? It's the same thing -- only individuals exist; you can't
> act collectively without any individual acting.
"One person" is not the same thing as "many people", notwithstanding the
fact that "many people" comprises multiple "one persons."
The rest of your arguments are similarly straw men.
rg
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:38:50 +1300, Paul Foley wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:55:01 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
>> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
>>> > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
>>> > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
>>>
>>> That's not "limiting freedom" any more than gravity is limiting your
>>> freedom to fly.
>
>> But gravity *is* limiting my freedom to fly. That one constraint is
>> natural while the other is artificial does not change the fact that they
>> are both limiting.
>
> They're both natural (unless you think that humans are somehow
> unnatural...created and placed here by aliens, perhaps?)
Well by that reasoning *everything* is natural. Humans are a natural
byproduct of the planet earth. Space-ships, computers and Lisp are
natural byproducts of humans. What meaning does the word "unnatural" have
then?
Cheers,
Bill.
I am really surprised at where my thread went. Anyway...
With all this discussion of capitalism, socialism, regulation, etc and
its relationship to unemployment and such, has anyone considered the
possibility that the "efficient market theory" is way off base?
Or has everyone forgotten the Dutch tulip bulb craze? Or the dot-com
bubble? Or the price behavior of many stocks on NASDAQ or NYSE in the
past?
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
David Steuber wrote:
> Or has everyone forgotten the Dutch tulip bulb craze? Or the dot-com
> bubble? Or the price behavior of many stocks on NASDAQ or NYSE in the
> past?
So what? Nobody is forcing you to buy overpriced tulips or shares.
There is a reason why I wouldn't invest in Apple now, even while
everybody (including banks) says "oh, they tripled in value, but they'll
surely go up even more".
Speculative buyers will always have to live with the possibility of
their speculation going wrong. It's not a game where everybody can
always win.
And I don't see how the existence of bubbles says we have to fix and
regulate prices.
And by the way, often bubbles are stimulated by inflation (such as USA
in the '20s) or subsidies (the current real-estate buying craze).
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On 03 Dec 2005 21:58:00 -0500, David Steuber wrote:
>
> > I am really surprised at where my thread went. Anyway...
> > With all this discussion of capitalism, socialism, regulation, etc and
> > its relationship to unemployment and such, has anyone considered the
> > possibility that the "efficient market theory" is way off base?
>
> Here's a useful hint: *the* source for economic sanity on the net is
> www.mises.org. If you always add "+site:mises.org" to every search
> for anything related to economics, you'll be much better off...try it
> for "efficient market theory" now
Useful indeed. So the answer is yes. :-)
Considering the creation of yet another free license was a really bad
idea. I can see that now.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> Here's a useful hint: *the* source for economic sanity on the net is
> www.mises.org. If you always add "+site:mises.org" to every search
> for anything related to economics, you'll be much better off...try it
> for "efficient market theory" now
Likewise, comp.lang.lisp is *the* source for sane advice
on programming language choice; www.vatican.va is *the*
source for sane information on religious topics; and
www.democrats.org is *the* source for political sanity.
Stick 'em in all your Google searches, and make sure
you don't pollute your precious bodily fluids^W^W^Wmind
with contrary opinions!
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:29:35 GMT, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>> Here's a useful hint: *the* source for economic sanity on the net is
>> www.mises.org. If you always add "+site:mises.org" to every search
>> for anything related to economics, you'll be much better off...try it
>> for "efficient market theory" now
> Likewise, comp.lang.lisp is *the* source for sane advice
> on programming language choice; www.vatican.va is *the*
> source for sane information on religious topics; and
> www.democrats.org is *the* source for political sanity.
> Stick 'em in all your Google searches, and make sure
> you don't pollute your precious bodily fluids^W^W^Wmind
> with contrary opinions!
I've got no problem with contrary opinions when the subject is a
matter of opinion -- but when /facts/ can be determined and people
still hold out contrary "opinions" (e.g., that 2+2=47 on alternate
Wednesdays, the Earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese),
that's not "opinion", that's just plain stupidity (or insanity,
perhaps). I don't have much time for gross stupidity.
FWIW, I suspect that anything you can find about economics, on the web
or elsewhere, that you /don't/ find at mises.org is provably wrong
[don't misinterpret this as meaning that everything at mises.org is
correct]
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>>> Here's a useful hint: *the* source for economic sanity on the net is
>>> www.mises.org. If you always add "+site:mises.org" to every search
>>> for anything related to economics, you'll be much better off...try it
>>> for "efficient market theory" now
>
>> Likewise, comp.lang.lisp is *the* source for sane advice
>> on programming language choice; www.vatican.va is *the*
>> source for sane information on religious topics; and
>> www.democrats.org is *the* source for political sanity.
>> Stick 'em in all your Google searches, and make sure
>> you don't pollute your precious bodily fluids^W^W^Wmind
>> with contrary opinions!
>
> I've got no problem with contrary opinions when the subject is a
> matter of opinion -- but when /facts/ can be determined and people
> still hold out contrary "opinions" (e.g., that 2+2=47 on alternate
> Wednesdays, the Earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese),
> that's not "opinion", that's just plain stupidity (or insanity,
> perhaps). I don't have much time for gross stupidity.
>
> FWIW, I suspect that anything you can find about economics, on the web
> or elsewhere, that you /don't/ find at mises.org is provably wrong
> [don't misinterpret this as meaning that everything at mises.org is
> correct]
I am unable to tell whether you're trolling or whether you
actually believe that. In the latter case you are insane
or, er, grossly stupid; obviously so even without reference
to what's actually at mises.org .
In either case, discussion closed, as far as I'm concerned.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> From the Wikipedia article on tulip mania:
>
> Given data about the specific payoffs present in the futures and
> option contracts, the authors determine that tulip bulb prices in
> fact hewed closely to what a rational economic model would dictate:
> "tulip contract prices before, during, and after the 'tulipmania'
> appear to provide a remarkable illustration of market efficiency."
Which tells us all we need to know about the notion of
"rationality" that's at work here. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>
>> From the Wikipedia article on tulip mania:
>>
>> Given data about the specific payoffs present in the futures and
>> option contracts, the authors determine that tulip bulb prices in
>> fact hewed closely to what a rational economic model would dictate:
>> "tulip contract prices before, during, and after the 'tulipmania'
>> appear to provide a remarkable illustration of market efficiency."
>
> Which tells us all we need to know about the notion of
> "rationality" that's at work here. :-)
More important is the notion of choice (does that mean I'm pro-choice,
hehe?). Just because people might shoot themselves in the foot to
prove, "hey, look what a wicked C++ coder I am!", does that mean you
should prohibit guns, or C++ for that matter? ;)
If anybody chooses to waste their money on tulips instead of on health
insurance and household goods, then that's their choice, and I'm in no
position to criticize that. I *think* my choices are better, but that's
from my biased standpoint in life. I'm not others, so I can't choose
for them. Only centralized governments have the delusion that they can
make the right choices over other peoples' lives, when they really
can't, living in their ivory tower (or white house).
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>>
>>> From the Wikipedia article on tulip mania:
>>>
>>> Given data about the specific payoffs present in the futures and
>>> option contracts, the authors determine that tulip bulb prices in
>>> fact hewed closely to what a rational economic model would dictate:
>>> "tulip contract prices before, during, and after the 'tulipmania'
>>> appear to provide a remarkable illustration of market efficiency."
>>
>> Which tells us all we need to know about the notion of
>> "rationality" that's at work here. :-)
>
> More important is the notion of choice (does that mean I'm pro-choice,
> hehe?). Just because people might shoot themselves in the foot to
> prove, "hey, look what a wicked C++ coder I am!", does that mean you
> should prohibit guns, or C++ for that matter? ;)
>
> If anybody chooses to waste their money on tulips instead of on health
> insurance and household goods, then that's their choice, and I'm in no
> position to criticize that. I *think* my choices are better, but
> that's from my biased standpoint in life. I'm not others, so I can't
> choose for them. Only centralized governments have the delusion that
> they can make the right choices over other peoples' lives, when they
> really can't, living in their ivory tower (or white house).
I'm not saying that anyone should have prevented people
during the period of tulipmania from buying tulips (or
tulip futures, or whatever). I'm saying that if their
behaviour was "rational" according to some criterion of
rationality, then there is something deeply broken about
that criterion of rationality.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> "Many people", taken as a single entity, cannot make decisions, etc.;
> only `multiple "one persons"' can (individually). The "many people"
> entity _doesn't exist_; it's just a /name/ given to a particular group
> "one persons" at a particular time.
Oh, I didn't notice that you didn't write this. How could you decide
such a thing? If I read the above text, it's only because some of the
atoms in your fingers tought better to move in some pecular way
because they just like to be rather at the bottom of an
electromagnetical pit.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you
stand!"
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> "Many people", taken as a single entity, cannot make decisions, etc.;
> only `multiple "one persons"' can (individually).
They can; it's called committee and takes very long to produce usually
rather bad decisions. Common Lisp may be an exception, but even there
many people wish it would be smaller and more elegant.
> The "many people"
> entity _doesn't exist_; it's just a /name/ given to a particular group
> "one persons" at a particular time.
Agreed on that.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In article <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net>,
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> > > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> > > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
> >
> > That's not "limiting freedom" any more than gravity is limiting your
> > freedom to fly.
>
> But gravity *is* limiting my freedom to fly. That one constraint is
> natural while the other is artificial does not change the fact that they
> are both limiting.
How does gravity limit your freedom to fly? It doesn't stop me. With
the aid only of 200 kg of carefully-shaped plastic I've often flown for
several hours and several hundred km despite using no engine or fuel to
fight gravity:
http://www.canllaith.org/Canllaiths_gallery/slideshow_3.html?20
Besides, you could *NOT* fly without gravity. Float, yes. Swim, maybe.
But not fly.
--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
In article <···························@news.clear.net.nz>,
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> wrote:
> In article <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net>,
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> >
> > > > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> > > > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an
> > > > extreme
> > >
> > > That's not "limiting freedom" any more than gravity is limiting your
> > > freedom to fly.
> >
> > But gravity *is* limiting my freedom to fly. That one constraint is
> > natural while the other is artificial does not change the fact that they
> > are both limiting.
>
> How does gravity limit your freedom to fly?
By pulling me back to the ground. Isn't that obvious?
> It doesn't stop me.
Doesn't stop me either, but it does limit me.
> Besides, you could *NOT* fly without gravity. Float, yes. Swim, maybe.
> But not fly.
"Limiting" and "necessary" are not mutually exclusive. Government, for
example, is both.
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:55:01 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> >> > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> >> > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
> >>
> >> That's not "limiting freedom" any more than gravity is limiting your
> >> freedom to fly.
>
> > But gravity *is* limiting my freedom to fly. That one constraint is
> > natural while the other is artificial does not change the fact that they
> > are both limiting.
>
> They're both natural (unless you think that humans are somehow
> unnatural...created and placed here by aliens, perhaps?)
"Artificial" is a proper subset of "natural", but in common usage
"natural" is often taken to mean that part of nature that is not
artificial.
> and gravity
> doesn't limit your freedom to fly;
Of course it does.
> on the contrary, it /enables/ you to fly
That is also true. Enabling and limiting are not mutually exclusive.
> >> On the contrary, your hurting, enslaving and/or
> >> stealing from Aaron would be a case of limiting (his) freedom.
>
> > Yes, that would be my point. Absolute individual freedom is not only
> > wrong/bad/undesirable, it's actually *impossible*.
>
> But only because you define "absolute freedom" in an inconsistent way,
> as including the "freedom" to enslave others.
Why is that inconsistent? That's how freedom was defined in America for
hundreds of years.
> >> [Are you playing with words; Aaron said "one person has the right to",
> >> and you're saying "collectively" and trying to pretend that's
> >> different? It's the same thing -- only individuals exist; you can't
> >> act collectively without any individual acting.
>
> > "One person" is not the same thing as "many people", notwithstanding the
> > fact that "many people" comprises multiple "one persons."
>
> "Many people", taken as a single entity, cannot make decisions, etc.;
Of course they can. That's what "organizations" are: collections of
individuals plus processes and interactions that add up to more than the
sum of their parts.
> only `multiple "one persons"' can (individually). The "many people"
> entity _doesn't exist_; it's just a /name/ given to a particular group
> "one persons" at a particular time.
That like saying that brains don't exist, it's just a name given to a
group of neurons at a particular time.
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:04:15 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >> But only because you define "absolute freedom" in an inconsistent way,
> >> as including the "freedom" to enslave others.
>
> > Why is that inconsistent?
>
> Because it cannot be universally true --
So? Many (perhaps most) things are not universally true but are
nevertheless consistent.
> if you enslave me, then I am
> not free, so your having the "right" to enslave me obviously doesn't
> lead /toward/ "absolute freedom" but away from it!
It leads towards absolute freedom for me. Why should I care about you?
> > That's how freedom was defined in America for
> > hundreds of years.
>
> Really? Defined by whom?
By a substantial portion of its citizenry, including Francis Scott Keys,
who famously dubbed the newly formed United States of America "the land
of the free" back in 1812.
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:36:23 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >> if you enslave me, then I am
> >> not free, so your having the "right" to enslave me obviously doesn't
> >> lead /toward/ "absolute freedom" but away from it!
>
> > It leads towards absolute freedom for me. Why should I care about you?
>
> Are you suggesting that you're in a different class of humanity than
> me, such that it's OK for you to enslave me, but not OK for me to
> enslave you?
Look, I'm not the one advocating absolute freedom, you are. But given
that absolute personal freedom necessarily (it seems to me) involves
these kinds of asymmetries then of course I want those asymmetries to
run in my favor. Wouldn't you?
> You must be, because if it /is/ OK for me to enslave
> you, how does that lead toward absolute freedom for you?! So what
> objectively-decidable quality distinguishes the ubermenschen such as
> yourself from us mere untermenschen?
Money, of course. Isn't that obvious? In the absence of government
regulation the rich get to enslave the poor because the poor need jobs
to provide the basic necessities of life and the rich don't, so the rich
get to dictate terms to the poor. Starving is just not a viable option
for most people. The distinction between a slave and an employee with
no options seems a very fine one to me.
> >> > That's how freedom was defined in America for
> >> > hundreds of years.
> >>
> >> Really? Defined by whom?
>
> > By a substantial portion of its citizenry, including Francis Scott Keys,
> > who famously dubbed the newly formed United States of America "the land
> > of the free" back in 1812.
>
> So, basically, "some guys thought so".
A lot of guys actually. Enough to write slavery into the Constitution.
> was Francis Scott Key
> ordained "official definer of words"? :-)
His words were enshrined as the national anthem. To my way of thinking
that constitutes an official endorsement of the idea that the United
States is "the home of the free" and was even back in 1812.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> So what
>> objectively-decidable quality distinguishes the ubermenschen such as
>> yourself from us mere untermenschen?
>
> Money, of course. Isn't that obvious? In the absence of government
> regulation the rich get to enslave the poor because the poor need jobs
> to provide the basic necessities of life and the rich don't, so the rich
> get to dictate terms to the poor. Starving is just not a viable option
> for most people. The distinction between a slave and an employee with
> no options seems a very fine one to me.
Hm, so you think that everybody on earth with money (there's not just
Rich Rich and Poor Poor people, but shades of gray) would be a real
asshole and let people starve or be slaves?
Actually it'd be enough if all the good people refuse to sell stuff (and
buy stuff) to the evil rich ones. Then the rich would starve.
Maybe you'd end up with two communities, but unlike other people,
libertarians don't force integration if some people don't want it.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >> So what
> >> objectively-decidable quality distinguishes the ubermenschen such as
> >> yourself from us mere untermenschen?
> >
> > Money, of course. Isn't that obvious? In the absence of government
> > regulation the rich get to enslave the poor because the poor need jobs
> > to provide the basic necessities of life and the rich don't, so the rich
> > get to dictate terms to the poor. Starving is just not a viable option
> > for most people. The distinction between a slave and an employee with
> > no options seems a very fine one to me.
>
> Hm, so you think that everybody on earth with money (there's not just
> Rich Rich and Poor Poor people, but shades of gray) would be a real
> asshole and let people starve or be slaves?
Don't be ridiculous. If all the poor people starved who would be left
to polish the Bentley?
> Actually it'd be enough if all the good people refuse to sell stuff (and
> buy stuff) to the evil rich ones. Then the rich would starve.
Yes, that approach has worked really well throughout human history,
hasn't it?
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> Actually it'd be enough if all the good people refuse to sell stuff (and
>> buy stuff) to the evil rich ones. Then the rich would starve.
>
> Yes, that approach has worked really well throughout human history,
> hasn't it?
Usually the tyrant owned the military, so there was a problem
(coercion). Some tribes and other countryships were free, I suppose (by
having a citizen army maybe). When the oppressed have more numbers,
there is no reason why they should support their own oppression.
The problem in many developing countries is that the oppressors have
guns (they buy them in Western countries I guess), but the oppressed are
without any means to defend themselves.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> If you "have" to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to (just) avoid
> starving, you claim you're a slave...so what if your employer just
> went away (was removed from existence by god for the horrible crime of
> employing you, maybe)? Now your situation is exactly the same, except
> there's no employer to enslave you -- are you still a slave (for the
> short period before you starve)?
That depends a lot on exactly what you mean for the employer to be
"removed from existence." Did the factory get left behind, or did it
vanish along with the employer? What was left behind in its place? Is
there arable farmland there now?
> What if you're shipwrecked on a
> deserted island, and have no choice but to work 14 hours a day 7 days
> a week to (just) avoid starving -- are you a slave?
No, you're a castaway. But we're talking about social interactions here
so that's a red herring.
So let's imagine that you're shipwrecked with another person. This
other person has a gun. He claims this is his island, and says that if
you wish to stay you must pay rent in the amount of enough food to feed
him. To produce enough food to pay the rent and feed yourself you have
to work 14 by 7. You protest, and the man with the gun points at the
reef and says that if you don't like the conditions you are free to
leave. Is he right? Are you free?
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:33:15 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> >> If you "have" to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week to (just) avoid
> >> starving, you claim you're a slave...so what if your employer just
> >> went away (was removed from existence by god for the horrible crime of
> >> employing you, maybe)? Now your situation is exactly the same, except
> >> there's no employer to enslave you -- are you still a slave (for the
> >> short period before you starve)?
>
> > That depends a lot on exactly what you mean for the employer to be
> > "removed from existence." Did the factory get left behind, or did it
> > vanish along with the employer? What was left behind in its place? Is
> > there arable farmland there now?
>
> Well, the (ex) owner is useless, you say, so surely the world should
> revert to the condition it would have been in had he never existed --
> so presumably there's neither factory nor arable farmland, but a
> "wild" forest or something. But if you think it makes a difference,
> let the factory stay (But what factory? If your only choice is really
> between working 14/7 for subsistence wages and death, you must be
> either (a) living in Socialist Paradise, which we'll assume is not the
> case, or (b) one of very, very few people alive (reachable -- i.e.,
> there can't be much trade going on), and/or in a pre-industrial
> society; in either case there won't be any factories, and very little
> arable land)
There are other possibilities, e.g. North Korea, maquiladoras etc.
But it's your scenario. You tell me.
BTW, just because you're a slave doesn't mean that your life is
necessarily worse then what your life would otherwise have been. In
fact, that argument was advanced in support of slavery back when it was
more fashionable. Personally, I don't buy it, but it's not a completely
untenable position. If the choices really are between slavery and death
then it's not at all clear which is the better choice. But those are
rarely the only options unless some humans have made it so.
> >> What if you're shipwrecked on a
> >> deserted island, and have no choice but to work 14 hours a day 7 days
> >> a week to (just) avoid starving -- are you a slave?
>
> > No, you're a castaway. But we're talking about social interactions here
> > so that's a red herring.
>
> > So let's imagine that you're shipwrecked with another person. This
> > other person has a gun. He claims this is his island, and says that if
> > you wish to stay you must pay rent in the amount of enough food to feed
> > him. To produce enough food to pay the rent and feed yourself you have
> > to work 14 by 7. You protest, and the man with the gun points at the
> > reef and says that if you don't like the conditions you are free to
> > leave. Is he right? Are you free?
>
> Wrong question. The right question is "Is he right? Is it his
> island?" The gun is completely irrelevant.
No, I don't think so. Many (perhaps most, but I don't want to argue
about that) people who own land in North America today do so because
that land was taken from the original inhabitants at the point of a gun.
There are modern parallels as well. See e.g.
http://www.cato.org/events/020514pf.html
> Assuming that when you
> say "shipwrecked with another person" you mean that the other person
> is shipwrecked at the same time, then it's clearly not his island (if
> he's already there when you arrive, and it's a /very/ small island, it
> may be that he has a legitimate claim to the whole island...but then
> it's probably not able to support both of you anyway)
In the real-life version of this scenario the man with the gun showed up
after you.
> You may choose to do what he says because he threatens you with his
> gun, but that's an entirely different situation -- no different than
> having a government, in fact!
Why "government" and not "employer"?
> No, you're not free then...but surely
> in your mind the guy with the gun pointed at him is freer and in a
> better position than the guy on his own -- after all, government is
> necessary, and freedom comes from having limitations put on you by
> that government, right?
Please stop resorting to straw men.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> There are other possibilities, e.g. North Korea,
Fascist's paradise. I know they call it Socialist, but it's also quite
nationalist, and there's not much of a difference (economically) anyway.
> maquiladoras etc.
If that's the Spanish name for sweatshops, I think that many people
*prefer* working there to going back to their old farm. Not sure, I
don't live there.
It also quite often involves corrupt, militarized governments.
>> Wrong question. The right question is "Is he right? Is it his
>> island?" The gun is completely irrelevant.
>
> No, I don't think so. Many (perhaps most, but I don't want to argue
> about that) people who own land in North America today do so because
> that land was taken from the original inhabitants at the point of a gun.
And that wasn't right. Too bad there were no (just) judges back then.
Also, some Natives didn't really have the White Man's concept of owning
and property, since they were (partly?) nomads, or just living within
the abundant nature of their continent. I.e. there was no scarcity of
land, so no real need of the concept of property.
> There are modern parallels as well. See e.g.
> http://www.cato.org/events/020514pf.html
Seizure of land with some remuneration... sounds like a forced (and
probably bad) sale. Nothing that should exist in any civilized society.
> In the real-life version of this scenario the man with the gun showed up
> after you.
And they took most of it. Not sure, are most Natives now living on
"public" land, or do they have organizations that own their reservations?
>> You may choose to do what he says because he threatens you with his
>> gun, but that's an entirely different situation -- no different than
>> having a government, in fact!
>
> Why "government" and not "employer"?
The employer can't force you. On the island I agree that that'd be
rather bad, because there are no other employers, and you couldn't just
open your own garage shop.
I think I'd try to make an agreement, and if that failed, try to take
the gun so we're equal in terms of power.
But it's just a contrived example anyway.
> Please stop resorting to straw men.
Exactly ;)
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ron Garret wrote:
> So let's imagine that you're shipwrecked with another person. This
> other person has a gun. He claims this is his island, and says that if
> you wish to stay you must pay rent in the amount of enough food to feed
> him. To produce enough food to pay the rent and feed yourself you have
> to work 14 by 7. You protest, and the man with the gun points at the
> reef and says that if you don't like the conditions you are free to
> leave. Is he right? Are you free?
Well, you both live there, so its both your property.
And the guy is using coercion which is hardly legitimate.
Of course from time to time conflicts such as this one arise, and
usually end up in war, such as you strangling the other guy at night (or
how would you suggest to erect another culture on the island, such as
democracy?).
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > So let's imagine that you're shipwrecked with another person. This
> > other person has a gun. He claims this is his island, and says that if
> > you wish to stay you must pay rent in the amount of enough food to feed
> > him. To produce enough food to pay the rent and feed yourself you have
> > to work 14 by 7. You protest, and the man with the gun points at the
> > reef and says that if you don't like the conditions you are free to
> > leave. Is he right? Are you free?
>
> Well, you both live there, so its both your property.
Wow, what hat did you pull that principle out of? If I move to Oahu
will it become my property merely by dint of my having moved there?
> And the guy is using coercion which is hardly legitimate.
So?
> Of course from time to time conflicts such as this one arise, and
> usually end up in war, such as you strangling the other guy at night (or
> how would you suggest to erect another culture on the island, such as
> democracy?).
I can concoct all kinds of scenarios, all of which have real-life
parallels, to show how freedom breaks down in real world situations.
Example: You're living on an island with ten inhabitants, each of whom
has ten units of wealth, a hut and a fishing boat say. There's enough
fish that everybody can feed themselves and still have enough time left
over to go surfing. Life is good.
One of the inhabitants decides that instead of going surfing one day
he'd rather build a resort hotel. The others protest saying that
tourists will spoil the peaceful ambience of the island, crowd out all
the good surfing spots, and deplete the fish stocks. (Let's assume for
the sake of argument that they are actually correct about all this.)
Should the entrepreneur be free to build his hotel?
Let's expand on the scenario: the entrepreneur points out that the
tourists will bring money which can be exchanged for other goods, which
will increase everyone's standard of living. This convinces five of the
other inhabitants to join the entrepreneur to work in the hotel. But
the other four like their lives the way they are. They like the quiet
solitude, they like to spend their days surfing instead of working in a
hotel, they are perfectly content subsisting on fish, and they do not
wish to trade this life style for any amount of worldly goods.
So the net effect of building the hotel is that, by their own reckoning,
the hotelier will become fabulously wealthy, the five who joined him
will be middle class, and the other four will be worse of than they were
before.
Once again, should the entrepreneur be free to build his hotel?
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> Well, you both live there, so its both your property.
>
> Wow, what hat did you pull that principle out of? If I move to Oahu
> will it become my property merely by dint of my having moved there?
When you and another person "found" a new city called Oahu (whereever
that is), I'd say it belongs to both of you. Likewise, when you
discover a gold mine (that's not claimed/owned), you can claim it,
alone, or with partners.
>> And the guy is using coercion which is hardly legitimate.
>
> So?
Well, you have the right, if maybe not the possibility, to defend
yourself. I'd try to take the gun from the other guy if possible :)
> I can concoct all kinds of scenarios, all of which have real-life
> parallels, to show how freedom breaks down in real world situations.
You mean you can post more contrived examples? Then please just send me
email, so we can bury this thread.
> Example: You're living on an island with ten inhabitants, each of whom
> has ten units of wealth, a hut and a fishing boat say. There's enough
> fish that everybody can feed themselves and still have enough time left
> over to go surfing. Life is good.
Or you separate work, because it's not good if everybody goes hunting,
and nobody does anything else. And then you trade: houses, fish,
firewood, clothing ...
Of course with ten people you might not do actual trade and need a
currency; you could just share everything, and make sure that everybody
does something useful. But with 100-1000 people it starts to make sense
to do trade.
> One of the inhabitants decides that instead of going surfing one day
> he'd rather build a resort hotel. The others protest saying that
> tourists will spoil the peaceful ambience of the island, crowd out all
> the good surfing spots, and deplete the fish stocks. (Let's assume for
> the sake of argument that they are actually correct about all this.)
>
> Should the entrepreneur be free to build his hotel?
Since it seems the island is community-owned, I'd say no. He could ask
to buy part of the island from the other people, but they need not sell.
A community or organization, or entreprise is free to make their own
rules, unless there's an evil government around that tell you what to do
(such as donate 10% of the goods to Mother England).
But I think it's different with a whole country. We're not a community.
It'd make sense to create a corporation that owns all public land,
give everybody their share, and then you can decide if you buy some of
the land, or if you reap the profits from sold land.
If you don't know why land should have any monetary value at all
(because it's scarce), read more on economics.
> Let's expand on the scenario: the entrepreneur points out that the
> tourists will bring money which can be exchanged for other goods, which
> will increase everyone's standard of living. This convinces five of the
> other inhabitants to join the entrepreneur to work in the hotel. But
> the other four like their lives the way they are. They like the quiet
Well, they have to divide the island community corp into two parts.
It's not fair that one half stops the other half (in my sense of
morals), and it's not fair that one half may intrude the other group's
life. Probably they'd make some rules, while they're at it, such as
when the hotel has to keep quiet and what happens otherwise.
Then one group can live on their island half and eat fish, and the other
half gets a hotel, and maybe more civilization.
> solitude, they like to spend their days surfing instead of working in a
> hotel, they are perfectly content subsisting on fish, and they do not
> wish to trade this life style for any amount of worldly goods.
Exactly that's why a democracy would hurt both halves in a way, but just
splitting up works fine. If they can't agree -- well, I don't have an
answer. The land is community-owned, so their rules apply. Maybe
they'd have democracy. On a small scale it might make sense for some
decisions.
> So the net effect of building the hotel is that, by their own reckoning,
> the hotelier will become fabulously wealthy, the five who joined him
> will be middle class, and the other four will be worse of than they were
> before.
Not at all. I think they *should* agree to split up the land, and if
they do, it's everybody's choice what to do with it.
The four guys aren't "lower class" because you say so. They merely
enjoy the simple life more than the civilized one, which is totally ok.
By the way, a competitive society would probably lower product costs
for those people as well, should they like to trade some shells for
modern gadgets.
> Once again, should the entrepreneur be free to build his hotel?
That depends on who owns the land.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:46:16 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >> So, basically, "some guys thought so".
>
> > A lot of guys actually. Enough to write slavery into the Constitution.
>
> Nonsense. http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm
A crackpot site, on a par with those who say the income tax is
unconstitutional. Barely worth refuting. See Article I, section 2,
clause 3, and section 9 clause 1 of the US Constitution.
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:42:06 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:46:16 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So, basically, "some guys thought so".
> >>
> >> > A lot of guys actually. Enough to write slavery into the Constitution.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm
>
> > A crackpot site, on a par with those who say the income tax is
> > unconstitutional. Barely worth refuting. See Article I, section 2,
> > clause 3, and section 9 clause 1 of the US Constitution.
>
> It is a crackpot site, no doubt, but information is not wrong just
> because a crackpot says it.
Yes, that's why I cited facts to support my position.
> It's easy enough to distinguish between
> the facts presented and the opinions of the person presenting them.
Yes, that's why I cited facts.
> [But since you apparently didn't even read it (since you bring up the
> "3/5ths" thing, which it argues near the beginning was not about
> slaves at all
Yes, but the site is wrong. That the 3/5ths refers to slaves is US
History 101.
Just because the Constitution doesn't contain the word "slave" doesn't
mean it didn't endorse (or at least permit) slavery.
If the Constitution in fact did not allow slavery, then why did they
bother passing the 13th amendment? (That's a rhetorical question by the
way.)
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>
> >> It is a crackpot site, no doubt, but information is not wrong just
> >> because a crackpot says it.
>
> > Yes, that's why I cited facts to support my position.
>
> No, you cited some words in the US Constitution
What do you think a "fact" is?
> which don't /say/ anything about slavery.
Of course they do. Do you think Hamlet's soliloquy isn't about suicide
just because Hamlet doesn't say, "I wonder if I should kill myself."?
> Why are the first ten amendments there? The unamended constitution
> doesn't allow congress to abridge freedom of speech, infringe on the
> right to bear arms, quarter soldiers in your house, etc., etc.;
Of course it does. Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade.
Without the Bill of Rights, Congress could, for example, prohibit the
transport of Bibles across state lines.
Your position is completely untenable, and you are beginning to look
ridiculous.
rg
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> > If the Constitution in fact did not allow slavery, then why did they
> > bother passing the 13th amendment? (That's a rhetorical question by the
> > way.)
>
> Why are the first ten amendments there? The unamended constitution
> doesn't allow congress to abridge freedom of speech, infringe on the
> right to bear arms, quarter soldiers in your house, etc., etc.;
> they're merely restating what the constitution already says.
I'm probably going to regret this, but really - you are beginning to
sound like someone without any clue. The Constitution, sans the
amendments, is completely silent on these points. You are just plain
wrong here. In fact, you are so wrong in this, as to indicate you
have never even looked at the document.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On 05 Dec 2005 17:32:20 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> >> > If the Constitution in fact did not allow slavery, then why did they
> >> > bother passing the 13th amendment? (That's a rhetorical question by
> >> >the way.)
> >>
> >> Why are the first ten amendments there? The unamended constitution
> >> doesn't allow congress to abridge freedom of speech, infringe on the
> >> right to bear arms, quarter soldiers in your house, etc., etc.;
> >> they're merely restating what the constitution already says.
>
> > I'm probably going to regret this, but really - you are beginning to
> > sound like someone without any clue. The Constitution, sans the
> > amendments, is completely silent on these points.
>
> Exactly. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal
> government, and the powers mentioned above are not amongst those
> granted. QED.
Instead of "QED", your "reasoning" given the context of this one point
here is more a nonsequitor. The Constitution, sans the ammendments
again, is largely about defining and laying out structure and
procedural machinery. I don't even see any "powers" at all mentioned
in the quoted text here, so your current point doesn't even seem to be
relevant, let alone an example of Holmesian level deduction. OTOH,
who cares?
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> > Just because the Constitution doesn't contain the word "slave" doesn't
> > mean it didn't endorse (or at least permit) slavery.
>
> Did you even read the argument?
Not in detail, no. Life is too short.
It doesn't matter to me that someone can put together a coherent
argument that slavery was unconstitutional even before the 13th
amendment was passed. It doesn't even matter to me if that argument is
*correct*. The fact of the matter is that well through the 1800's
enough people believed that slavery was constitutional that we had to
fight a war to settle the issue. So unless you want to try to convince
me that the Civil War never happened it's all moot because the only
point I was trying to make was that the concept of "freedom to own
slaves" is not absurd on its face.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> if you enslave me, then I am
>> not free, so your having the "right" to enslave me obviously doesn't
>> lead /toward/ "absolute freedom" but away from it!
>
> It leads towards absolute freedom for me. Why should I care about you?
But if you accept slavery and taking-away-freedom as ok, then you accept
that I take you as a slave, that I sell you to some corp for a nominal
fee, and that I have the right to end your life right now if I want to.
>>> That's how freedom was defined in America for
>>> hundreds of years.
>> Really? Defined by whom?
>
> By a substantial portion of its citizenry, including Francis Scott Keys,
> who famously dubbed the newly formed United States of America "the land
> of the free" back in 1812.
Well, some Whites banded up to enslave Blacks. I don't see how that
justifies anything. It was only a stronger majority winning a (virtual)
war against the minority. But see below.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >> if you enslave me, then I am
> >> not free, so your having the "right" to enslave me obviously doesn't
> >> lead /toward/ "absolute freedom" but away from it!
> >
> > It leads towards absolute freedom for me. Why should I care about you?
>
> But if you accept slavery and taking-away-freedom as ok, then you accept
> that I take you as a slave, that I sell you to some corp for a nominal
> fee, and that I have the right to end your life right now if I want to.
No, you're not paying attention. I'm not the one advocating slavery,
you are. Freedom is necessarily asymmetric. More freedom for me means
less freedom for you, except in those rare cases where what I choose to
do doesn't impact you in any way. Slavery is just the most extreme
example. One person's freedom to own slaves denies others the freedom
to not be slaves. One person's freedom to play loud music denies others
the freedom to enjoy peace and quiet. One person's freedom to own a
house on the beach denies others the freedom to walk on that beach.
That is why even in the United States, widely considered the most free
country on Earth, people are generally willing give up some personal
freedoms in exchange for assurances that they will not be on the losing
side of this asymmetry. (We also give up personal freedom for more
ill-considered reasons, like illusions of security, but that's a topic
for another discussion (probably in another newsgroup)).
> >>> That's how freedom was defined in America for
> >>> hundreds of years.
> >> Really? Defined by whom?
> >
> > By a substantial portion of its citizenry, including Francis Scott Keys,
> > who famously dubbed the newly formed United States of America "the land
> > of the free" back in 1812.
>
> Well, some Whites banded up to enslave Blacks. I don't see how that
> justifies anything.
It wasn't meant to "justify" anything, it was meant to illustrate that
despite the asymmetric nature of personal freedom, people nonetheless
consider those situations to constitute real freedom, even when the
asymmetries are severe. Outright slavery is out of fashion nowadays,
but in the absence of government regulation or some other kind of
collective countermeasures -- trade unions, for example -- I can still
effectively enslave you if I have billions of dollars at my disposal and
you have to work full time just to put food on the table. "Absolute
freedom" is no more a panacea than "from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs."
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> No, you're not paying attention. I'm not the one advocating slavery,
> you are. Freedom is necessarily asymmetric. More freedom for me means
> less freedom for you, except in those rare cases where what I choose to
> do doesn't impact you in any way.
And that's why, because we want one definition of Freedom that works for
both you and me, we only allow the freedom that doesn't impact other
people. What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing that's
not included in freedom is taking away others' freedom. Maybe those
things are more than those that don't impact others, but there's more
than enough left to do!
> Slavery is just the most extreme
> example. One person's freedom to own slaves denies others the freedom
> to not be slaves. One person's freedom to play loud music denies others
> the freedom to enjoy peace and quiet.
Then make an agreement. Play music with headphones, or don't play music
so loud that your neighbors can hear it. When my friend next door (in a
dorm) plays music or TV really loud, most of the time I can still sleep,
because there's a wall in between.
> One person's freedom to own a
> house on the beach denies others the freedom to walk on that beach.
Depends on who owns the beach. You don't expect to walk through other
people's bedrooms as well, so why the beach?
> That is why even in the United States, widely considered the most free
> country on Earth, people are generally willing give up some personal
> freedoms in exchange for assurances that they will not be on the losing
> side of this asymmetry. (We also give up personal freedom for more
> ill-considered reasons, like illusions of security, but that's a topic
> for another discussion (probably in another newsgroup)).
That's why people trade. They exchange things, and often they even,
*gasp*, share things. Giving up freedom is exactly the thing that
allows others power to command you around. It is what prevents you from
partaking in things you might want.
> It wasn't meant to "justify" anything, it was meant to illustrate that
> despite the asymmetric nature of personal freedom, people nonetheless
> consider those situations to constitute real freedom, even when the
> asymmetries are severe. Outright slavery is out of fashion nowadays,
> but in the absence of government regulation or some other kind of
> collective countermeasures -- trade unions, for example -- I can still
> effectively enslave you if I have billions of dollars at my disposal and
> you have to work full time just to put food on the table. "Absolute
Hm, do you own all the food supply in the world? If you have all money
on earth, and nobody else does, I don't see why *anybody* would work for
you instead of just working and trading with each other! (basically,
you having all money means either that the currency changes, or that it
deflates, this increasing people's buying power until they can trade again)
> freedom" is no more a panacea than "from each according to his
> abilities, to each according to his needs."
It isn't absolute freedom, it's the maximal possible freedom without
running into contradictions. Something like the 8 queens in chess.
They may not hinder each other, but other than that they're fine.
Fortunately our world is a lot bigger than a chessboard.
Or think of an iterative construction in maths. You keep adding things
you may do, unless they invade others' property and lives. In
collectivism some people have all the power, and most have none. So for
me it's not really hard which one I choose.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Ron Garret wrote:
>> No, you're not paying attention. I'm not the one advocating slavery, you
>> are. Freedom is necessarily asymmetric. More freedom for me means less
>> freedom for you, except in those rare cases where what I choose to do
>> doesn't impact you in any way.
>
> And that's why, because we want one definition of Freedom that works for
> both you and me, we only allow the freedom that doesn't impact other
> people. What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing that's
I think Ron has made it abundantly clear that he understands that. What you
don't understand is that how you define what it means to impact someone else
is the entire issue. His point is really trivial.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > No, you're not paying attention. I'm not the one advocating slavery,
> > you are. Freedom is necessarily asymmetric. More freedom for me means
> > less freedom for you, except in those rare cases where what I choose to
> > do doesn't impact you in any way.
>
> And that's why, because we want one definition of Freedom that works for
> both you and me, we only allow the freedom that doesn't impact other
> people.
That's an extremely limited kind of freedom. There is almost nothing
you can do that doesn't impact someone else in some way.
> What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing that's
> not included in freedom is taking away others' freedom.
Then you can't have private property, because if you own something then
you take away my freedom to use that thing.
> > Slavery is just the most extreme
> > example. One person's freedom to own slaves denies others the freedom
> > to not be slaves. One person's freedom to play loud music denies others
> > the freedom to enjoy peace and quiet.
>
> Then make an agreement. Play music with headphones, or don't play music
> so loud that your neighbors can hear it.
So now you do want to constrain my freedom? I wish you'd make up your
mind.
> I can still sleep
How fortunate for you. Do you understand that the fact that you are a
sound sleeper is irrelevant?
> > One person's freedom to own a
> > house on the beach denies others the freedom to walk on that beach.
>
> Depends on who owns the beach. You don't expect to walk through other
> people's bedrooms as well, so why the beach?
California beaches are public. And if someone builds their bedroom so
that it blocks access to the beach (and people around here do) then yes,
I do expect to be able to walk through it.
Actually, what happens here is that the people who are able to afford
houses on the beach brazenly block access in violation of the law and
just pay the fines, which are chump change in comparison to the price of
the house.
> Hm, do you own all the food supply in the world?
No, but it is not inconceivable that a corporation some day could.
Monsanto, for example, is trying hard to control the world's food
supply. Other companies are doing the same with the water supply,
mainly in third world countries at the moment.
> If you have all money
> on earth, and nobody else does, I don't see why *anybody* would work for
> you instead of just working and trading with each other!
What are they going to do if I own all the land? Or all the water? (Or
all the operating systems ;-)
> It isn't absolute freedom, it's the maximal possible freedom without
> running into contradictions. Something like the 8 queens in chess.
Yes, and my point is that doing that optimization is very, very hard.
This discussion started when someone said that the answer to the world's
economic ills is to "increase freedom" by getting rid of government
regulations. It's not that simple.
> They may not hinder each other, but other than that they're fine.
> Fortunately our world is a lot bigger than a chessboard.
It's getting smaller all the time.
rg
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:13:23 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >> Hm, do you own all the food supply in the world?
>
> > No, but it is not inconceivable that a corporation some day could.
> > Monsanto, for example, is trying hard to control the world's food
> > supply. Other companies are doing the same with the water supply,
> > mainly in third world countries at the moment.
>
> But they can only do that through government...
So?
> >> If you have all money
> >> on earth, and nobody else does, I don't see why *anybody* would work for
> >> you instead of just working and trading with each other!
>
> > What are they going to do if I own all the land? Or all the water? (Or
> > all the operating systems ;-)
>
> Such a situation can't possibly come about, absent government (i.e.,
> anti-freedom)
That's a vacuous statement because absent government the whole concept
of ownership becomes meaningless.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> And that's why, because we want one definition of Freedom that works for
>> both you and me, we only allow the freedom that doesn't impact other
>> people.
>
> That's an extremely limited kind of freedom. There is almost nothing
> you can do that doesn't impact someone else in some way.
Not at all. I can do whatever I want with or on my property (as long as
I don't harm others' property, such as with pollution), and I can
trade and talk/cooperate freely with other people. What more should I
want to ask for?
>> What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing that's
>> not included in freedom is taking away others' freedom.
>
> Then you can't have private property, because if you own something then
> you take away my freedom to use that thing.
But it's not theirs. Just like I may not harm you because that's in
your range of freedom, I can't seize your property, because that's also
in you domain of freedom.
As I mentioned: it's like an iterative construction. Add property, and
you end up with the same freedom for everybody that doesn't restrict others.
Of course you're free to come up with any other "fair" definition. I'd
like to see that, but until that happens, I stick with my concept of
freedom. The number of people worldwide that demand such freedom (some
in the small, some in the large) is a good indicator to me that that's
not a bad thing.
>>> Slavery is just the most extreme
>>> example. One person's freedom to own slaves denies others the freedom
>>> to not be slaves. One person's freedom to play loud music denies others
>>> the freedom to enjoy peace and quiet.
>> Then make an agreement. Play music with headphones, or don't play music
>> so loud that your neighbors can hear it.
>
> So now you do want to constrain my freedom? I wish you'd make up your
> mind.
No, but with an iterative construction there's no way that the
definition of freedom (that's equal for everybody) can ever include harm
to person or property. Your "freedom" to do anything isn't a freedom
that works for everybody.
>> I can still sleep
>
> How fortunate for you. Do you understand that the fact that you are a
> sound sleeper is irrelevant?
It is, even though I'm a rather unsound sleeper. I was merely saying
that people can still arrange their environment. In a non-free world,
how would this happen? Would people get along by magic? By tyrannical
democracy (say, everybody has to sleep at 8pm)?
>>> One person's freedom to own a
>>> house on the beach denies others the freedom to walk on that beach.
>> Depends on who owns the beach. You don't expect to walk through other
>> people's bedrooms as well, so why the beach?
>
> California beaches are public. And if someone builds their bedroom so
> that it blocks access to the beach (and people around here do) then yes,
> I do expect to be able to walk through it.
Ok, then the "public" is an institution that does OWN the beach, and
that grants everybody access to it (good thing in many cases, btw).
As to walking to the beach, I'm sure someone (store owners?) has an
interest in there being a road leading there, or otherwise arranging
transportation. I guess there already ARE roads, owned by somebody
(probably also the "public").
When I buy a huge farm and build a private road through it, that doesn't
permit people to just walk it. They can build a road around the farm,
or they can arrange with me permission to use it, maybe even to make it
public (by buying it, for instance).
> Actually, what happens here is that the people who are able to afford
> houses on the beach brazenly block access in violation of the law and
> just pay the fines, which are chump change in comparison to the price of
> the house.
If they build on their property, then it's their choice. If they build
on others' property (public roads and walks), then they should be sued.
>> Hm, do you own all the food supply in the world?
>
> No, but it is not inconceivable that a corporation some day could.
> Monsanto, for example, is trying hard to control the world's food
> supply. Other companies are doing the same with the water supply,
> mainly in third world countries at the moment.
Ok, but many people rightfully have an interest in crops that don't just
die after one harvest. They are organizing. They own farms, too. And
they are in control of their natural, living, crop.
I've heard about the water supplies in the third world, and I guess that
the state conspired with big capital to arrange monopolies (or
oligopolies) there. "Public" property belongs to everybody, because the
state stole it from the people (or built it using stolen money), so in a
free world the state has no right to just sell everything to one high
bidder. Privatization must mean creating a corp and giving everybody
their share.
>> If you have all money
>> on earth, and nobody else does, I don't see why *anybody* would work for
>> you instead of just working and trading with each other!
>
> What are they going to do if I own all the land? Or all the water? (Or
> all the operating systems ;-)
Why would somebody give you all land? In exchange for what? As land
gets scarcer, you wouldn't be able to afford any more of it. OTOH, if
you buy incredibly cool, cheap housing and stores there, that people
like (and thus pay for), then that would be *useful* to them, and so no
problem at all.
Also, with growing property, the need to protect it would be ever more
expensive. If other people don't like what you do, they might turn to
aggressive means (even though that's not legitimate).
>> It isn't absolute freedom, it's the maximal possible freedom without
>> running into contradictions. Something like the 8 queens in chess.
>
> Yes, and my point is that doing that optimization is very, very hard.
Agreed.
> This discussion started when someone said that the answer to the world's
> economic ills is to "increase freedom" by getting rid of government
> regulations. It's not that simple.
>
>> They may not hinder each other, but other than that they're fine.
>> Fortunately our world is a lot bigger than a chessboard.
>
> It's getting smaller all the time.
As long as people keep multiplying it does. But most industrialized
countries (and that's where the world is going) are decreasing in
numbers. The USA has vast amounts of land, as do other parts of the world.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >> And that's why, because we want one definition of Freedom that works for
> >> both you and me, we only allow the freedom that doesn't impact other
> >> people.
> >
> > That's an extremely limited kind of freedom. There is almost nothing
> > you can do that doesn't impact someone else in some way.
>
> Not at all. I can do whatever I want with or on my property (as long as
> I don't harm others' property, such as with pollution)
Once you add that caveat you're pretty limited. You can't start up your
car. (You can't even *build* a car.) In fact, you can't breathe
because doing so emits greenhouse gasses.
Polluting is part and parcel of living.
> >> What's so hard to understand about that? The only thing that's
> >> not included in freedom is taking away others' freedom.
> >
> > Then you can't have private property, because if you own something then
> > you take away my freedom to use that thing.
>
> But it's not theirs.
So? Either you have absolute freedom or you don't.
> >> I can still sleep
> >
> > How fortunate for you. Do you understand that the fact that you are a
> > sound sleeper is irrelevant?
>
> It is, even though I'm a rather unsound sleeper. I was merely saying
> that people can still arrange their environment. In a non-free world,
> how would this happen? Would people get along by magic? By tyrannical
> democracy (say, everybody has to sleep at 8pm)?
People accept reasonable limits. Some people have to put up with some
noise, and others have to put up with limits on how much noise they can
make.
> >>> One person's freedom to own a
> >>> house on the beach denies others the freedom to walk on that beach.
> >> Depends on who owns the beach. You don't expect to walk through other
> >> people's bedrooms as well, so why the beach?
> >
> > California beaches are public. And if someone builds their bedroom so
> > that it blocks access to the beach (and people around here do) then yes,
> > I do expect to be able to walk through it.
>
> Ok, then the "public" is an institution that does OWN the beach, and
> that grants everybody access to it (good thing in many cases, btw).
>
> As to walking to the beach, I'm sure someone (store owners?) has an
> interest in there being a road leading there, or otherwise arranging
> transportation. I guess there already ARE roads, owned by somebody
> (probably also the "public").
No, you don't understand. Homeowners have built solid blocks of houses
with fences that are continuous right up to the property lines. There
is physically no way to get from the road to the beach because of the
houses. There are supposed to be public right-of-ways, but the
homeowners block those too in violation of the law. They get fined, but
these people are so rich that the cost of the fine is lost in the noise
compared to the price of the house, so they just pay it.
> I've heard about the water supplies in the third world, and I guess that
> the state conspired with big capital to arrange monopolies (or
> oligopolies) there.
Yes. Imagine that.
> >> It isn't absolute freedom, it's the maximal possible freedom without
> >> running into contradictions. Something like the 8 queens in chess.
> >
> > Yes, and my point is that doing that optimization is very, very hard.
>
> Agreed.
Let's just leave it at that then.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> Polluting is part and parcel of living.
Unfortunately. Arranging how much and where it is appropriate is a
tough question. I haven't though too much about that topic yet (and I'm
a powerless citizen anyway).
> So? Either you have absolute freedom or you don't.
Only as regards my stuff and my life. It's not absolute in that the
world would be mine.
> No, you don't understand. Homeowners have built solid blocks of houses
> with fences that are continuous right up to the property lines. There
> is physically no way to get from the road to the beach because of the
> houses. There are supposed to be public right-of-ways, but the
> homeowners block those too in violation of the law. They get fined, but
> these people are so rich that the cost of the fine is lost in the noise
> compared to the price of the house, so they just pay it.
Ouch. Stupid, stupid state admins, that they didn't reserve some public
property to actually *get there*.
Now they'd indeed have to force-take land from the building owners
(like, dig a hole through??), or build some kind of street on top of the
water.
Really, I can't think how they got into that hole...
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Ouch. Stupid, stupid state admins, that they didn't reserve some public
> property to actually *get there*.
>
> Really, I can't think how they got into that hole...
In what universe does govt consistently behave otherwise?
> Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
That's not quite right.
-andy
······@earthlink.net wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Ouch. Stupid, stupid state admins, that they didn't reserve some public
>> property to actually *get there*.
>>
>> Really, I can't think how they got into that hole...
>
> In what universe does govt consistently behave otherwise?
No, you're right in that it was to be expected. I didn't think they'd
be THAT stupid, though.
>> Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
>
> That's not quite right.
Well, if you do something that conflicts with others' property, it's
criminal. If a majority in a democratic country passes a law (say,
Blacks have to sit in the back of the bus), it's a law. Ok, sometimes
they'd have to change the constitution first, but at least in Germany
the constitution seems to be as good as toilet-paper half of the time.
The "real" law is what counts.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> ······@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
> >
> > That's not quite right.
>
> Well, if you do something that conflicts with others' property, it's
> criminal.
Nope. Some things are, some aren't.
> If a majority in a democratic country passes a law
Few laws are passed by a majority. Almost all are passed by
representatives. ("Few" is charitable - direct democratic actions
usually involve only a fraction of the people so the closest you
get in practice is "a majority of voters".)
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > Polluting is part and parcel of living.
>
> Unfortunately. Arranging how much and where it is appropriate is a
> tough question. I haven't though too much about that topic yet (and I'm
> a powerless citizen anyway).
>
> > So? Either you have absolute freedom or you don't.
>
> Only as regards my stuff and my life. It's not absolute in that the
> world would be mine.
>
> > No, you don't understand. Homeowners have built solid blocks of houses
> > with fences that are continuous right up to the property lines. There
> > is physically no way to get from the road to the beach because of the
> > houses. There are supposed to be public right-of-ways, but the
> > homeowners block those too in violation of the law. They get fined, but
> > these people are so rich that the cost of the fine is lost in the noise
> > compared to the price of the house, so they just pay it.
>
> Ouch. Stupid, stupid state admins, that they didn't reserve some public
> property to actually *get there*.
They did. There are public access easements through the private
property. The property owners block those easements in violation of the
law and pay the fines. From the owner's point of view it's no different
than buying land with no easement for an additional price equal to the
amount of the fine (which is pretty small by their standards).
Those are the kinds of options that are available to you if you have
money.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>>Ouch. Stupid, stupid state admins, that they didn't reserve some public
>>property to actually *get there*.
>
> They did. There are public access easements through the private
> property. The property owners block those easements in violation of the
> law and pay the fines. From the owner's point of view it's no different
> than buying land with no easement for an additional price equal to the
> amount of the fine (which is pretty small by their standards).
>
> Those are the kinds of options that are available to you if you have
> money.
>
> rg
These are the kinds of options that are available to you if you have
money, but only because the government has no real incentive to keep the
paths to the beach open. The rich pay the fines, the bureacrats collect
the money, everyone's happy (except those who would use the beach).
Their careers don't depend on pleasing the people who use the beach.
Can you imagine how someone who owned a private beach would do it?
They'd offer a small part of their profits to someone who allowed access
across their land, or they'd buy a thin strip of land between two
houses. If no one would agree to their offer, they'd SELL THE BEACH
because it's not worth the trouble to own a beach you can't make a
profit on!
Instead, the government sits there pouring taxpayer money into maintaing
a beach that no one can get to! People wanting to make the maximum use
of their property is not the problem, government waste is the problem.
Of course, if the government were truly efficient (thank God it's not),
they'd threaten the homeowners who wanted to use their own property. If
the homeowners refused, they'd be jailed, or better yet, shot. See?
Problem solved, now there's a nice wide public path to the beach. The
common good has been advanced again.
-aaron
P.S. Notice how the free market automatically adjusts to something like
these fines? Even when people try to use force, the market can adjust
to some degree. It's lovely.
Aaron Sokoloski wrote:
> If no one would agree to their offer, they'd SELL THE BEACH
> because it's not worth the trouble to own a beach you can't make a
> profit on!
Actually if the beach is nice (i.e. worth using) then someone *would*
buy it and open access to it, in cooperation with the people owning
houses. Imagine how the house-owners would like living right next to an
awesome beach that's looked after, where people go, where there are some
stores...
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Aaron Sokoloski wrote:
> > If no one would agree to their offer, they'd SELL THE BEACH
> > because it's not worth the trouble to own a beach you can't make a
> > profit on!
>
> Actually if the beach is nice (i.e. worth using) then someone *would*
> buy it and open access to it, in cooperation with the people owning
> houses. Imagine how the house-owners would like living right next to an
> awesome beach that's looked after, where people go, where there are some
> stores...
Both of you just don't get it. These homeowners are *rich*. Many of
them are celebrities. They do not want to live next to a beach where
people go, they want a beach where the public is excluded so that they
can have privacy.
The "owner" of the beach (the government/public) *has* secured legal
right of access to the beach. That right of access is being *illegally*
blocked by force (fences and private security guards). The legal
recourse available (fines) is *ineffective* in deterring this illegal
behavior. Finally, the owners of the houses would buy the beach in an
instant if it were offered to them, but some of the current owners
(members of the public) consider the beach to be priceless and would
refuse to sell under any circumstances.
BTW, you can see a similar dynamic playing itself out in the Middle
East. In both cases you have two parties both of which want the same
piece of land. At least one party doesn't want to share, and has the
means to forcibly exclude the other. It is naive to think that such
problems can be solved simply by appeal to market forces.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> Both of you just don't get it. These homeowners are *rich*. Many of
> them are celebrities. They do not want to live next to a beach where
> people go, they want a beach where the public is excluded so that they
> can have privacy.
That's ok too. They can buy the beach. The opportunity cost in having
a *public* beach is that you don't get all that money from those rich
celebs. Not that any amount of money would help government, giving
current spending trends.
> The "owner" of the beach (the government/public) *has* secured legal
> right of access to the beach. That right of access is being *illegally*
> blocked by force (fences and private security guards). The legal
> recourse available (fines) is *ineffective* in deterring this illegal
> behavior. Finally, the owners of the houses would buy the beach in an
> instant if it were offered to them, but some of the current owners
> (members of the public) consider the beach to be priceless and would
> refuse to sell under any circumstances.
Well, that's because for some reason The Law doesn't include an undoing
of said violations. If access is blocked, it has to be unblocked (by
force if needed). Monetary fines are totally irrelevant; they have
nothing to do with the problem. Government doesn't get it. Fines is
all they care about, not undoing crimes as far as that would be possible.
> BTW, you can see a similar dynamic playing itself out in the Middle
> East. In both cases you have two parties both of which want the same
> piece of land. At least one party doesn't want to share, and has the
> means to forcibly exclude the other. It is naive to think that such
> problems can be solved simply by appeal to market forces.
I agree. You can't deal with insane people in a rational way.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> I agree. You can't deal with insane people in a rational way.
And yet, on a small planet, you have no choice but to deal with them
somehow.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
> You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
> position, and you have all the complications that come with trying to
> navigate the middle of the road. If I crank up my stereo am I hurting
But it *is* the anarchist position. It completely free, except that you
have to repect life and property rights of others.
> you? What if you can't sleep? If I live upstream from you and I dump
Well, at least you might be hurting the person renting the house to
somebody, because if somebody can't sleep he doesn't want to pay high
rent for the house. You also arguably hurt the one living there.
Homesteading applies, too.
If you built a house long ago and play loud music every night, the
person who builds next to you should have to live with it (because
that's what constitutes local culture around your house), but if you
just moved it, you'd have to adapt to the old situation, that is: don't
play loud music after 10pm maybe. Perhaps the owner of the house
explicitly puts this into the rent contract, so rents are higher
(because his renters don't have to suffer noise). There's many solutions.
> my sewage into the creek, am I stealing from you? If you are forced by
No, but you're poisoning his property (his part of the stream, say).
The problem in real life right now is that people that live at rivers
can't sue the factories upstream, because it's "public" land (such as in
the case of some Native Americans) and the US don't care.
> circumstance to choose between working twelve hours a day seven days a
> week to pay for the basic necessities of life or starving, are you
> enslaved?
If you move to China with nothing, is it right to steal for you? or
would it be right to work to earn your share? What if it's not about
China, but about being born? or about moving to another city? Do you
have a right to demand certain wages if nobody is willing to pay them to
you (as you say)?
If what you say is common, those people should band up and grow their
own food instead of being wage slaves to evil rich people.
> Yes, but what if your unsightly lawn is hurting me? This is not as
How could it? It's next to your property, it's not polluting the air.
Well, maybe if it's so high that it blocks all the sun from your garden ;)
> implausible as it sounds. There are studies that show that failing to
> perform basic maintenance leads eventually to higher crime rates.
Yes, but then they should prosecute the criminals, right? The gardener
isn't always the murderer.
>> In my view, allowing people to do what they want with their own lives
>> and property is the most moderate view you can take. Asserting that
>> any one person has the right to restrict the freedom of another person
>> is extreme to me.
>
> I make no such assertion. I say that sometimes we have to collectively
> limit individual freedom for the common good. Government is the
> mechanism by which we do that.
So 60%, or maybe a small elite, decide what the common good is? Ok,
let's plunder all them Asians, Jews, and other rich people! I think
it's very very dangerous to allow a majority to take away a minority's
freedoms (and vice versa).
That isn't saying that we don't want welfare to help poor people. The
question is: do you want to plunder, using force, a family of three that
really can't afford their high income tax at the moment (maybe they're
in debt, too?), or do you want the same welfare without force, i.e. charity?
People do care. Germany donated more than �600M to Tsunami victims in a
year. The government added another �500M without asking the people (and
of course government chose what organisation should receive the money)...
I think if the USA didn't have welfare (rather than the piecemeal
welfare they have now) more people would actually help the poor. Either
abolish welfare, or make it a complete protection system, as in parts of
Europe. The US way only hurts.
>> The absolute question is - are you willing to kill anyone who resists
>> their loss of freedom? Of course, with most people you won't have to.
>> But, the tool for restricting freedom is always violent force.
>
> Do you have a better suggestion for how to deal with psychopaths who
> think that what they want to do trumps everyone else?
What do you do when a psychopath with a chainsaw enters your house?
Call the police and wait? Warn, and then shoot him (leg, then arm, then
trunk), while you can, if he starts going for you? If you don't have a
gun, run away, ask the neighbors...?
How did people do it without in small villages without government around
(neighboring village off by 50 miles maybe)? They surely must have all
died...
Nobody says you don't have the right to defend yourself!
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In article <···············@individual.net>,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
> > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
> > position, and you have all the complications that come with trying to
> > navigate the middle of the road. If I crank up my stereo am I hurting
>
> But it *is* the anarchist position. It completely free, except that you
> have to repect life and property rights of others.
That's like saying that the bamboo steamer is completely free except
that you have to pay a nominal shipping and handling charge. If it's
"completely free except" then it's not completely free, and it's not an
extreme position. (And it has nothing to do with anarchy -- the people
who subscribe to this position need a new publicist).
rg
"Arthur Lemmens" <········@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
······················@news.xs4all.nl...
> Ron Garret wrote:
>
>> bamboo steamer
>
> Oh, man... First "working women", now "bamboo steamers".
> What's next?
Women working bamboo steamers, of course.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
>> Oh, man... First "working women", now "bamboo steamers".
>> What's next?
>
> Women working bamboo steamers, of course.
Steaming women working bamboo?
Bamboo workers steaming women?
Working bamboo-steaming women?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>>> Oh, man... First "working women", now "bamboo steamers".
>>> What's next?
>>
>> Women working bamboo steamers, of course.
>
> Steaming women working bamboo?
>
> Bamboo workers steaming women?
>
> Working bamboo-steaming women?
There's a good title for a porn-film in there somewhere! :)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <···············@individual.net>,
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>> > You answered your own question. When you limit freedom by not allowing
>> > me to hurt, enslave or steal from you then you no longer have an extreme
>> > position, and you have all the complications that come with trying to
>> > navigate the middle of the road. If I crank up my stereo am I hurting
>>
>> But it *is* the anarchist position. It completely free, except that you
>> have to repect life and property rights of others.
>
> That's like saying that the bamboo steamer is completely free except
> that you have to pay a nominal shipping and handling charge. If it's
> "completely free except" then it's not completely free, and it's not an
> extreme position. (And it has nothing to do with anarchy -- the people
> who subscribe to this position need a new publicist).
You seem to be implying that anarchists advocate complete freedom,
including the freedom to take other people's freedoms away, or to do
things to others that one expects not to have done to
oneself. Complete freedom so defined is not the anarchist's position,
it is the psychopath's position. Anarchists are not psychopaths. Nor
are they any more or less violent than anyone else.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"Nasty, tricksy parenthesises. We hates them!"
-- Sampo Smolander
David Trudgett wrote:
> You seem to be implying that anarchists advocate complete freedom,
> including the freedom to take other people's freedoms away, or to do
> things to others that one expects not to have done to
> oneself. Complete freedom so defined is not the anarchist's position,
> it is the psychopath's position. Anarchists are not psychopaths. Nor
> are they any more or less violent than anyone else.
Exactly. It logically follows that government is psychopathic in
nature, because it may (with the "legitimation" of either a minority, or
today a slight majority (but representatives are only a tiny minority of
society as well)) take away arbitrary freedoms from anybody.
In fact freedom is (quasi) defined as: the Godvernment gives it, the
Godvernment takes it.
Sure, there's still a constitution if you're lucky, but that's been made
by some government as well.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> You seem to be implying that anarchists advocate complete freedom,
>> including the freedom to take other people's freedoms away, or to do
>> things to others that one expects not to have done to
>> oneself. Complete freedom so defined is not the anarchist's position,
>> it is the psychopath's position. Anarchists are not psychopaths. Nor
>> are they any more or less violent than anyone else.
>
> Exactly. It logically follows that government is psychopathic in
> nature, because it may (with the "legitimation" of either a minority,
> or today a slight majority (but representatives are only a tiny
> minority of society as well)) take away arbitrary freedoms from
> anybody.
Yes, that's quite true. "Democracy" is only the tyranny of the
majority, as you well know. It's sad (but hasn't happened by chance)
that so many people see "democracy" as some sort of worthy goal to aim
for. They have their sights set very low.
Anyway, I think this OT thread has gone on long enough, so I for one
will probably not be posting any more here.
Thank you all for your input.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning
people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as
applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to
improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of
their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters,
and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon
human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set
themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their
views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end
justifies the means.
-- Henry Grady Weaver (author),
(from The Mainspring of Human Progress)
David Trudgett wrote:
> Yes, that's quite true. "Democracy" is only the tyranny of the
> majority, as you well know. It's sad (but hasn't happened by chance)
> that so many people see "democracy" as some sort of worthy goal to aim
> for. They have their sights set very low.
Only political people. Most people in most countries I know of despise
politicians as the kind of people that talk all day and don't do
anything useful. They're right, they are a substantial minority (most
of them are non-voters), but they don't have any power.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
David Trudgett wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> >
> > Exactly. It logically follows that government is psychopathic in
> > nature, because it may (with the "legitimation" of either a minority,
> > or today a slight majority (but representatives are only a tiny
> > minority of society as well)) take away arbitrary freedoms from
> > anybody.
>
> Yes, that's quite true. "Democracy" is only the tyranny of the
> majority, as you well know. It's sad (but hasn't happened by chance)
> that so many people see "democracy" as some sort of worthy goal to aim
> for. They have their sights set very low.
As this is the Thread Which Will Not Die, let me offer one bit of
input:
There is a definition of democracy, which is that people should have
the ability to participate in decisionmaking which affects them, in
roughly the proportion they're affected by the decision.
I will not "defend" this particular definition, and merely post to
inform. Just a few notes:
* This definition is not based on terms such as "voting", "consensus",
or "fiat". Those last three are merely decisionmaking tools.
* I did not state whether this particular definition is realizable in
the world. That is up to you to decide. However, I do have evidence
that it is a definition which fairly well describes the stated
objectives of real-world organizations which call themselves
"democratic."
* I am aware that people have alternate definitions of democracy.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> As this is the Thread Which Will Not Die, let me offer one bit of
> input:
>
> There is a definition of democracy, which is that people should have
> the ability to participate in decisionmaking which affects them, in
> roughly the proportion they're affected by the decision.
That is the only definition of demcracy that I'd accept, even :)
Yes, that'd mean only community-level (i.e. sub-city) decisions, no
federal crap.
But if you break down who-owns-the-land even further, you end up with a
free society: everybody decides (alone) for their own property, instead
of deciding in groups of 100 for whole blocks of houses.
On a very small-scale level I think democracy would be a great
improvement over the tyrannies we endure.
> I will not "defend" this particular definition, and merely post to
> inform. Just a few notes:
>
> * This definition is not based on terms such as "voting", "consensus",
> or "fiat". Those last three are merely decisionmaking tools.
But what else would there be? You only avoid a free society by
declaring everything to be owned by a (hopefully small) community, and
by introducing democracy (with voting or consensus I suppose) as the
decision rule for that community. Maybe communities should vote first
if they want that rule ;)
> * I did not state whether this particular definition is realizable in
> the world. That is up to you to decide. However, I do have evidence
Of course. AFAIK we even have that in Germany (and the US?) to some
degree. The problem is only to abolish all those corporate-sponsored or
majority-tyrannified state- and federal-level legislations.
> that it is a definition which fairly well describes the stated
> objectives of real-world organizations which call themselves
> "democratic."
At least in '98 Germany's Social-democratic party announced that they'd
stand for more participatory democracy. Needless to say nothing
happened, even though their partnering party (the more left-wing Greens)
was even more in favor of just that!
No matter what they say, we don't *have* democracy.
> * I am aware that people have alternate definitions of democracy.
"Rule of the people" would be my translation.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> If you built a house long ago and play loud music every night, the
> person who builds next to you should have to live with it (because
> that's what constitutes local culture around your house)
You know, I wish this argument would actually fly. But in practice it
does not. I made this discovery when operating a .300 Win Mag on a
property that I lived most of my life on that used to be surrounded by
empty farm land.
It didn't seem that loud to me with my plugs and muffs. ;-)
I also got the impression that the PA State Police really enjoy
responding to noise complaints. So many of them showed up. Perhaps
it was just a slow day for them.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
Ron Garret wrote:
> Working mothers ...
Ah, the good old days when Jon Harrop was discussing his benchmarks.
You only know what you miss when it's gone...
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:40:00 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >> This last sentence is what I wish most people would think about. It's
> >> all cool to make a law to help poor people (even if it's against
> >> freedom, but that's not my point here), but the problem and point is,
> >> that most of these reforms actually make things *worse* for the poor.
>
> > How do you know? It's very hard to do a control experiment. Can you
> > cite a source (and I mean actual data, not just another right wing nut
> > proclaiming it to be true)?
>
> Hmmm. What sort of "data" would be acceptable to you?
I didn't ask for data, I just asked for a source that consisted of
something -- anything -- more than just another person asserting that
it's true.
> How do you know 2+2 is 4?
See http://rondam.blogspot.com/2005/09/metaphysics-of-chocolate.html
rg
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> How do you know 2+2 is 4?
>
> See http://rondam.blogspot.com/2005/09/metaphysics-of-chocolate.html
I think it's more useful to realize that 2+2=4 by definition.
That is, "4" is the name we give to the result of the operation "2+2",
which happen to be the same result of the operations: "1+3", "3+1",
"1+1+2", "1+2+1", "2+1+1", and "1+1+1+1".
And the reason why 2+2 is not 5, is because if you suppose that 2+2=5,
then you can deduce that 0=1 which is false, therefore we know that
2+2 is not 5.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:59:28 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>> How do you know 2+2 is 4?
>>
>> See http://rondam.blogspot.com/2005/09/metaphysics-of-chocolate.html
>
> I think it's more useful to realize that 2+2=4 by definition.
I beg to differ. Russell and Whitehead proved that 1+1=2 (from which it
follows that 2+2=4). See page 362 of the Principia Mathematica.
Best wishes,
Bill.
This is somewhat off-topic, by which I mean back on topic. I think
that there is a valid comparison to be made by the freedom Lisp affords
the programmer and the freedom a libertarian society affords the
individual.
In a non-free society, be it totalitarian, democratic, whatever, if you
want to change the rules, you have to go through the government, a
process which is long, tedious, and not guaranteed in the least. Some
societies allow more input from the individual than others.
In a non-free language, Java, for example, if you want to change the
syntax you have to submit your idea to whoever is responsible for the
language standard/implementation. Again, this process is long and
tedious, though arguably more likely to work than changing a law. Some
languages, as with some societies, allow more individual input than
others.
In lisp, on the other hand, macros allow each programmer to change the
language to suit themselves. They can't modify other people's code
without permission, but they have complete freedom with all the code
they write. And the language has been designed to allow the programmer
this freedom.
The same is true with a libertarian society. You have the freedom to
establish whatever rules you want, on and with your own property. You
can't make rules for other people, but if you own it, you do what you
want. If you see a problem, no one stops you from creating a business
to market a solution. The society flows and evolves faster than the
non-free one.
However, with societies and with languages, there will always be those
who don't see the value in freedom. "What would I ever use macros for?
I can't see any situation where I would use them". The problem comes
when those who don't value/fear the freedom take it away from those who
do. In languages we have choice, in societies less so. And if you
want an insulated, less free environment in Lisp or a libertarian
society, you can make it. In lisp you make a sandbox or a
domain-specific language, in a libertarian society you make a
homeowner's association, for example, where you have to keep your grass
cut, and people choose whether or not to live there.
As Paul Graham said in one of his articles (I'm paraphrasing), the best
languages are those that are designed for self-use. When people design
something for other people, they don't make the best possible tool,
they try to keep the user from hurting themselves. What politician has
ever created a welfare/public housing project that he/she expects to
need? What bodyguard-employing politician ever expects to be affected
by a gun control law? And it's not just politicians.
No one ever wants a law that curtails a freedom they want to exercise
themselves. Tax the rich, not me. I'm considered rich? Then just
tax the super-rich. Ban drugs, they hurt you and I've never used them.
Most people are all for removing freedoms, EXCEPT the ones they use.
And Lisp was designed by people who wanted the freedom to do whatever
they could ever think of.
The main difference between societies and programming languages is that
it's possible to write a Lisp interpreter in Java, but you can't make a
free society inside a non-free one. Otherwise all the libertarians
would already be there.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:18:41 -0800, Aaron Sokoloski wrote:
>
> When people design something for other people, they don't make the best
> possible tool, they try to keep the user from hurting themselves.
[snip]
> The main difference between societies and programming languages is that
> it's possible to write a Lisp interpreter in Java...
No the main difference between societies and programming languages is that
you can't *really* hurt anyone using a programming language. Whereas in a
society where I have too much freedom, I can hurt you by:
- Using up all the resources so that you don't get any.
- Polluting your bit of the environment so that your resources are useless.
- Selling you a product that is defective and sometimes explodes and kills
you (I also have the option of using marketing to cover-up the defect so
that the "free" market doesn't work and people keep buying the product).
etc.
The better analogy, IMHO, rather than programming languages, is operating
systems, especially when large numbers of them are connected to the
internet. Certain versions of Microsoft Windows have given people
*enormous* freedom... which makes them excellent vectors for nasties like
viruses and worms.
Best wishes,
Bill.
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> Using up all the resources /you own/ can't hurt me, since I can't use
> them anyway (you own them!). Using up resources you /don't/ own would
> be theft -- a crime.
> Another property rights issue: polluting "my bit of the environment"
> would be trespass -- a crime.
But that's exactly the point: What's your bit of the environment;
which are mine, which are your resources? Who owns the gold of the
gold mines? What may I do with my part of the river (and how do we
determine, which is my part of the river)?
All this and many more problems will arise and in any big enough
community these problems cannot be solved without some kind of
government or administration. You need rules (like what's a crime)
and you need a force to make people obey these rules.
Single persons may be intelligent but a (great) mass of people is
not. That's one of the main reasons we need states. One of the
other main reasons: There will be always people which don't obey
the rules.
Like capitalism also democracy is really bad, but it's the best we
know.
--
Stefan.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>> You need rules (like what's a crime)
>> and you need a force to make people obey these rules.
>
> Sure...but nobody ever suggested otherwise. But you /don't/ need
> somebody "making up" new rules (legislators), nor does the supply of
> any necessary force to deter criminals need be done by a single
> monopolistic organisation, be funded through taxation, or be imposed
> against anyone's will, etc. In fact, those things all necessarily
> require the /commission/ of crime...the state is, by definition, a
> criminal organisation.
The biggest problem is maybe that
(1) police is sometimes (or often) corrupt and harms people
(2) often police simply tells you to bugger off instead of helping
A private insurance for property or violence would be better in these
respects, and people without much property could even save the money
instead of paying luxury protection that only benefits the rich anyway.
>> Single persons may be intelligent but a (great) mass of people is
>> not. That's one of the main reasons we need states. One of the
>> other main reasons: There will be always people which don't obey
>> the rules.
>
> We have states today. There are criminals today. States apparently
> don't achieve the effect you credit them with...
To be honest, there'll always be some crime ;)
>> Like capitalism also democracy is really bad, but it's the best we
>> know.
>
> No it isn't. [Read Hans Hoppe's _Democracy: The God that Failed_]
Democracy is much worse than anything else. I'd much prefer a fixed
constitution for a fixed government that makes sense and that has to be
ratified by 80% of voters, even if it's not completely libertarian (but
since it's static it would have to disallow increasing the public debt
for instance). Just *please* abolish the bullcrap we have now.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Aaron Sokoloski wrote:
> No one ever wants a law that curtails a freedom they want to exercise
> themselves. Tax the rich, not me. I'm considered rich? Then just
> tax the super-rich. Ban drugs, they hurt you and I've never used them.
> Most people are all for removing freedoms, EXCEPT the ones they use.
> And Lisp was designed by people who wanted the freedom to do whatever
> they could ever think of.
It's the static typing notion (in politics: conservative) that people
need to be restrained by an orthodox orderly system in order to
"function" "well".
> The main difference between societies and programming languages is that
> it's possible to write a Lisp interpreter in Java, but you can't make a
> free society inside a non-free one. Otherwise all the libertarians
> would already be there.
I was thinking to create a virtual currency and marketplace on the web
(and with a locality indicator), so people in any area could trade over
the web (goods, but also services; basically everything that could be
put into a contract), perhaps without shipping fees, and with an
inflation-free currency, and without needing to resort to real currency.
Someone said that even then government would *estimate* peoples'
earnings and ask for taxes, so I kind of gave up the idea.
You *can* create a free society inside a non-free one, but just like
Lisp on Java it has high overhead.
The assembler solution is much less wasteful.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:43:30 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> I was thinking to create a virtual currency and marketplace on the web
>> (and with a locality indicator), so people in any area could trade
>> over the web (goods, but also services; basically everything that
>> could be put into a contract), perhaps without shipping fees, and with
>> an inflation-free currency, and without needing to resort to real
>> currency.
>
> Pecunix, 1MDC, e-gold, GoldMoney, e-Bullion, American Liberty Dollar,
> Phoenix Dollar ...
Gold is a cool thing, sure, but I always wonder how it's any
inflation-free, when there are gold-mines running at full power...
>> Someone said that even then government would *estimate* peoples'
>> earnings and ask for taxes, so I kind of gave up the idea.
>
> Live in (at least) one political jurisdiction, have your assets in
> another, your business domiciled in a third and its assets and
> activities in a fourth, and a passport from a fifth. Preferably live
> in two or three different countries throughout the year, so you're not
> "resident" in any of them for tax purposes.
Yeah, *that*'s what I call overhead ;)
I guess I'll keep trying to elect a semi-non-stupid government and maybe
move countries to the least evil one.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> > > That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing
> > > "artificial" about the price of labor being subject to supply and
> > > demand.
> >
> > Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> > artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that
> > there is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
>
> Money is an optimization to make exchange easier. Supply and
> demand are objective phenomena that exist independently of money. If
> people used barter exclusively, supply and demand would still be
> issues.
Yes, but barter is artificial too, at least to the level of
sophistication required for the so-called "law" of supply and demand to
manifest itself. I'm no expert, but I'd be real surprised if bonobo BPF
(you figure it out) rate rises when the ratio of males to females rises.
> "Regulations" on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
A nice aphorism, but it isn't true. The thirteenth amendment, for
example, is a regulation on the market. Would you say it is in direct
conflict with liberty?
> Freedom is not just an absolute good in and of itself. Freedom
> _works_. Private charities get people out of poverty. Private land
> owners (including organizations like the Sierra Club) have a vested
> interest in protecting their part of the environment. Wealth is
> created only by individuals and organizations who are subject to the
> feedback of the free market, and that wealth increases the standard of
> living for everyone.
>
> Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. It is, however, the
> best possible solution available. Individual liberty, and the free
> markets that result, can be messy, confusing, loud, crude, and
> thoroughly confusing. The closer we get to the ideal, the better off
> we all are.
Arguably the closest the United States has ever come to putting this
theory to the test was in the early part of the 20th century. The
result was the Great Depression.
Freedom does well in some domains according to certain quality metrics,
not so well in others. Part of the problem is that "freedom" is not
really well defined. Does freedom include the freedom to own slaves?
How about the freedom to sell your children into indentured servitude?
To sell yourself? Your kidneys?
Look, I'm all for freedom. But, like everything else, if you push it to
an extreme you run into all sorts of nonlinearities. It's a complicated
problem, and, as always, Ron's first law applies: all extreme positions
are wrong.
rg
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme
Date:
Message-ID: <u4q5uey5s.fsf@gnu.org>
> * Ron Garret <·········@sybjarg.pbz> [2005-11-30 10:23:51 -0800]:
>
> In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
> Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
>
>> "Regulations" on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
>
> A nice aphorism, but it isn't true.
I would dare to amend the aphorism:
Arbitrary regulations on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
> The thirteenth amendment, for example, is a regulation on the market.
> Would you say it is in direct conflict with liberty?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiii.html
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Banning of "slavery" does appear to prevent someone from voluntarily
selling oneself.
This limitation (in fact, banning of a certain market) logically follows
from the fundamental principle that "involuntary servitude" requires a
conviction of a crime: even if one had a right to sell oneself, the
buyer would not be able to enforce the sale ("involuntary servitude")
except by suing for breach of contract (which is a civil issue and
cannot result in a criminal conviction).
Thus the limitation on markets imposed by this amendment is no more
arbitrary than the limitation on flight imposed by the gravity.
> It's a complicated problem, and, as always, Ron's first law applies:
> all extreme positions are wrong.
this "Ron's first law" contradicts Sam's dictum:
judging positions by extraneous[*] parameters is wrong
[*] e.g.: the source of a proposition, the formulation, PC &c.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.memri.org/ http://pmw.org.il/ http://www.honestreporting.com
http://www.dhimmi.com/ http://www.iris.org.il
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
In article <·············@gnu.org>, Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> wrote:
> > * Ron Garret <·········@sybjarg.pbz> [2005-11-30 10:23:51 -0800]:
> >
> > In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Regulations" on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
> >
> > A nice aphorism, but it isn't true.
>
> I would dare to amend the aphorism:
>
> Arbitrary regulations on markets are in direct conflict with liberty.
But that just shifts everything onto the definition of the word
"arbitrary". Who decides what is arbitrary and what is not?
> This limitation (in fact, banning of a certain market) logically follows
> from the fundamental principle that "involuntary servitude" requires a
> conviction of a crime:
Why is that a fundamental principle?
> Thus the limitation on markets imposed by this amendment is no more
> arbitrary than the limitation on flight imposed by the gravity.
Ridiculous. Constitutional amendments can be (and have been) repealed.
Laws of physics cannot be.
rg
> Arguably the closest the United States has ever come to putting this
> theory to the test was in the early part of the 20th century. The
> result was the Great Depression.
Actually, it was Hoover's intervention that exacerbated the crash. The
US economy had undergone many minor corrections before then, but
Hoover's actions were different from those that went before him (quote
is from his renomination speech in 1932):
"We might have done nothing... Instead, we met the situation with
proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic
program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the
history of the Republic. We put it into action... No government in
Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a
responsibility for leadership in such times."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard96.html
Does that sound like a free market to you?
>>Look, I'm all for freedom. But, like everything else, if you push it to
>>an extreme you run into all sorts of nonlinearities. It's a complicated
>>problem, and, as always, Ron's first law applies: all extreme positions
>>are wrong.
>
>
> That must include the extreme position that "all extreme positions are
> wrong"? Which implies that some extreme positions are correct
Aren't we forgetting that only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
> Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
>> > > There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price
>> > > for labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it
>> > > reflects the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
>> > > Would you say that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated
>> > > when there is a freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
>> >
>> > There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this
>> > debate are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There
>> > are methods of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them
>> > into animal feed) that are simply not considered acceptable to apply
>> > to excess labor.
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "artificial"
>> about the price of labor being subject to supply and demand.
>
> Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that there
> is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
banana to females in exchange for sex...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Wanna go outside.
Oh, no! Help! I got outside!
Let me back inside!
In article <··············@thalassa.informatimago.com>,
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>
> > In article <··············@patrick.intamission.com>,
> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
> >> > Patrick May <···@spe.com> wrote:
> >> > > There is nothing artificial about it. The wage is the price
> >> > > for labor. In the absence of interference in the market, it
> >> > > reflects the point where the supply and demand curves intersect.
> >> > > Would you say that the price of oranges is _artificially_ inflated
> >> > > when there is a freeze in Florida that reduces the supply?
> >> >
> >> > There is an elephant in the living room that both sides of this
> >> > debate are overlooking: labor is not analogous to oranges. There
> >> > are methods of dispensing with excess oranges (like turning them
> >> > into animal feed) that are simply not considered acceptable to apply
> >> > to excess labor.
> >>
> >> That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "artificial"
> >> about the price of labor being subject to supply and demand.
> >
> > Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> > artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that there
> > is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
>
> I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
> banana to females in exchange for sex...
That's barter, not the same thing.
rg
Ron Garret wrote:
>> I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
>> banana to females in exchange for sex...
>
> That's barter, not the same thing.
If you add up all barter in a community, you end up with measures of:
demand and supply.
In the end they'll notice that bananas are more scarce than sex, and
that the conceived kids also want bananas, resulting in a sharp price
rise ;)
(or do bananas have a contraceptive effect on Bonobos? That might
explain things!)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ron Garret wrote:
>>I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
>>banana to females in exchange for sex...
>
>
> That's barter, not the same thing.
no, that would be extersion actually; barter is when you exchange
something or a service for something else (or a service) of equal
value; the female bonobo provides a service (sex) and is rewarded
with another service of same value (sex) right away; the bananas
are extra.
--Sylvain
Sylvain <····@att.net> writes:
> Ron Garret wrote:
>>>I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
>>>banana to females in exchange for sex...
>> That's barter, not the same thing.
>
>
> no, that would be extersion actually; barter is when you exchange
> something or a service for something else (or a service) of equal
> value; the female bonobo provides a service (sex) and is rewarded
> with another service of same value (sex) right away; the bananas
> are extra.
It looks like:
(male :has sex) = (+ (female :has sex) (female :has banana))
When you watch the video, you don't get the impression the banana is
an extra (it's given before the intercourse).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You can tell the Lisp programmers. They have pockets full of punch
cards with close parentheses on them." --> http://tinyurl.com/8ubpf
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:27:42 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>>> Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
>>> artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that there
>>> is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
>
>> I guess then it's the humans who teached the Bonobo monkeys to give a
>> banana to females in exchange for sex...
>
> Does that work for humans?
Well, try with bananas, a lot of them, like 300 kg and tell us how it worked.
Funny: a human would be worth 1500 bonobos... :-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You can tell the Lisp programmers. They have pockets full of punch
cards with close parentheses on them." --> http://tinyurl.com/8ubpf
Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> writes:
>>
>> That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "artificial"
>> about the price of labor being subject to supply and demand.
>
> Hogwash. Money is a human invention. Saying that there is nothing
> artificial about the law of supply and demand is like saying that
> there is nothing artificial about traffic jams.
Money's a human invention, but supply and demand are not: there is a
supply of natural resources and of skill; there is demand for those
resources and skills. Money's just a convenient way to manage all this,
far simpler than everyone having to haggle (okay, this piece of software
will cost you 1 cow every three months, and then I can buy two bushels
of wheat, a peck of oranges and some kilowatt-hours of electricity with
the steaks).
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
On behalf of His Majesty's Atomic Space Navy, I hereby invite you to
surrender peacefully, so we can execute you in an orderly fashion.
--Lieutenant Giggywig, Spaced Invaders
Tim X wrote:
> No, I would suggest your in the erroneous right wing capitalist
> manifesto which only sees things based on the demand for labor and
> overlooks the other side, the supply and its impact. As I stated, this
> is one-eyed and part of the reason things got so screwed up when
> people tried applying Kenysian economics.
Hey, resource and labor allocations in capitalism surely aren't perfect,
but what's the alternative? My position and that of most economists is
that centralized allocation makes many more mistakes than decentralized
allocation, and that it distorts the market and profits minorities. In
capitalism people start off differently, but where is that not the case?
Surely not in Socialism.
So I'd rather just take *some* protective measure (one single subsidy to
low-earners) instead of giving up capitalism, the results of which we
already see IMHO.
> Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
> labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially depressed. If
> the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get artificially
> inflated.
Maybe you are right, but all "corrective" measures only made the
problems worse. Minimum wages help big corporations like Wal Mart, but
harm competition and unemployed people (who could be able to earn low
wages in addition to some welfare to make a living). etc.
A rise in living standard will trickle down to employees (as it did in
many countries so far), whereas the trickle-up theory of interventionism
didn't really seem to work so far.
> The problem with this demand and supply is that it sounds very simple
> and when you are talking about production/manufacturing, it is fairly
> straight forward. If the supply of some commodity other than labor is
> too high, the balance becomes re-addressed by factories closing down
> etc. If demand exceeds supply, factories are built to meet that
> demand. However, labor is more complex because we are dealing with
> other humans - you cannot just kill off some to reduce the supply and
> you cannot just build them to meet demand. We have issues of morality,
> justice and decency to contend with (well at least most of us do).
The problem is that supply/demand laws are the same for labor as for
production. I don't like that too much myself, but it's real, and we
have to live with it. Again: what are the alternatives? When there are
no jobs in one area, or a demand in another area, there is no
alternative but for people to adapt to that.
> Yes, to some degree I agree. Part of the problem is changing government
> powers between left and right. The left does what it can to restrict
> the labor supply to increase wages, the right does what it can to
> increase the supply to force wages down and the employee is left in
> the mess that results.
The moral is that both left and right only create laws that profit one
certain group of society, so the libertarian simply wants to create a
level playing field for all. When state power is heavily reduced, there
isn't even a possibility to create monopolies by bribe etc. so we
wouldn't have the current mercantilism.
> However, I do not agree with a totally free open market. Capitalism is
> an inherently greedy paradigm which values the individual over the
> group too much. This is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not least of
What about organizations, small companies? As a single person you can't
do much in capitalism, because you probably don't have the resources.
Together, people with just a little capital can get good things moving.
At least in German law, the several kinds of companies (i.e. cooperative
organizations) there are are the *essence* of trade, and so, of capitalism.
> which is the fact the individual has a very short term view of things
> and rarely cares about what they leave behind. In the past, the only
Then why do we have long-term planning corporations, like insurances?
Why should the capitalist prefer short-term over long-term profits? I
prefer long-time to rich now and broke in fifteen years.
> thing which placed any constraints on what was done under the need for
> profit was individual morality concerning right and wrong (and is a
> little too close to the "benevolent dictator" for my liking). The rise
> of corporate capitalism is even worse because there is no individual
> with a moral conscience at the helm.
But nobody has to buy, unless they like it. And people DO buy products
with good ecological management, or fair trade chocolate (it tastes
better!). Capitalism only rejects the idea that a part of society can
decide that suddenly all cars have to be hybrid, all energy
wind/solar/biogas and all food vegetarian. We favor pluralism.
If people have a conscience, then it will influence corporations as
well, and it does. If they don't, then how will any government (run by
people!) be magically better?
> I find it interesting that many of those on the right argue that the
> whole reason things are in a mess is because governments and the like
> have interfered in this delicate magic capitalist market and that if
> they just left it alone, after an initial period of "settling down"
No, the right prefers big capital hand in hand with government, as seen
today in America, Europe, Nazi Germany and modern "capitalist-zone" China.
> everything would be fine and we wold be in a golden age. Yet, when
> capitalism was first developing there were very few government
> controls or restrictions and to all intents we did have a free open
> market, yet this is the same environment that fostered the devleopment
> of trade unions, communism and socialism. Why did these develop if the
Yes, and trade unions were the right reaction against shitty employers.
The workers used their freedom not to work (strike) to fight for
better work conditions.
> system was so good and fair - was it really just lazy uneducated
> workers who wanted to have a slice of the pie without putting in any
> of that wonderful entrepreneurial spirit? Maybe it was the result of
> the unfetted greed of capitalism?
The system isn't good, but it's fair in the sense that it's
calculatable. It doesn't favor any group of society. If things go
wrong, the *people*, not some magical state, have to rise up, and they did!
In social democracy people don't have to rise up against injustice or
resource-waste (and often can't, because things are state-run), but the
government (run by people) doesn't either.
> You miss my point (and cut it out), the problem isn't as simple as Von
> Mises puts it because its still argueing based on capital. this is why
> socialism has failed - the fundamental notion of value and reward in
> any pseudo socialist state within a capitalist world is still tied to
> capital. While you measure value/success/efficiency in terms of
> capital, you only create an even more flawed model if you are also
> trying to deny the role of capital in such an economy.
But what would economic use of resources be, if you don't value those
resources according to what they cost in a *free* market?
What other value do you suggest?
(in fact you may use other values for yourself; many people prefer a
nice job to a better-paying one)
> To create a truely socialist economy, you wold need to devise some
> other value system which didn't depend on capital
> (i.e. money/power/wealth). However, this is probably nearly impossible
> (except on Star Trek!) and is also why I do not agree with communism
> or socialism (though I'd still prefer to be called a
> communist/socialist than a right wing conservative). The basic problem
> is what motivates us as individuals - as long as its
> wealth/power/capital, then we are stuck with capitalism, like it or
> not.
That's the point: there is no alternative, so we should make the best of
capitalism. It's a participative system, and every buy influences the
world a little bit. The so-called "third way", i.e. capitalism with
lots of particular interests woven into semi-interventionism seems
ground to a halt and didn't succeed its grand ideals of equality.
>> You can consider any kind of rules (laws), as software. Perhaps not
>> procedural software, but indeed in Lisp we have some openess toward
>> more declarative kind of software. This is also the same in
>> biological system, with stuff like genetic programming. When you drop
>> a rule, a law, an ADN, etc, in these kinds of system, you're
>> effectively programming for an outcome. If the outcome you get
>> doesn't please you, then you have to debug the software. If you
>> cannot debug it because the software is proprietary or the laws are
>> imposed from an unconcerned authority, or because you don't have the
>> competence and techniques to do it, then you're doomed: get fired, get
>> ill, get unsellable buggy software.
>>
>
> In that case, based on the quality of most software, we are all
> doomed!
Well, we have competition.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Tim X" <····@spamto.devnul.com> wrote in message
···················@tiger.rapttech.com.au...
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> The problem with this demand and supply is that it sounds very simple
> and when you are talking about production/manufacturing, it is fairly
> straight forward. If the supply of some commodity other than labor is
> too high, the balance becomes re-addressed by factories closing down
> etc. If demand exceeds supply, factories are built to meet that
> demand. However, labor is more complex because we are dealing with
> other humans - you cannot just kill off some to reduce the supply and
> you cannot just build them to meet demand. We have issues of morality,
> justice and decency to contend with (well at least most of us do).
This is really the issue in a nutshell, whether or not you want to treat
people as just another commodity or not. There is usually no common ground
for discussion if there is no agreement that people are not a commodity. It
is irrelevant to the lump of coal in the ground if the market is flooded and
its value very low, it can just lie there a few years or decades until it is
worth it to someone to extract it. Unfortunately this does not hold for
human beings.
> However, I do not agree with a totally free open market. Capitalism is
> an inherently greedy paradigm which values the individual over the
> group too much. This is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not least of
> which is the fact the individual has a very short term view of things
> and rarely cares about what they leave behind. In the past, the only
> thing which placed any constraints on what was done under the need for
> profit was individual morality concerning right and wrong (and is a
> little too close to the "benevolent dictator" for my liking). The rise
> of corporate capitalism is even worse because there is no individual
> with a moral conscience at the helm.
Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any moral
concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best interest
of the stock holder.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any moral
> concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best interest
> of the stock holder.
You know, we're going to be living in a pretty sorry world when people
are legally obliged to be consistently immoral. And it looks like we're
half-way there already.
In any event, I call BS. It's just a convenient excuse.
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty
Members of the board of directors or the officers of a corporation may
owe fiduciary duties to its shareholders, ...
Different jurisdictions define fiduciary duties differently, but three
duties are very common:
1. Duty of Loyalty, i.e. a fiduciary must disregard his or her own
self-interest and act for the benefit of the beneficiary;
2. Duty of Care, i.e. a fiduciary must exercise the highest standard
of care in managing the beneficiary's interests; and
3. Duty of Candor or Disclosure, i.e. a fiduciary must disclose all
information material to the relationship to the beneficiary.
Further, on the subject of business judgement rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
the business judgment rule is a case law-derived concept in Corporations
law whereby a court will refuse to review the actions of a corporation's
Board of Directors in managing the corporation unless (1) there is some
allegation of conduct that violates the corporate Duty of Care or Duty
of Loyalty, or (2) there is an allegation that the Board's action lacked
any rational basis.
In effect, the business judgment rule creates a strong presumption in
favor of the Board of Directors of a corporation, freeing its members
from possible liability for decisions that result in harm to the
corporation. In short, it exists so that a Board will not suffer legal
action simply from a bad decision.
The rationale for the rule is the recognition by courts that, in the
inherently risky environment of business, Boards of Directors need to be
free to take risks without a constant fear of lawsuits affecting their
judgment.
So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a breach
of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
"Mark Carter" <··@privacy.net> wrote in message
······························@news.sunsite.dk...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any
>> moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best
>> interest of the stock holder.
>
> You know, we're going to be living in a pretty sorry world when people are
> legally obliged to be consistently immoral. And it looks like we're
> half-way there already.
>
> In any event, I call BS. It's just a convenient excuse.
>
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty
> Members of the board of directors or the officers of a corporation may owe
> fiduciary duties to its shareholders, ...
> Different jurisdictions define fiduciary duties differently, but three
> duties are very common:
> 1. Duty of Loyalty, i.e. a fiduciary must disregard his or her own
> self-interest and act for the benefit of the beneficiary;
> 2. Duty of Care, i.e. a fiduciary must exercise the highest standard of
> care in managing the beneficiary's interests; and
> 3. Duty of Candor or Disclosure, i.e. a fiduciary must disclose all
> information material to the relationship to the beneficiary.
>
> Further, on the subject of business judgement rule:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
> the business judgment rule is a case law-derived concept in Corporations
> law whereby a court will refuse to review the actions of a corporation's
> Board of Directors in managing the corporation unless (1) there is some
> allegation of conduct that violates the corporate Duty of Care or Duty of
> Loyalty, or (2) there is an allegation that the Board's action lacked any
> rational basis.
>
> In effect, the business judgment rule creates a strong presumption in
> favor of the Board of Directors of a corporation, freeing its members from
> possible liability for decisions that result in harm to the corporation.
> In short, it exists so that a Board will not suffer legal action simply
> from a bad decision.
>
> The rationale for the rule is the recognition by courts that, in the
> inherently risky environment of business, Boards of Directors need to be
> free to take risks without a constant fear of lawsuits affecting their
> judgment.
>
>
>
> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a breach
> of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
I'm really sorry, you went to all the trouble of presenting that material
but I am utterly at a loss as to how it contradicts what I said. It rather
seems to support it. But thank you for the references and the correct
terminology.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> I'm really sorry, you went to all the trouble of presenting that material
> but I am utterly at a loss as to how it contradicts what I said. It rather
> seems to support it.
I think the key phrase here is "In effect, the business judgment rule
creates a strong presumption in favor of the Board of Directors of a
corporation". This suggests that they are not compelled to act in the
utmost interest of the company. If this were the case, then directors
would be liable for all sorts of things.
I tried looking for a few cases on the internet, and I failed to find
anything which supports an extreme interpretation of the statement
"boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if
they oppose profitability.". If you can quote some case law, then let's
hear it.
To be fair, I couldn't find anything to support my argument either. Most
of the stuff I found was in respect of companies in financial distress,
or of clear cases of breach of duty, and are not relevant to our
discussion here.
Your line of reasoning is way too rabid, and not supported by case law.
It also smacks of having an agenda (although I judge it to be unlikely
in your case). If you line of reasoning really were true, it would seem
that directors would be way exposed to litigation. Maybe you could sue
them for /not/ outsourcing to India. Maybe you could sue them for taking
a business class flight instead of economy.
Mark Carter wrote:
>
> To be fair, I couldn't find anything to support my argument either.
From
http://www.sillslegal.co.uk/apdd98.html
which is for the UK, and doesn't quote cases:
What standard of skill and care is a director supposed to demonstrate?
Historically the standard was pretty low and entirely subjective.
Someone doing their miserable best in all the circumstances was
generally speaking doing enough. The common law duty of care and skill
was considered in a case which came before the courts over 60 years ago
when several principles were formulated and thereafter applied:
1. Firstly, a director was expected to show no greater care and
skill than can be expected from a person with the same knowledge and
experience. In other words, it was an entirely subjective test and a
charter for the incompetent.
...
The statutory test is one which will always be applied with the benefit
of hindsight. It refers to a reasonably diligent person having both the
general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected
of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that
director in that company. The test also refers to the general knowledge,
skill and experience that that director has.
... which I offer as a rebuttal to your argument "boards of directors
are bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if they oppose
profitability. They *must* act in the best interest of the stock holder."
"Mark Carter" <··@privacy.net> wrote in message
······························@news.sunsite.dk...
> Mark Carter wrote:
>
>>
>> To be fair, I couldn't find anything to support my argument either.
>
> From
> http://www.sillslegal.co.uk/apdd98.html
> which is for the UK, and doesn't quote cases:
>
> What standard of skill and care is a director supposed to demonstrate?
>
> Historically the standard was pretty low and entirely subjective. Someone
> doing their miserable best in all the circumstances was generally speaking
> doing enough. The common law duty of care and skill was considered in a
> case which came before the courts over 60 years ago when several
> principles were formulated and thereafter applied:
>
> 1. Firstly, a director was expected to show no greater care and skill
> than can be expected from a person with the same knowledge and experience.
> In other words, it was an entirely subjective test and a charter for the
> incompetent.
>
> ...
>
> The statutory test is one which will always be applied with the benefit of
> hindsight. It refers to a reasonably diligent person having both the
> general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of
> a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that
> director in that company. The test also refers to the general knowledge,
> skill and experience that that director has.
>
>
>
> ... which I offer as a rebuttal to your argument "boards of directors are
> bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if they oppose profitability.
> They *must* act in the best interest of the stock holder."
It still seems beside the point. You are successfully demonstrating that a
director needs only to do his best or be able to defend the choices he made
as seeming the best at the time, not prove that what he did do actually was
the best thing. I am more imagining (yes, I have no examples) the situation
where the better course of action, in terms of the interests of the
beneficiaries (ie stockholders), is clear. Say for example, in a country
where the pollution regulations are very lax, a director invests in high
quality pollution controls that increase operating costs because he knows
the village downstream depends on the river water to drink and irrigate.
The factory does not succeed, shareholders lose money. I think it would
clearly be feasible for an investor to show that the director did not act in
his/her best interests. I think it is also clear that it is immoral to
knowingly pollute other people's drinking water regardless of its legality.
That is why capitalism must be well constrained by law, because it is by
design amoral. Adequate anti-pollution laws are the only thing the director
can use to defend a decision that would otherwise be purely a moral choice.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Mark Carter" <··@privacy.net> wrote in message
> ······························@news.sunsite.dk...
>> Mark Carter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, I couldn't find anything to support my argument either.
>>
>> From
>> http://www.sillslegal.co.uk/apdd98.html
>> which is for the UK, and doesn't quote cases:
>>
>> What standard of skill and care is a director supposed to demonstrate?
>>
>> Historically the standard was pretty low and entirely subjective. Someone
>> doing their miserable best in all the circumstances was generally speaking
>> doing enough. The common law duty of care and skill was considered in a
>> case which came before the courts over 60 years ago when several
>> principles were formulated and thereafter applied:
>>
>> 1. Firstly, a director was expected to show no greater care and skill
>> than can be expected from a person with the same knowledge and experience.
>> In other words, it was an entirely subjective test and a charter for the
>> incompetent.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> The statutory test is one which will always be applied with the benefit of
>> hindsight. It refers to a reasonably diligent person having both the
>> general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of
>> a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that
>> director in that company. The test also refers to the general knowledge,
>> skill and experience that that director has.
>>
>>
>>
>> ... which I offer as a rebuttal to your argument "boards of directors are
>> bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if they oppose profitability.
>> They *must* act in the best interest of the stock holder."
>
> It still seems beside the point. You are successfully demonstrating that a
> director needs only to do his best or be able to defend the choices he made
> as seeming the best at the time, not prove that what he did do actually was
> the best thing. I am more imagining (yes, I have no examples) the situation
> where the better course of action, in terms of the interests of the
> beneficiaries (ie stockholders), is clear. Say for example, in a country
> where the pollution regulations are very lax, a director invests in high
> quality pollution controls that increase operating costs because he knows
> the village downstream depends on the river water to drink and irrigate.
> The factory does not succeed, shareholders lose money. I think it would
> clearly be feasible for an investor to show that the director did not act in
> his/her best interests. I think it is also clear that it is immoral to
> knowingly pollute other people's drinking water regardless of its legality.
>
I haven't followed the entire discussion. But it is hard to justify that
directors acted against the interest of the shareholders. It might be the case
that some shareholders live in that village, or the relatives of the
share-holders might be living. Also, the shareholders might be highly moral,
environmental friendly people, who did want the director to make the
procedure efficient. Or the director can claim, that he did this to improve
the reputation of the company. I am not sure immediate monetary profit, is the
only objective which a director should pursue. On a related note, recently
some shareholders were pressuring the companies to pay more attention to
rights violation.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/13/2015230&tid=187&tid=17
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "O thou my friend! The prosperity of Crime is like unto the lightning,
| whose traitorous brilliancies embellish the atmosphere but for an
| instant, in order to hurl into death's very depths the luckless one
| they have dazzled." -- Marquis de Sade
`----
Surendra Singhi <·········@netscape.net> writes:
>
> I haven't followed the entire discussion. But it is hard to justify
> that directors acted against the interest of the shareholders. It
> might be the case that some shareholders live in that village, or the
> relatives of the share-holders might be living. Also, the shareholders
> might be highly moral, environmental friendly people, who did want the
> director to make the procedure efficient.
In which case the shareholders should have directed their company to at
in that manner...
But the case does illustrate that it's important to use the law to
prevent corporations from harming others just as it's important to use
the law to prevent individuals from harming others. Complete
laissez-faire is not desirable.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up. --C.S. Lewis
Robert Uhl wrote:
> But the case does illustrate that it's important to use the law to
> prevent corporations from harming others just as it's important to use
> the law to prevent individuals from harming others. Complete
> laissez-faire is not desirable.
Laisser-faire doesn't (in economic and legal anarchist theory) imply no
law. In fact lots of work in that area is about the libertarian legal
system. You may not run around killing people and polluting streams,
just because there is no state around. There is still law, but based on
simple axioms instead of an arbitrary centralized power (that doesn't
exist anyway on a worldwide basis; just look at what happens when
criminals go abroad, how long it takes our "efficient" states to
cooperate...).
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a breach
>> of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
>
> I'm really sorry, you went to all the trouble of presenting that material
> but I am utterly at a loss as to how it contradicts what I said. It rather
> seems to support it. But thank you for the references and the correct
> terminology.
I guess the shareholders still have the freedom to instruct their
directors that outsourcing any job costs them more than what they
invested in the company, and therefore they duty is NOT to outsource.
In general, what communistists/socialists ignore totally when they
face libertarianism, is that people may (should) have a moral. They
accuse capitalism to be a mindless moneymaking machine, but this is
only a mechanism that can be used as the shareholders want. That is,
while the socialist state doesn't meddle in. The whole point being to
leave the freedom to human beings to decide, according to their moral
point of view, instead of imposing mechanical inhumane rules/laws.
In the current situation, we need liberty, not more socialism.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Until real software engineering is developed, the next best practice
is to develop with a dynamic system that has extreme late binding in
all aspects. The first system to really do this in an important way
is Lisp. -- Alan Kay
Mark Carter wrote:
> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a breach
> of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
Well, to be fair, trade and outsourcing are two-sided. If
*out-sourcing* is considered, maybe the USA should keep in mind that
there's IIRC twice as much insourcing for them as outsourcing, so if
outsourcing would be outlawed, Americans would suffer a lot, as would
Indians.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>
>> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a
>> breach of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
>
>
> Well, to be fair, trade and outsourcing are two-sided. If
> *out-sourcing* is considered, maybe the USA should keep in mind that
> there's IIRC twice as much insourcing for them as outsourcing, so if
> outsourcing would be outlawed, Americans would suffer a lot, as would
> Indians.
>
I think you've read my statement the wrong way 'round. I'm arguing that
it's OK for directors *not* to outsource, rather than supporting
outlawing outsourcing. Basically, I'm saying that "boards of directors
are bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if they oppose
profitability" is the outpouring of extreme right-wing views ...
although I take it that Coby Beck does not necessarily fully support
that view. At least I hope not!
Mark Carter wrote:
> I think you've read my statement the wrong way 'round. I'm arguing that
> it's OK for directors *not* to outsource, rather than supporting
> outlawing outsourcing. Basically, I'm saying that "boards of directors
> are bound by law to disregard any moral concerns if they oppose
> profitability" is the outpouring of extreme right-wing views ...
> although I take it that Coby Beck does not necessarily fully support
> that view. At least I hope not!
Well, in the case where it's not at all clear if outsourcing is bad
(isn't it better to pay 100 people in China an average salary than ten
people in the US for the same price? OTOH some people find it much
worse to have 5000 die on 9/11 than have many more thousands die in
aggressive wars.) I don't think there's anything against it, except
marketing (made in the USA) or advantages (such as an understandable
American accent on that phone line).
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Well, in the case where it's not at all clear if outsourcing is bad
> (isn't it better to pay 100 people in China an average salary than ten
> people in the US for the same price?
I think there's two threads to this argument.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it Reebok?)
that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that even
if wages doubled, it would not have visibly impacted the bottom line.
There's a question of ethics here. We see again and again cases of
"those that hath it shall be given, and to those that hath not, it shall
be taken away". This is the ugly face of capitalism.
The other line of reasoning is that it is fearful first-world employees
who are unjustly trying to protect their work at the expense of
third-world employees.
I heard someone express the view that globalisation will have the effect
of equalising prosperity throughout the world - a not unreasonable view,
although I suspect that there will always be the haves and the have-nots.
In the end, I don't think that there are any obviously right answers as
to how to create a fair society. My own political thinking is quite
"centralist" - a good mixed economy is likely to be best. Capitalism
certainly has its place, but so too does things like public health,
transportation and education. What does alarm me, though, are some
extreme ideological capitalist views that one hears quite frequently
from Americans. I'm from Britain, BTW, and you shouldn't think that I'm
anti-American. I think there are some things in America that we could do
with a good dose of in Britain ... I'm thinking in terms of
entrepenuership, and meritocracy unfettered by petty views of "them and
us", for instance.
Mark Carter wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
> > Well, in the case where it's not at all clear if outsourcing is bad
> > (isn't it better to pay 100 people in China an average salary than ten
> > people in the US for the same price?
>
> I think there's two threads to this argument.
>
> I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it Reebok?)
> that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
> third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that even
> if wages doubled, it would not have visibly impacted the bottom line.
> There's a question of ethics here. We see again and again cases of
> "those that hath it shall be given, and to those that hath not, it shall
> be taken away". This is the ugly face of capitalism.
>
> The other line of reasoning is that it is fearful first-world employees
> who are unjustly trying to protect their work at the expense of
> third-world employees.
>
> I heard someone express the view that globalisation will have the effect
> of equalising prosperity throughout the world - a not unreasonable view,
> although I suspect that there will always be the haves and the have-nots.
My understanding is that many left-wing and conservative groups are in
favor of trade and "globalization" -- just not the specific flavor we
usually hear about on the news.
So they often argue that instead of just a regulatory system for
corporate rights, human rights are possible too. And labor mobility,
not just capital mobility.
Here is a faq from an articulate left-wing source.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan2000albert.htm
[Disclaimer: I'm not advocating these positions, however I do think the
mainstream presents a distorted view of them, just as the mainstream
tech world strawmans Lisp. Feel free to disagree.]
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Here is a faq from an articulate left-wing source.
> http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan2000albert.htm
"When and why is trade harmful?
First, when two parties specialize and then trade to benefit from
comparative advantages, gains could be split to benefit the worst-off
party more, divided equally, or benefit the better-off party more
depending on prices or what is called "the terms of trade." Some prices
could even shuffle all the gains to one side. They could cause one side
to be worse off then if they hadn�t traded in the first place, as in
many instances of colonialism."
Yeah, right. When the producer is worse off trading than not trading
(i.e. production costs are higher than revenues), he will *of course*
trade... right. I also severely enjoy jabbing knives into my arms from
time to time.
My take: if a country isn't better of trading than not, why don't they
just produce some cotton, food, maybe biofuel, to feed themselves? Of
course this assumes that we aren't talking about a regulated Socialist
country with export and production quotas, and it assumes that the
farmers are free in their decisions.
The very reason that farmers might produce something else than food is
that it'd be better to sell their produce in maybe Europe, and import
food from another country instead. Now in some ways this entails lots
of transport costs (and pollution), but everybody is free to decide to
buy local food in preference. In Europe you pay for European farmers
(with taxes) even if you don't buy the food. It's really no wonder that
third world countries have trouble selling *their* food to us, when
homemade food is subsidized and therefore just as cheap.
Or: "3. The WTO actively promotes global trade even at the expense of
efforts to promote local economic development and policies that move
communities, countries, and regions in the direction of greater
self-reliance"
Well, they don't *have* to join? It'd make sense to me if a country
acceps WTO in principle, so there is well-working trade with no
surprises, but that country could still be chock full of socialist
communities. No problem at all.
IMF? Yeah, those policies make sense (if you know some economics), but
especially I wish we'd employ them at home :)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Here is a faq from an articulate left-wing source.
> http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan2000albert.htm
For more libertarian socialist (which according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism means "any one of a
group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of
authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of
capitalism and the state.") musings :
http://www.chomsky.info/
[I'd like to move to email, but your email doesn't look like it'd work]
Mark Carter wrote:
> For more libertarian socialist (which according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Heh. So they want democracy, but on what level? Does society decide
what to produce? Then it's just a form of planned economy, and will
result in economic breakdown (i.e. living standards).
If it's just democracy on the company level, then what about founding
new companies? How do they decide where to invest/use resources? How
does a new company obtain them? Oh, trade? Now suddenly you have a
market after all. Hmm, we could fix prices to keep it "fair", but that
results in resource shortage or excess production.
Hmmm, this keyboard on my desk is property, thus - theft; instead it
belongs to everybody. We should form a committee and vote who should
use it for what purpose. And this mouse, too, and this remote, ...
The whole thing is a huge contradiction. At least I only read "believe,
believe" without any indication how the thing is supposed to *work*,
taking into account everything that needs to take place in a real
economy, with real people.
Again: if it's just about workers deciding what their company does, they
could just buy shares and be happy...
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> Well, in the case where it's not at all clear if outsourcing is bad
>> (isn't it better to pay 100 people in China an average salary than
>> ten people in the US for the same price?
>
> I think there's two threads to this argument.
>
> I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it
> Reebok?) that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
> third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that
> even if wages doubled, it would not have visibly impacted the bottom
> line. There's a question of ethics here. We see again and again cases
> of "those that hath it shall be given, and to those that hath not, it
> shall be taken away". This is the ugly face of capitalism.
I disagree with this, what might be a bad living standard for Westerners might
in fact be a pretty decent standard of living, for people who are starving and
don't have any jobs or means of sustenance.
But what is indeed bad is dumping of all our toxic garbage in the third world
countries in the name of recycling and charity.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "O thou my friend! The prosperity of Crime is like unto the lightning,
| whose traitorous brilliancies embellish the atmosphere but for an
| instant, in order to hurl into death's very depths the luckless one
| they have dazzled." -- Marquis de Sade
`----
Mark Carter wrote:
> I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it Reebok?)
> that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
> third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that even
> if wages doubled, it would not have visibly impacted the bottom line.
> There's a question of ethics here. We see again and again cases of
> "those that hath it shall be given, and to those that hath not, it shall
> be taken away". This is the ugly face of capitalism.
I'd LOVE to know the reasons for that decision. When one pair of shoes
sells for at least $50, it's hard to argue that costs need to be $5, not
$8, *especially* when all the world hates Nike (and others) for these
practices and changing them costs so little.
> I heard someone express the view that globalisation will have the effect
> of equalising prosperity throughout the world - a not unreasonable view,
> although I suspect that there will always be the haves and the have-nots.
Sure, just like when Western countries prospered, we still had working
classes (though they were better off, too).
> In the end, I don't think that there are any obviously right answers as
> to how to create a fair society. My own political thinking is quite
> "centralist" - a good mixed economy is likely to be best. Capitalism
> certainly has its place, but so too does things like public health,
> transportation and education. What does alarm me, though, are some
Well, since the state is just one provider of these things, you could
just choose that one company. I'd prefer to choose my own education
(this is a BIG one), and maybe also my health insurance with high
self-pay and low rates (in most cases doctors can't help me anyway, so I
rarely visit them; only in case of a big accident / hospital stay do I
want the insurance to protect me from financial ruin).
Competition is a very good thing, and there's almost nothing worse than
preventing people from offering good services (by state monopoly) and
forcing everybody to pay for these state monopolies (with taxes).
> extreme ideological capitalist views that one hears quite frequently
> from Americans. I'm from Britain, BTW, and you shouldn't think that I'm
> anti-American. I think there are some things in America that we could do
> with a good dose of in Britain ... I'm thinking in terms of
> entrepenuership, and meritocracy unfettered by petty views of "them and
> us", for instance.
In Europe there seems to be A LOT of Statist ideology, while Capitalism
is regarded as pure evil, unlike in the USA, where Libertarianism has an
old tradition and federal taxes haven't always been there I suppose.
My wish would be for more federalism at home, so we can have multiple
economic systems within my country, one Red Zone for all those
believers, one Catholic Order Zone, and one libertarian zone etc.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:46:16 +0000, Mark Carter wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Well, in the case where it's not at all clear if outsourcing is bad
>> (isn't it better to pay 100 people in China an average salary than
>> ten people in the US for the same price?
> I think there's two threads to this argument.
> I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it
> Reebok?) that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
> third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that
Yes, I'm sure we've all heard the story. I'm sure we've also heard
the story of some guy named Jack that bought some magic beans...
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53
--
Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to
sharpen sticks.
-- Thant Tessman
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>> I'm sure we've all heard stories of places like Nike (or was it
>> Reebok?) that exploited foreign workers, paying them bad wages even by
>> third-world standards. The wage cost per unit was peanuts - so that
>
> Yes, I'm sure we've all heard the story. I'm sure we've also heard
> the story of some guy named Jack that bought some magic beans...
>
> http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53
While there is some point in that, I've also heard (rumors?) that public
military in some countries pushed people out of farm jobs and forced
them into some sweatshops.
Ok, it remains to be seen if this is true. Also, every
anti-globalization-movie has scenes from a sweatshop fence where the
jounalists aren't allowed even to talk to people -- weird!
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a
>> breach of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
>
> Well, to be fair, trade and outsourcing are two-sided. If
> *out-sourcing* is considered, maybe the USA should keep in mind that
> there's IIRC twice as much insourcing for them as outsourcing, so if
> outsourcing would be outlawed, Americans would suffer a lot, as would
> Indians.
And in any case, it would depend on the share holders.
If the share holders are Indians,
it may be the directors duty to outsource.
If the share holders are Americans,
it may be the directors duty not to outsource.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!"
Mark Carter wrote:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any
>> moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the
>> best interest of the stock holder.
>
>
> You know, we're going to be living in a pretty sorry world when people
> are legally obliged to be consistently immoral. And it looks like we're
> half-way there already.
Coby is on the right track actually. It's not that the board members are
legally bound to 'increase shareholder value', but the corporation itself.
A Corporation is legally a person (Corpus), and that 'person' is
required, by law, to increase shareholder value. Note that this is
really only true wuth 'for-profit' corporations, and different types of
corporations, such as a co-operative (see tech.coop) may have different
requirements, but are still legally bound to them.
From wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
------
The most salient features of incorporation include:
[snip]
3. Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, business
corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the
shareholders, a rule that courts have generally interpreted to mean the
maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are
prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other
interest, such as environmental protection, or the improvement of the
welfare of the community. For example, when Henry Ford cut dividends and
reduced car prices in order to increase the number of people who could
afford to buy his cars, his brother-in-law, Mr. Dodge, a shareholder,
sued him for having harmed profitability: Dodge v. Ford Motor Company,
170 N.W 688 (Mich.S.C. 1919). Mr. Dodge succeeded and went on to form
his own car company with the proceeds of the suit.
-------
_The Corporation_ is required reading/viewing if one is to understand
the consequenses of these laws, which essentially mandate that the
corporate person is required to act in a sociopathic manner. If anybody
wants to see this film, and cannot locate a copy, email me and i'll get
you one.
Since, legally anyway, a corporation _is_ a person, that person is in
fact "legally obliged to be consistently immoral". Scary, sad, but all
too true.
>
> In any event, I call BS. It's just a convenient excuse.
>
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty
> Members of the board of directors or the officers of a corporation may
> owe fiduciary duties to its shareholders, ...
> Different jurisdictions define fiduciary duties differently, but three
> duties are very common:
> 1. Duty of Loyalty, i.e. a fiduciary must disregard his or her own
> self-interest and act for the benefit of the beneficiary;
> 2. Duty of Care, i.e. a fiduciary must exercise the highest standard
> of care in managing the beneficiary's interests; and
> 3. Duty of Candor or Disclosure, i.e. a fiduciary must disclose all
> information material to the relationship to the beneficiary.
>
> Further, on the subject of business judgement rule:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
> the business judgment rule is a case law-derived concept in Corporations
> law whereby a court will refuse to review the actions of a corporation's
> Board of Directors in managing the corporation unless (1) there is some
> allegation of conduct that violates the corporate Duty of Care or Duty
> of Loyalty, or (2) there is an allegation that the Board's action lacked
> any rational basis.
>
> In effect, the business judgment rule creates a strong presumption in
> favor of the Board of Directors of a corporation, freeing its members
> from possible liability for decisions that result in harm to the
> corporation. In short, it exists so that a Board will not suffer legal
> action simply from a bad decision.
Right. the members of the board themselves are free of (most) liability.
That is actually the problem... a board member is not responsible for
the actions of the corporation (much in the sense that a parent is not
responsible for the actions of their child). This just encourages the
sociopathic corporation. With the board freed from personal
responsability, they can take any direction they want, no matter how
unethical, in order to increase shareholder value. The fact that the
board members are often principle shareholders serves only to increase
the damage a corporation can inflict on a society.
So, with the directors out of legal trouble, that leaves only the
corporation itself (a legal entity, but a fictional one) with any
liability and responsability. And the corporation, unlike a living,
breathing human being, is not bound by any moral code, and _will_ take
any actions it deems neccesary to meet its goal, which is the increase
of shareholder value. Should a corporation fail to meet this goal, the
shareholder can sue, and force the hand of the corporate entity, or
recieve compensation.
Unlike a real person, the corporation cannot be killed, jailed, or
otherwise harmed from the consequenses of its actions. What reason does
this 'person' have to act ethically and for the good of society, when it
stands to reap only benefits by acting as a sociopath, and is legally
required to do so!
> The rationale for the rule is the recognition by courts that, in the
> inherently risky environment of business, Boards of Directors need to be
> free to take risks without a constant fear of lawsuits affecting their
> judgment.
Right again. The directors themselves are (almost) completely off the
hook, which actually enables them, and behalf of the corporation, to act
with less morals and compassion then it would if directors actually had
to answer for their actions.
There are other business models such as the aformentioned co-operative,
which, while still legally a corporation, has a different mandate. In
our case (The Tech Co-op), our articles of incorporation state our
'raison d'etre' as "To Provide to our members the best possible
technical services". We are also a not-for-profit, so implied is getting
the best possible price as well.
In the case our co-operative, our members, customers, and shareholders
are one and the same. So acting in the best intrests of our shareholders
also means that out customers get the best services, with no need for
'profit' to stop the shareholders from suing.
> So it's clear that not outsourcing to India does not constitute a breach
> of duty by the directors. Your argument is wrong.
While not a breach of duty, if the outsourcing costs the company
profits, and the shareholders are angry enough about it, they can sue,
sell off the company in little pieces, take your private jets, etc etc
etc. It is not a breach of duty, which is another thing entirely, but it
is still the law.
Disclaimer : I sit on the Board of Directors at The Tech Co-op.
--
Drew Crampsie
drewc at tech dot coop
"... the most advanced use of lisp in the field of bass lure sales"
-- Xach on #lisp
Coby Beck wrote:
> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any moral
> concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best interest
> of the stock holder.
In both Law and Economics, there is no concept of "moral". Moral is a
value that humans associate with (maybe abstract) things. The value
humans associate to things can also be numberified in terms of money.
Some people prefer goods, some prefer to get their hair cut, to have
more rainforest planted, or to have someone teach Socialist ideas.
Basically lots of the problems that arise *in* capitalism (as seen for
instance in the movie "The Corporation") derive from people oppressing
other people and forcing them into sweatshops with military force, from
there being no laws protecting human rights, for there being no courts
to sue companies for excessive pollution etc.
The profit-seeking is not inherent in capitalist activity, but in human
nature. That's why all systems that claim to be "pure" have to bow to
corruption.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message
····················@individual.net...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any
>> moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best
>> interest of the stock holder.
>
> In both Law and Economics, there is no concept of "moral". Moral is a
> value that humans associate with (maybe abstract) things.
Yes for economics...I don't know if that is a reasonable thing to say about
law. Perhaps in applying the law, but certainly not in writing it.
> The value humans associate to things can also be numberified in terms of
> money.
No, clearly not all things. This is the fallacy of looking at the world
through economic goggles.
> Some people prefer goods, some prefer to get their hair cut, to have more
> rainforest planted, or to have someone teach Socialist ideas.
>
> Basically lots of the problems that arise *in* capitalism (as seen for
> instance in the movie "The Corporation") derive from people oppressing
> other people and forcing them into sweatshops with military force, from
> there being no laws protecting human rights, for there being no courts to
> sue companies for excessive pollution etc.
I agree. I think the same thing could be said about the problems that arise
in communism with very minor substitutions.
> The profit-seeking is not inherent in capitalist activity, but in human
> nature. That's why all systems that claim to be "pure" have to bow to
> corruption.
Many things, many contradictory things, are inherent in human nature.
Greed, compassion, selfishness, cooperation, cruelty, empathy. I don't buy
the "its only natural" defense of avarice as a guiding principle for human
society.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
>> In both Law and Economics, there is no concept of "moral". Moral is a
>> value that humans associate with (maybe abstract) things.
>
> Yes for economics...I don't know if that is a reasonable thing to say about
> law. Perhaps in applying the law, but certainly not in writing it.
Applying the law should be more or less formal, though there's always
room for interpretation I think.
Writing the law is also mostly free of morals, but has a lot to do with
money and interests.
>> The value humans associate to things can also be numberified in terms of
>> money.
>
> No, clearly not all things. This is the fallacy of looking at the world
> through economic goggles.
I'm not even talking about an economic concept, but a socialogical one.
If you are an interactionist (I guess I tend to be one), then all
human interaction is -- interaction. It mostly happens voluntarily, if
we leave out the clearly immoral case. It might include monetary
exchange, as in any (or most) trade interactions, but it need not.
So you get some things for "free", i.e. no money involved. But
everything else has to paid for, at least the costs, if you don't need
profit. A public park needs to be kept clean and maybe safe.
Politicians in my hometown are talking about putting fences around a
park and charging �8 for entry. Ok, it's a beautiful park, and it costs
a lot to maintain it. That just to remind you that even while some
things might be "priceless", things have to be paid for, and the value
someone attached to this park might also be valued in money.
If the state doesn't (can't) pay for it anymore, someone else has --
either a sponsor, or the visitors. Someone might clean the park in his
free time, but he has to eat, too. So you end up with some kind of
resource transfer/exchange, and money is a convenient unit to quantify
scarce resources.
Some people think that demonstrations are cool and make the world a
better place, but that's because they don't look at their resources.
Instead of standing outside with banners for five hours, all those
people could work, earn money, some of them maybe a lot at what they do.
Or they could persue a career and become powerful and influencing.
That's what I decided to do years ago. Maybe someday I'll have the
resources to change some things in the world, while the demonstrants are
still standing out there, complaining about how bad some people are. I
hope to get more value for my time.
Since most things cost money (even if all material were free, our time
is scarce too), I don't think it's bad to consider things in a financial
way. This excludes relationships (unless you are *always* the one who
pays) and friendship, but just because you do something for free (invite
somebody) doesn't mean that economy ceases to be out there.
Maybe a good or close relationship is one where you share and exchange
more things? And that includes both time and other resources.
>> Basically lots of the problems that arise *in* capitalism (as seen for
>> instance in the movie "The Corporation") derive from people oppressing
>> other people and forcing them into sweatshops with military force, from
>> there being no laws protecting human rights, for there being no courts to
>> sue companies for excessive pollution etc.
>
> I agree. I think the same thing could be said about the problems that arise
> in communism with very minor substitutions.
But in Communism things are centralized. There is ONE organ that judges
over right and wrong, about where to build a new factory or where to
open a bookstore, because people don't own the resources.
If something goes wrong there, nobody is responsible; just look at how
things go in our comparably small governments! Nobody takes
responsibility, because it's not their resources that they waste.
Because there is no free market with monetary interchange, it's
impossible to tell what resource or product is of how much value to
other trade participants.
Pollution on public property is simply accepted (again, reality in most
Asian countries I guess), while a private owner would sue if somebody
polluted his river, say.
>> The profit-seeking is not inherent in capitalist activity, but in human
>> nature. That's why all systems that claim to be "pure" have to bow to
>> corruption.
>
> Many things, many contradictory things, are inherent in human nature.
> Greed, compassion, selfishness, cooperation, cruelty, empathy. I don't buy
> the "its only natural" defense of avarice as a guiding principle for human
> society.
What's so bad about "avarice"? It's about managing scarce resources.
Are you advocating just throwing everything out of the window, because
it will surely end up somewhere? ;)
If a factory produces useless things, that's not as good for society (or
rather: the set of people who would buy) as a factory that meets some
demand. A factory that satisfies only one person is a waste of land,
compared to one that satisfies more people.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Applying the law should be more or less formal, though there's always
> room for interpretation I think.
That's putting it mildly. I once heard a barrister say "the law is a
simple rule, followed by lots of exceptions".
> Writing the law is also mostly free of morals, but has a lot to do with
> money and interests.
Oh what a cynical world we live in. The law is *not* mostly free of
morals - the whole point of the law is to act fairly. Maybe things got a
little twisted on the way to the forum, but essentially the law is there
to serve justice. It's true that money will make an appearance in a
large proportion of cases, but that doesn't make the whole concept of
law immoral.
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
> Oh what a cynical world we live in. The law is *not* mostly free of
> morals - the whole point of the law is to act fairly. Maybe things got a
> little twisted on the way to the forum, but essentially the law is there
> to serve justice. It's true that money will make an appearance in a
> large proportion of cases, but that doesn't make the whole concept of
> law immoral.
Law proscribes activity. You won't see laws enabling activities, laws
forbid them. The selection of activities to forbid is a process of
negiotiation and compromise between concentrations of power and money
both elected and private and thus essentially amoral. Morality is an
individual exercise of self-discipline motivated by culture and belief.
The same action may be forbidden by law or morality but that does not
make them the same or even related. It may be the case that an
individual's desire to participate in negiotiating and compromising in
making a law is based in his or her own morality, but they'd better find
an ally with power and money in order to be heard.
On a good day, laws mirror elements of morality for a substantial subset
of people under their juristiction, being a joint expression of culture
and belief but thats about as good as it gets. On a normal day, money
and power get their way like they always have.
Justice and fairness are good selling points to help establish accord
but since they are abstract "goals", they're down a ways on the list of
issues when it comes time to make a law since the law is fundamentally
about power which is very much not abstract.
Gregm
Mark Carter wrote:
>> Writing the law is also mostly free of morals, but has a lot to do
>> with money and interests.
>
> Oh what a cynical world we live in. The law is *not* mostly free of
> morals - the whole point of the law is to act fairly. Maybe things got a
Well, that's the excuse. Most of the world had the very same set of
laws for centuries, and suddenly we have new laws every day, most of
them serving particular special interests.
I don't think there were many things wrong with good old Common Law, but
"democratic" legislation was the thing that corrupted it.
> little twisted on the way to the forum, but essentially the law is there
> to serve justice. It's true that money will make an appearance in a
> large proportion of cases, but that doesn't make the whole concept of
> law immoral.
Yes, we need some law, and it should serve justice (whatever *that* now
is). I think lots of self-evident laws do, but most modern legislation
doesn't in the least.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>
>>> Writing the law is also mostly free of morals, but has a lot to do
>>> with money and interests.
>>
>>
>> Oh what a cynical world we live in. The law is *not* mostly free of
>> morals - the whole point of the law is to act fairly. Maybe things got a
>
>
> Well, that's the excuse. Most of the world had the very same set of
> laws for centuries, and suddenly we have new laws every day, most of
> them serving particular special interests.
A minor quibble: common law has always been evolving. Precendents get
piled on top of precendents.
I take it that the main thrust of your argument is as regards statutory
law serving special interests. Well, I suspect that it's somewhat unfair
to say that the majority of statutory law is bent towards serving
politically-connected special interest groups - although there does seem
to be some worrying trends in that regard, I'll grant you that.
> I don't think there were many things wrong with good old Common Law, but
> "democratic" legislation was the thing that corrupted it.
Are you referring to the Democrats versus the Republicans? I'm not
knowledgeable about American politics, so I couldn't really comment
intelligently. I was under the impression that the problematical laws
that we are hearing about nowadays were relating to the Republicans,
which were favouring business interests over common human interests.
Mark Carter wrote:
> A minor quibble: common law has always been evolving. Precendents get
> piled on top of precendents.
Oh yes, but that's just interpretations (though binding) of the law
applied to new situations. The law doesn't really change in meaning.
> I take it that the main thrust of your argument is as regards statutory
> law serving special interests. Well, I suspect that it's somewhat unfair
> to say that the majority of statutory law is bent towards serving
> politically-connected special interest groups - although there does seem
> to be some worrying trends in that regard, I'll grant you that.
>
>> I don't think there were many things wrong with good old Common Law,
>> but "democratic" legislation was the thing that corrupted it.
>
> Are you referring to the Democrats versus the Republicans? I'm not
No. I'm pretty neutral on that issue as they both are pretty
inconsistent in their politics and both pro-war (sure, they are liberals
and conservatives!). Last year when I was there, I helped the Democrats
a bit.
> knowledgeable about American politics, so I couldn't really comment
> intelligently. I was under the impression that the problematical laws
> that we are hearing about nowadays were relating to the Republicans,
> which were favouring business interests over common human interests.
Yes, but both US parties do that. I wanted to say that our way of
democracy is to blame. A few 100 people shouldn't be allowed to make
laws for millions, it's too easy (and too easy to bribe them).
I'd advocate a very strong constitution (also including strict limits to
taking up debt) and 75% of *popular* vote to change anything.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Most of the world had the very same set of
> laws for centuries,
Can you please shed more light on this?
I thought, that earlier in most of the world there were colonies, were the
masters had a different sets of laws for them, and slaves different.
And before that, there was anarchy and nobody had to follow any law.
> I don't think there were many things wrong with good old Common Law,
What is this common law? If there was an earlier post on it, then please point
me to that.
> but "democratic" legislation was the thing that corrupted it.
True, the more freedom people get to decide their destiny, the worse they will
do. Everything should be left to the whims of Almighty.
>
> Yes, we need some law, and it should serve justice (whatever *that*
> now is). I think lots of self-evident laws do, but most modern
> legislation doesn't in the least.
The Patriot Act definitely doesn't. So, I agree with the above statement.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
The best-laid plans of mice and men go oft astray.
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Most of the world had the very same set of
>> laws for centuries,
>
> Can you please shed more light on this?
> I thought, that earlier in most of the world there were colonies, were the
> masters had a different sets of laws for them, and slaves different.
I'm talking tribes, regions in Britain where kings and dukes changed all
the time, most communities in general. They all thought that stealing
is bad, killing is bad, helping the poor is good. That's almost human
nature.
> And before that, there was anarchy and nobody had to follow any law.
No. Some people didn't follow the law, but they were expelled from
their communities for that. Communities have laws and enforce them.
They just didn't need centralized, corrupt government.
>> I don't think there were many things wrong with good old Common Law,
>
> What is this common law? If there was an earlier post on it, then please point
> me to that.
The British/American system AFAIK. Laws aren't made, there was just a
set of simple laws (such as fraud, theft etc.) that were interpreted by
wandering judges. New situations were judged and then recorded for
future reference. So multiple small villages had basically the same
law, because the travelling judges transported it around. People
accepted their judgement, AFAIK, so it seems they made sense.
>> but "democratic" legislation was the thing that corrupted it.
>
> True, the more freedom people get to decide their destiny, the worse they will
> do. Everything should be left to the whims of Almighty.
Not at all. You just shouldn't let other people from somewhere else
tell you what is good for *your* community.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> The British/American system AFAIK. Laws aren't made, there was just a
> set of simple laws (such as fraud, theft etc.) that were interpreted by
> wandering judges. New situations were judged and then recorded for
> future reference. So multiple small villages had basically the same
> law, because the travelling judges transported it around. People
> accepted their judgement, AFAIK, so it seems they made sense.
A small disagreement by me: new common laws are being made all the time
- that's what precedent is about. Judges are bound by the rules of
precedent - although there are different levels of "stickiness". An
Appellate Court can overturn the judgement of a lesser court, for
instance - which explains why people take their cases to the Court Of
Appeals.
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:05:12 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Basically lots of the problems that arise *in* capitalism (as seen for
> instance in the movie "The Corporation") derive from people oppressing
> other people and forcing them into sweatshops with military force, from
> there being no laws protecting human rights, for there being no courts to
> sue companies for excessive pollution etc.
Forcing them into swetshops with military force? Private military force?
As for laws protecting human rights, I'l say just that. When slavery
existed it was legal and *enforced* by the state.
And no, I do not have a solution to offer.. ((
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Vasile Rotaru wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:05:12 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> Basically lots of the problems that arise *in* capitalism (as seen for
>> instance in the movie "The Corporation") derive from people oppressing
>> other people and forcing them into sweatshops with military force, from
>> there being no laws protecting human rights, for there being no courts to
>> sue companies for excessive pollution etc.
>
> Forcing them into swetshops with military force? Private military force?
No, AFAIK it's local governments bribed by the corporations. Of course
I'd consider the bribe immoral because it's for a bad cause, and state
corruption is just as illegal. In the end it's the state doing the
aggression, i.e. I don't think this would happen (yet) in "Western
civilization".
> As for laws protecting human rights, I'l say just that. When slavery
> existed it was legal and *enforced* by the state.
Exactly. The state is just one big corporation. Only (perhaps
organized) self-defense can help you against both state oppression and
private invaders.
> And no, I do not have a solution to offer.. ((
Yes, it so easy to talk about self-defense, but hard when your family's
lives are at stake. :(
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Tim X" <····@spamto.devnul.com> wrote in message
> ···················@tiger.rapttech.com.au...
>> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> The problem with this demand and supply is that it sounds very simple
>> and when you are talking about production/manufacturing, it is fairly
>> straight forward. If the supply of some commodity other than labor is
>> too high, the balance becomes re-addressed by factories closing down
>> etc. If demand exceeds supply, factories are built to meet that
>> demand. However, labor is more complex because we are dealing with
>> other humans - you cannot just kill off some to reduce the supply and
>> you cannot just build them to meet demand. We have issues of morality,
>> justice and decency to contend with (well at least most of us do).
I didn't write the above paragraph. The formal quoting shows it, but
it's not obvious for human readers. Coby, please improve your quoting skills!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
"Pascal Bourguignon" <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
>> "Tim X" <····@spamto.devnul.com> wrote in message
>> ···················@tiger.rapttech.com.au...
>>> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>> The problem with this demand and supply is that it sounds very simple
>>> and when you are talking about production/manufacturing, it is fairly
>>> straight forward. If the supply of some commodity other than labor is
>>> too high, the balance becomes re-addressed by factories closing down
>>> etc. If demand exceeds supply, factories are built to meet that
>>> demand. However, labor is more complex because we are dealing with
>>> other humans - you cannot just kill off some to reduce the supply and
>>> you cannot just build them to meet demand. We have issues of morality,
>>> justice and decency to contend with (well at least most of us do).
>
> I didn't write the above paragraph. The formal quoting shows it, but
> it's not obvious for human readers.
Stupid humans!
> Coby, please improve your quoting skills!
Apologies...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any moral
> concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best interest
> of the stock holder.
Actually, I just found some case law that supports your view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
"Mark Carter" <··@privacy.net> wrote in message
······························@news.sunsite.dk...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard any
>> moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in the best
>> interest of the stock holder.
> Actually, I just found some case law that supports your view:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
Thanks, very big of you to post it. You really don't belong on a usenet
debate, do you ;)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> writes:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard
>> any moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in
>> the best interest of the stock holder.
> Actually, I just found some case law that supports your view:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
The decision of the Court was doubly wrong, and it set one more bad precedent.
It's not because a "corporation is organized primarily for the profit
of the stockholders" that the director should do this and not do that.
It's because the shareholders want him to.
So here are the two wrongs:
- only a minority of the share holders objected to the actions of the CEO,
the majority wanted or accepted the CEO's strategy.
- the CEO did what he did, namely increased the number of cars sold
and the number of potential buyers, to the BENEFIT of the company!
The court prevented him to pursue the greater profits for the
shareholders it said it wanted him to do!
The court was totally incoherent.
As a non car driver, perhaps I'd agree with the minority and the court
that Ford should not be allowed to build and sell billions of cars,
that it should only provide a market of 100,000 billionaires and
political leaders worldwide, and let us the simple mortals drive
horses. The Greenpiss would agree too...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> writes:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> Worse than this, boards of directors are bound by law to disregard
>> any moral concerns if they oppose profitability. They *must* act in
>> the best interest of the stock holder.
> Actually, I just found some case law that supports your view:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
>
A quick perusal of the introduction suggests that Ford didn't want to
do it for charity (as the minority shareholders apparently claimed),
but to build the long-term business. This fits with my current
understanding of Ford as being far from philanthropic in his views.
As it happens, his long-term business still did rather well.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
One of the clearest lessons of history, including recent history, is
that rights are not granted; they are won. The rest is up to us.
-- Noam Chomsky
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm>
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>
>> The demand vs. offer works on both sides.
>
> Only when both sides are close to being in balance. If the supply of
> labor greatly exceeds the demand, wages get artificially depressed. If
> the demand for labor exceeds the supply, they get artificially
> inflated.
That's not artificial, but rather natural. If there's a great supply of
something and little demand, it's natural for the price to drop; if
there's a great demand and little supply, it's natural for the price
rise. What's artificial is some third party outside of the supplying
and demanding groups to set the price at X, come hell or high water.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The Orthodox Church is not only for one nation, one civilisation, one
continent. It is like God Himself, for all and for every place.
--Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]
Date:
Message-ID: <3v09u2F139i1vU1@individual.net>
[ sorry, loooong and still totally OT]
Tim X wrote:
> Its very dangerous to generalise what you observe in your own local
> microcosm to a general theory about unemployment. for example, you are
> in your mid 20's and I'm in my mid 40's. In my little microcosm, I
> don't see many lazy pot smoking dropouts who are not looking for
> work. Instead, I see lots of previously hard working individuals who
> have been retrenched or made redundent due to falling company profits
> that are unable to obtain new jobs - often because younger potential
> employees with a potentially longer useful worklife are getting the
> jobs - often because they are prepared to work for less as they don't
> have the same financial committments (yet).
Of course Oz is probably a lot different than Germany.
At least German companies now have most of their shareholders, their
employees, and their earnings outside Germany, so for instance that
means that Germany has to build its own new economy without those big
fish. I don't know about other countries, but companies are going
offshore, shares are acquired by Japan, some USA, maybe China etc.
We can't rely on those companies anymore. We have two choices, as I see
them: reforms, so that things are flexible. That will result in wages
and prices falling a lot (because we aren't competitive anymore with
Asian countries in the long term), but we could rebuild the economy.
The second choice is just further pseudo-reforms that we are seeing for
decades now and that don't lead anywhere (well, towards Socialism, but
that can't help in a global economy that IS based on trade (i.e.
capitalism), even for China).
>> Funny thing, that decades ago we didn't have those ADD kids and
>> everybody could just do their homework. People finishing school in my
>> country could actually read and spell, and do basic math.
>
> Decades ago you could easily pick up a non-skilled job or an
> apprenticship which didn't require much education and you would likely
> hold the same job most of your life. Now that we have moved into a
Yes, maybe. But those people worked a lot harder than we do (looking at
typical German students that are HARDLY overworked), and they could
read, spell etc. after school.
> more technically based employment market you want to blame those who
> may not be as gifted with technical ability or are not as adept at
> learning (especially abstract concepts)? Yeah, that seems really
> fair.
I can only speak for myself. I see people that seem gifted to take up
new things. Maybe I'm also a bit gifted for abstract stuff, yes. But
most of what I learned was *work*, and *hard*. At some point all
English I read was 70% unknown words. At some point I had trouble
understanding rather simple math. Where others tended to give up (in my
impression) I simply sat down on my ass and swallowed the damn thing.
Of course after a while learning gets a lot easier, languages become
easier, abstract concepts relate and are easier to remember etc. So of
course now I'm waaay out the league of some other people out there. But
we started on very similar ground I'd say.
Most of my way of thinking wasn't there ten years ago, so I assume the
synapses in my brain weren't either. I thought it's a well-known fact
that lifelong learning is a requirement nowadays, so if some people
don't embrace that I honestly can't help them.
> Also, just because we didn't have the label ADD decades ago doesn't
> mean it didn't exist. Decades ago you could get a job without needing
> the ability to read and write and often people with varying learning
Not in this country... (both ADD, and the getting a job without reading)
There were trouble kids, but many many less than there seem to be now.
> disorders just slipped through the system and found a job which didn't
> require those skills. Those sort of jobs are the ones that were first
> to be automated and the first to disappear. Now we are noticing that a
> lot of people having problems getting work seem to have a common
> disorder or inability to learn at the same rate or proficiency as the
> "norm", so we give it a label.
Exactly, we find excuses for something, just because it's becoming a big
minority, even majority, thing. Social "equality" has led to a lowering
of education standards in the past, and now the social-democratic parts
of Germany are much worse educated than the conservative southeast (even
the trouble-kids are much better off there, despite the kids from stable
families having a big advantage). Hmm...
> Here is a true story. I have someone who comes and does some cleaning
> for me once a week. Her husband, Ron, who is 56 has just lost his job
> because he hurt his back. Ron was a carpenter and a very good one. He
> has been working constantly since he started at the age of 15. Now, 56
> is too young to retire, but Ron's chances of getting another job are
> pretty much non existent. He can no longer work in his trade and he
> can barely read and write, but he has a wealth of knowledge gained in
> over 40 years of hard physical work (the physical work that led to his
> back giving out). Ron won't succeed at job retraining because his
> basic education is too poor and essentially its too late to do much
True. We also have some old folks here who can't be expected to switch
jobs. But that doesn't mean we should adapt all politics to those
people. They can be treated differently, get their pension, but younger
people will have to adapt to this world's reality.
> about it. I tried to get him some work at the local college where
> building and carpentry apprentices do some of their courses, but he
> wasn't eligable because his reading/writing skills were not good
> enough. Essentially, despite working as hard as he could most of his
> life and despite having acquired valuable skills, Ron is pretty much
> on the garbage heap. I guess its his fault for not paying more
> attention in school and becoming more educated? Maybe it could just be
> that the world moved on and now he is simply redundent as a human?
The world moved on, yes, and if there's no more demand for carpenters
there is no demand. I see no other way for people like that than
retire, even if it's early.
Sub-50 people are different, at least in countries with high literacy.
>> Ok, I didn't do much homework myself, and sometimes they fired me from
>> class, because I was chatting with neighbors or not conforming to the
>> Gleichschaltung in general, but somehow I got through. And with 25
>> you might almost count me as a member of generation ADD.
>>
>
> Ah yes, the old "I did it for myself and therefore anyone else who
> doesn't its their own fault" arguement. Of course there is no need to
> look any deeper and consider issues like differences in home life,
> social situations, economic situations, intellectual differences etc
Home life, social situation? Well, those weren't too great for me, either.
> etc. All that is just far to difficult to quantify, so better to just
> blame it on the victim.
I don't blame them, I only say we have to face reality and adapt to it.
I didn't invent lifelong learning, but I'm one of those who decided to
live with it instead of loafing around.
> 95+% of what? The total number of unemployed, the number of unemployed
> under 30 years, under 20 years? The thing I find interesting about
Of people. Most human being should be expected to do something, and not
just sit there and say "I demand a job". Of course in Germany there are
motivated people right now but no jobs, but that's another story.
> these types of arguments is they tend to be based on the belief that
> the majority of people are unemployed because they want to be and that
> the majority of social security payments is made to lazy unemployed
> drug smoking hippies who just want to live off the hard earned tax
> dollars of those enterprising capitalists trying to live the dream of
> wealth and power. Absolute hogwash. For most industrialised countries
Hehe, no, but in a capitalism (such as the US once was) most people find
employment, unless they don't to adapt. In countries like Germany
there's so much regulation that companies simply move elsewhere. Now
we'd have to adapt to that, but the voters are too lethargic, and the
poll-attritions keep saying that the welfare state isn't dead yet,
despite an enormous debt.
> with a comprehensive welfare scheme, the majority of money paid is for
> pensions (old age, disabled/sickness etc) and unemployement benefits is one of
> the smaller catagories.
I think in Germany both are *very* high. Add interest payments, and you
have most of our taxes. Now *there* is a reason to create jobs instead
of increasing welfare.
> The argument that all you have to do is work hard and educate yourself
> and you will be successful is naive. I know a
> considerable number of people who have worked very hard, quite a few
> with Phds in practicle areas like resource engineering, natural
> resource management, agriculture, botany, soil science etc and despite
> constantly attempting to get a job have not been successful. I know
Sure. But there are job offers, so if I couldn't ever find a CS job, I
would study business, because they need some people.
>> If they are exploited, then why don't they form a cooperative, or a
>> syndicate, work together, and sell they produce? This is assuming
>> that they do a fair amount of work.
>>
>
> This assumes far too many things. Firstly, it assumes they can produce
> something they can sell without needing to obtain/purchase any
> infrastructure or have the capital to setup their co-op. It assumes
Ask the Marxist-Leninists how they create capital investment. My local
university seems to have lots of those believers. People should work
and receive the fruits of their labor? Sounds like there is no
infrastructure involved that needs financing...
Seriously: I assume that a group of 100 workers could do something if
they just invested €5000 each. With typical German earnings that
shouldn't be too hard. Or sell the car, maybe. If you're unemployed
you'll even receive subsidies for creating a company, here.
But because every German knows that MBAs and suits are just stupid
know-nothings (or work-nothings) and exploiters, and that capitalism and
business are the devil himself, there is a problem. I've never ever
seen a leftist or a group of them creating a business plan, raising
venture capital etc. Maybe only evil Capitalist class members can
create businesses after all?
> they are not so exploited they can take the risk of losing what little
> they have. It assumes they have the knowledge and confidence to do it
> and it assumes enough of them will agree for long enough to make
> anything ahppen. Very easy to make such assumptions from the position
> of an outside observer.
I agree on the last sentence, sure. But assuming that they were
exploited by a do-nothing businessman, they could just go on with their
old work (and their new, credit-paid infrastructure). It follows that
either they weren't exploited, or that there is a problem with the money
or the business mentality. I assume the latter, except for grown
families, where the financial situation is difficult.
> Oh dear, more one-eyed Kenysian economics - totally ignoring the other
> side of the equation, that of supply and demand and how it applies to
> labor, not just production. A low wage doesn't necessarily mean "We
> don't need any more workers for this job" - it can just as easily mean
> "We have lots of unemployed desperate workers, so we can pay them very
> little and they will do the job and keep our profits high".
That's what I'm saying. Supply drives prices down. But if one
profession has huge supply while another has some demand, that's telling
people that they are in the wrong profession.
> Why is it the "blame" seems to always be dumped on the employee and
> nothing on the employer who has changed the employment landscape to
> increase their profits. I'm not saying the employer should take all
Because the employer chooses where to invest his money, and who to hire.
The change is the employment landscape is a consequent, but there is
no god-given right to a job, so I for one am not complaining. If I need
to, I'll leave this country. We Europeans are lucky; we may work
anywhere. Language might be a problem, but I'm still studying.
Hmmm, riots, and totally insane ideas coming from the Socialist party.
Maybe studying French was the wrong decision, and I should have tried
Lithuanian?
> the responsability, but I believe they should take some - if they
> introduce automation and remove unskilled/low-skilled jobs to increase
> their profits, they should also contribute to the re-skilling of their
> labor - lets face, employees with more money consume more, so wouldn't
> it be in their interest to ensure the greater majority of people can
> consume more - surely this will provide better long term profits than
> simple replacement of labor by automation?
Well, the state-financed education system encourages companies to
externalize education to society. Also, people switch jobs more often,
so it's not really worthwhile for them to invest.
In capitalism, I think we'd see more long-term contracts, like TV
stations and soccer players have today, and companies would invest more
in education (and part would be paid by the employee).
>> I wonder what these people would do in Socialism. Probably the state
>> would just let them starve, because the quota for job A is already
>> full, and they don't meet any other requirements. Or pay them for
>> thumb-diddling. Or maybe not have any quotas, but install a wage
>> that's "not exploitative", so that suddenly everybody chooses that job
>> instead of getting a better education (that's comparably hard work for
>> the pay you get).
>>
>
> I think it was Walenstein who argued that you couldn't have a
> socialist economy within a capitalist world. I suspect the reason that
> socialism has not succeeded in any significant way is that we do
> essentially live within a capitalist world and the main motivator is
> money/wealth/capital. I personally agree with Marx that capitalism has
You can try protectionism, but many people have failed. The reason is
not that the world is bad, greedy, and capitalist. The reason is that
everywhere, even in Soviet Russia and China, where some people probably
had never heard of capitalist economic concepts (too dangerous ideas),
there were markets. Black markets spawn everywhere to connect supply
and demand. There's nothing sinful about that.
Socialism is cool, but it shouldn't be forced on people, and Socialists
have to face the reality: that their community has to have a positive
import/export relation.
> an inherent contradiction. I don't agree with him that it can/will be
> destroyed when the workers rise up and take back the means of
When I read Marx (only the Manifest) I agreed that there were some bad
things going on. I agreed with workers that strikes were a good thing,
and that Social Democracy brought some real benefits. But I don't agree
that Capitalism has a contradiction (what would that be? Capitalism
doesn't really have many rules or laws, except those that occur
naturally almost all societies of the last thousands of years), or that
Socialism can in any way solve things.
> production. The problem with his assumption is that it doesn't take
Well, the German Socialist party (PDS) has at least one guy who supports
that workers buy shares of their companies. That way, in a decent
timeframe, they'd own a good chunk of it. THAT's socialism that makes
sense. They'd get part of the profits, but also carry part of the
financial risk and capital basis.
Most Socialists still don't understand that production is more than just
a bunch of people employing their work; there's other resources too and
they need to be allocated.
> into account individual motivation. While we are still primarily
> motivated by individual gains/benefits, a socialist state is not very
> difficult from a capitalist one - the means of production is just
> controlled by the state instead of a few percent of
> individuals. Therefore, there is no point in considering what would
There's nothing about Capitalism that says that only an elite should own
things. In Germany many people own houses, many own shares of companies
etc. The world isn't all black and white, with workes and capitalists
opposed.
In Socialism all coordination is centralized, while in Capitalism it's
totally decentralized. Only the owner, not some commitee, decides how
to allocate scarce resources. We all know history. We've seen them
work and fail. I think Western countries during the past half century,
and the Soviet Union in comparison should show *some* illustration.
Yes, they were bad dictatorships. No, I don't think a democracy would
do very much better. Democracies brought us Hitler after a crisis that
looked just like today's Germany, just to remind (and to satisfy Usenet :D).
> happen to those without jobs within a "socialist state" because it
> would need to be a socialist planet with a different motivational
> imperitive before you would observe any real difference.
But why can't people live a socialism in their own area? Why does it
have to be global? And if, then why would Earth be enough, why not
other possible planets too?
Capitalism works from single households/families, to small companies, to
large companies. Ok, huge corporations bribe and work the state, but
that isn't the fault of capitalism, but of too much state power and too
few checks and balances.
> I wish I had a time machine and could travel forward 30 years or so
> and ask again your opinions on this stuff. I suspect your views will
> change a lot over that time. I don't mean to discount your opinions -
Oh, they did. Two years ago I was kindof socialist myself, but you
know, "he who isn't Socialist with 20 has no heart; he who is still
Socialist with 30 has no brains" ;) (no offense, we all have our opinions)
> I don't agree with them, but they are just as valid as mine. However,
> I suspect you may be in for a few surprises!
As opinions they are valid, and I'm just as curious, yes. I wish we had
more federalism, so Socialists could have their Zones back, and other
people could have a peaceful libertarian state, a Bushist or Bavarian
Christian state etc.
> Nothing about life is fair. Where you end up and the road you have to
> travel to get there is more influenced by luck than by planning and
> hard work. Education and hard work will go a long way towards getting
But still we should work towards more chance equality, which isn't the
same as Equality. Germany used to be a country with many opportunities,
as were the USA. Things changed, and it's not just evil Globalization
that we can suddenly put all our blames on.
> you into a position to better take advantage of the good luck when it
> comes along, but there are no guarantees. We should all be very
That's right.
> careful about judging others based on what we can observe about them
> in a relatively short moment as we seldom know what road they have
> traveled to get there.
In the long run, yes. Back in school we were all more similar I think.
> Tim
>
> P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
> say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
> knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
> would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
> with such a strong conservative or individualist political
> leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
> attracts or what - just an observation.
Lisp is about doing things on your own if you want to, without outside
regulations. In that way it's Capitalist, not Socialist, IMHO.
If we were a Social Democracy, we'd all use Java, because 60% of The Man
say so.
Standardization also wasn't created by a democratic committee, but first
through voluntary cooperation with no regulations.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> [ sorry, loooong and still totally OT]
Considering your experience I am overwhelmed that you dare to write with so
much aplomb.
A question of curiosity: from which part of Germany do you come? Did you
spend your childhood in the former East or are you from West Germany?
Nicolas.
Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> [ sorry, loooong and still totally OT]
>
> Considering your experience I am overwhelmed that you dare to write with so
> much aplomb.
I simply dare state my opinion, based on a decade of experiences,
thoughts, and readings. It's interesting that everybody becomes rabid
and angry when people defend a system of cold economics against
invisible, nonexistent alternatives that nobody will ever lay out in
complete, and that always involve some magical ingredient to work.
Maybe I'm not old, but I reject tradition or age-authority for its own
sake. I'm arguing in a rational way (I hope) and I have yet to see a
better suggestion that is presented in the same rational way, and that
solves the same problems that capitalism does.
> A question of curiosity: from which part of Germany do you come? Did you
> spend your childhood in the former East or are you from West Germany?
I'm from a semi-large city state in the North. I've seen the stuff that
happens when stupid bureaucrats waste tax money for what they think is
good for us.
I have only visited the East once (Jena, rode through Erfurt), and parts
looked post-war, while others were obviously highly subsidized and
almost futuristic. Some people seemed hostile, most seemed very nice.
Still, I wonder why people really ask for Socialism when all they've
seen is ... Socialism, and our current Mercantilist scheme, and when
they understand even much less of economics than I do.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>> A question of curiosity: from which part of Germany do you come? Did you
>> spend your childhood in the former East or are you from West Germany?
>
>
> I'm from a semi-large city state in the North.
That reminds me of a joke about the Irish, who are "well known" for
their sectarianism. Here goes ...
A man walks down the streets of Ireland, and is accosted by a gang of
strangers. The gang askes the man "are you a Catholic or a Protestant?".
The man replies "I'm a Buddhist". The gang then demands "Yes, but are
you a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?".
OK, maybe not strictly the funniest joke in the world.
Mark Carter wrote:
>
>>> A question of curiosity: from which part of Germany do you come? Did
>>> you
>>> spend your childhood in the former East or are you from West Germany?
>>
>>
>> I'm from a semi-large city state in the North.
Ok, for those who aren't from here, it's called Bremen, the city that
makes one of the better beers and has one of the better soccer teams in
the world ;)
> That reminds me of a joke about the Irish, who are "well known" for
> their sectarianism. Here goes ...
>
> A man walks down the streets of Ireland, and is accosted by a gang of
> strangers. The gang askes the man "are you a Catholic or a Protestant?".
> The man replies "I'm a Buddhist". The gang then demands "Yes, but are
> you a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?".
>
>
> OK, maybe not strictly the funniest joke in the world.
No, it's insulting to the Buddhist.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>> That reminds me of a joke about the Irish, who are "well known" for
>> their sectarianism. Here goes ...
>>
>> A man walks down the streets of Ireland, and is accosted by a gang of
>> strangers. The gang askes the man "are you a Catholic or a
>> Protestant?". The man replies "I'm a Buddhist". The gang then demands
>> "Yes, but are you a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?".
>>
>>
>> OK, maybe not strictly the funniest joke in the world.
>
>
> No, it's insulting to the Buddhist.
No it isn't.
Mark Carter wrote:
>>> OK, maybe not strictly the funniest joke in the world.
>>
>>
>> No, it's insulting to the Buddhist.
>
> No it isn't.
:)
Yeah, agreed, that wasn't a very reasonable remark by me.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> [...]
> Because the employer chooses where to invest his money, and who to
> hire. The change is the employment landscape is a consequent, but
> there is no god-given right to a job, so I for one am not complaining.
> If I need to, I'll leave this country. We Europeans are lucky; we may
> work anywhere. Language might be a problem, but I'm still studying.
>
> Hmmm, riots, and totally insane ideas coming from the Socialist
> party. Maybe studying French was the wrong decision, and I should have
> tried Lithuanian?
Once you know French you can learn Spanish easily, and a whole
continent opens before you in addition to Spain :-)
> Most Socialists still don't understand that production is more than
> just a bunch of people employing their work; there's other resources
> too and they need to be allocated.
What they don't understand is that production doesn't matter at all!
(And therefore ownership of means of production neither).
What matters is to have a market where people can learn what can be
bought and what can be sold, that sets relative prices to allow both
buyers and sellers to know how to allocate resources.
> [...]
> In Socialism all coordination is centralized, while in Capitalism it's
> totally decentralized. Only the owner, not some commitee, decides how
> to allocate scarce resources. We all know history. We've seen them
> work and fail. I think Western countries during the past half
> century, and the Soviet Union in comparison should show *some*
> illustration. Yes, they were bad dictatorships. No, I don't think a
> democracy would do very much better. Democracies brought us Hitler
> after a crisis that looked just like today's Germany, just to remind
> (and to satisfy Usenet :D).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Hmmm, riots, and totally insane ideas coming from the Socialist
>> party. Maybe studying French was the wrong decision, and I should have
>> tried Lithuanian?
>
> Once you know French you can learn Spanish easily, and a whole
> continent opens before you in addition to Spain :-)
I did some Spanish before, but French is a bit nicer and easier if you
know English and German (pronunciation, similar words and sentence
order). Once you are past the beginning stage, though, it seems like
French is harder to understand than Spanish. Good that sometimes there
are French subtitles.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>>>>> "TX" == Tim X <Tim> writes:
[...]
TX> Its very dangerous to generalise what you observe in your own
TX> local microcosm to a general theory about unemployment. for
TX> example, you are in your mid 20's and I'm in my mid 40's. [...]
Ok, I'll bite. I'm in my early 40's.
TX> In
TX> my little microcosm, I don't see many lazy pot smoking
TX> dropouts who are not looking for work.
I don't see that either, I _do_ see people who thought the salaries
they used to be able to pull in were some kind of right or had
something to do with things that were/are innate in them. I think the
former is just buying into propaganda, and the latter might be a handy
way to suppress discomfort with obvious inequality (if people are even
aware of that).
TX> Instead, I see lots of
TX> previously hard working individuals who have been retrenched
TX> or made redundent due to falling company profits that are
TX> unable to obtain new jobs - often because younger potential
TX> employees with a potentially longer useful worklife are
TX> getting the jobs - often because they are prepared to work for
TX> less as they don't have the same financial committments (yet).
[...]
I see those too. Perhaps I know more of them in the US than the far
younger Turkey. I don't see these people as fools, but some of them
are long-time friends and I _do_ remember where the fork in the road
was as it was talked about at the time: it was in the consumption
habits, career choices and the choice to have kids. Both are choices
for the halfway educated. I and cannot claim I made the right ones by
making a hobby out of being cheap and deferring procreation, but it is
tough not to see, with hindsight, where/when the potential for trouble
really began in many cases. This does not mean I ought not help
people with whatever wealth I managed to accumulate, but it does, at
least in the very restricted microcosm, mean that I have solid grounds
for rejecting that those people have a 'right' to my means that'd
justify the use of force. No doubt the decency argument does apply
here, just as it would apply in the case where (via bad judgement or
not) if I'd ended up homeless and people would put me up. Outside of
this particular microcosm and if decency is driving the argument I
just don't see how decency ends at the national borders -- but that is
precisely where gov't coercion ends for any particular gov't. (<- there's
your opening folks for more OT stuff).
I do have very much the same gut reaction to gov't intervention as the
folks who draw ire here, because through pretty much all my adult/work
life (on three continents) any time I tried to assert control over my
economic activitities (be it sale of labor or wealth accumulation or
international trade/movement of capital) the number one impediment was
people armed with a legal threat of violence telling me how bad what I
wanted to do was or how I owed them part of my income not only for the
services I have used but also for whatever agenda some hypocrite sold
to the hapless masses. I dare any of you to assert personal control
over their retirement savings, health insurance, agreements/contracts
for work, or, over something as simple as moving a household/car and
see how fast you get slapped with the law. Folks who argue these
things from a freedoms point of view do have a point that reasonable
people can look at without involving the obscenity of arguing
demand/supply when there is starvation or real life-threatening
misery.
Please note that since the issue of microcosms was raised, I am just
talking about mine. There's a tendency to concentrate on how we play
the hand we've been dealt even when we pretend to be talking
broadly. I think a healthy dose of recognition that, for the large
part, our experiences are restricted to those after the cards are
dealt might go a long way in at least personally coming to grips with
where we are economically as individuals.
Anyway, just my OT $0.02.
cheers,
BM
Good post, Tim, OT though it may be...
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
> say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
> knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
> would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
> with such a strong conservative or individualist political
> leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
> attracts or what - just an observation.
Yes, there are some very good technical people here who,
unfortunately, and for whatever reason, do not seem to have much of a
clue politically (in the broad sense of that word). In some cases,
like the case of a twenty-five year old, it probably mostly reflects
lack of life experience; but in other cases, the ones towards the
other extreme in age, who knows? It's obviously not stupidity per
se. Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. It's hard to avoid the
conclusion that if it's not a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of
experience, then it must be a lack of decency. That's probably too
harsh, of course, but can't be discounted as being among the
possibilities, distasteful though it may be. It's shocking to discover
that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
[Plato, Republic]
Perhaps some (a lot of?) people just don't learn empathy (and in fact
despise the word and associate it with weakness), think of others as
objects (though they would never admit it, even to themselves), and
maybe never learn much about how things work except within their own
little sphere.
There's more to it than that, though. For instance, most people
(especially the arrogant, intelligent ones) are also much more subject
to the effects of social conditioning than they realise. Then there is
the sheeple effect, where people struggle to have an independent
thought, and rely on ingratiating themselves with peers by all
agreeing to think the same way and have the same beliefs. Intelligence
doesn't seem to lessen this effect in any way, but may even intensify
it (think of the behaviour of academic and scientific communities).
Much more could be said, but now that I've annoyed enough people, I
think I'll go back to do some more lisping... ;-)
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
To us at the Catholic Worker, anarchism means "Love God, and do as you
will." "For such, there is no law." "If anyone asks for your cloak,
give him your coat too." One could go on with these Scriptural
teachings of Jesus, though the above quotations could be expressed in
many ways.
-- Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, August 1977
(Dorothy Day Library on the Web at
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/)
David Trudgett wrote:
> Good post, Tim, OT though it may be...
>
> Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>
> > P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
> > say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
> > knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
> > would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
> > with such a strong conservative or individualist political
> > leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
> > attracts or what - just an observation.
>
> Yes, there are some very good technical people here who,
> unfortunately, and for whatever reason, do not seem to have much of a
> clue politically (in the broad sense of that word). In some cases,
> like the case of a twenty-five year old, it probably mostly reflects
> lack of life experience; but in other cases, the ones towards the
> other extreme in age, who knows? It's obviously not stupidity per
> se. Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. It's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that if it's not a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of
> experience, then it must be a lack of decency. That's probably too
> harsh, of course, but can't be discounted as being among the
> possibilities, distasteful though it may be. It's shocking to discover
> that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
> immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
> [Plato, Republic]
I would like to be as brief as I can be, as the Usenet Junior Varsity
Debate Team is salivating over this topic...
I think you are both painting Lisp users badly. You will likely find as
broad a range of opinion as with any other group of people --
particularly if you actually meet Lisp users in person.
In fact, you may see some sympathy with non-mainstream forms of
economics, just as Lisp is non-mainstream.
That said, I think _Disciplined Minds_ by Jeff Schmidt is a very good
overview of the "professional class." There are free audio podcasts of
the book.
Further, we often do not learn the tools to seriously evaluate
different economic systems. For example, what allocation institutions
exist other than markets and central planning? And what is an
"institution" and "economics," anyway? Here is one attempt at answering
these questions.
http://www.parecon.org/writings/10lecs.htm
(This is not academic, as corporations tend to be heavy users of
central planning, and I hear that of the top 100 world economies, 51
are corporations, with the rest countries (in 2000). Further, it's very
unlikely that my nation (the US) has such a huge government, and
magically not distort the markets.)
I say all this only to point out that there are people here who don't
simply rah-rah either state-capitalism or state-communism, neither of
which is "free" from some powerful central authority.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> (This is not academic, as corporations tend to be heavy users of
> central planning, and I hear that of the top 100 world economies, 51
> are corporations, with the rest countries (in 2000). Further, it's very
> unlikely that my nation (the US) has such a huge government, and
> magically not distort the markets.)
That's an interesting thing, yes. The point is that corporation can go
bankrupt and investment is lost, when they plan badly. Badly planning
governments destroy the wealth of all those they taxed, and maybe others
by creating a climate hostile to free entrepreneurship.
How many people would create companies if there weren't *clear*
advantages to being an employee for most average people?
> I say all this only to point out that there are people here who don't
> simply rah-rah either state-capitalism or state-communism, neither of
> which is "free" from some powerful central authority.
Or people who rah-rah anti-state ;)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > (This is not academic, as corporations tend to be heavy users of
> > central planning, and I hear that of the top 100 world economies, 51
> > are corporations, with the rest countries (in 2000). Further, it's very
> > unlikely that my nation (the US) has such a huge government, and
> > magically not distort the markets.)
>
> That's an interesting thing, yes. The point is that corporation can go
> bankrupt and investment is lost, when they plan badly. Badly planning
> governments destroy the wealth of all those they taxed, and maybe others
> by creating a climate hostile to free entrepreneurship.
Since these back and forth discussions on this particular forum can't
help but descend into madness, I'll just mention a couple quotes, which
may interest people who like to pursue these topics on their own: with
the proviso that quoting someone doesn't mean I fully agree with them.
"Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as the basic
assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."
-- George Soros, Atlantic Monthly 1997
"Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is
still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies
often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as
their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees
and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are
expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental
salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in
industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or
presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop."
-- Ralph Nader, Washington Post 2002
> How many people would create companies if there weren't *clear*
> advantages to being an employee for most average people?
Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ has an interesting take on this.
Tayssir
----
"Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably
control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information
(press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed
in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to
objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political
rights."
-- Albert Einstein, 1949
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> wrote in message
····························@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Since these back and forth discussions on this particular forum can't
> help but descend into madness,
Race you there :)
> I'll just mention a couple quotes, which
Those are good sound bites!
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
> may interest people who like to pursue these topics on their own: with
> the proviso that quoting someone doesn't mean I fully agree with them.
>
> "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as the basic
> assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
> assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."
> -- George Soros, Atlantic Monthly 1997
>
> "Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is
> still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies
> often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as
> their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees
> and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are
> expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental
> salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in
> industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or
> presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop."
> -- Ralph Nader, Washington Post 2002
>
>
>> How many people would create companies if there weren't *clear*
>> advantages to being an employee for most average people?
>
> Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ has an interesting take on this.
>
>
> Tayssir
>
> ----
> "Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably
> control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information
> (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed
> in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to
> objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political
> rights."
> -- Albert Einstein, 1949
>
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Since these back and forth discussions on this particular forum can't
> help but descend into madness, I'll just mention a couple quotes, which
> may interest people who like to pursue these topics on their own: with
> the proviso that quoting someone doesn't mean I fully agree with them.
>
> "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as the basic
> assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
> assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."
> -- George Soros, Atlantic Monthly 1997
Interesting, but I'd like to know what assumptions he meant. Surely
there are some things that we can take for granted, such as laws that
are actually enforced.
This reminds me of a book by Soros I found in an Irish second-hand
bookstore some years ago, "The crisis of global capitalism" in which he
describes the financial market and its self-reinforcing bubbles.
OTOH, we live in a reality with lots of fiat money, so I'm not sure how
it would apply to capitalism with fixed, no-inflation currencies.
> "Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is
> still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies
> often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as
> their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees
> and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are
Baaad thing indeed.
> expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental
> salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in
> industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or
> presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop."
> -- Ralph Nader, Washington Post 2002
>
>
>> How many people would create companies if there weren't *clear*
>> advantages to being an employee for most average people?
>
> Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ has an interesting take on this.
Don't plan to read him, but IMHO everybody is his own company anyway.
We have to do marketing, we have to invest (education), and we have only
one worker if we don't hire more.
Smith's classic example of the baker that doesn't work for the public
good, but for his own profit, is one example.
And I'm sure his friends and family also get some free bread!
> "Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably
> control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information
> (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed
Freedom of the press belongs to him who has one. But as long as some
people have interest in objective information or underground news (and
are willing to keep those people from starving), those sources will
persist. Mainstream media satisfies totally different demands.
> in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to
> objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political
> rights."
> -- Albert Einstein, 1949
Conclusions are never objective anyway, unless they are logical, and as
you quoted above, assumptions might be non-true sometimes.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> I'd like to know what he means by "economic theory".
Well, George Soros is a philanthropic multimillionaire (billionaire?)
who made a fortune on the financial market.
He's a capitalist, but sees some problems in its current incarnation.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>Paul Foley wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:13:22 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>
>> > Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> >> Since these back and forth discussions on this particular forum can't
>> >> help but descend into madness, I'll just mention a couple quotes, which
>> >> may interest people who like to pursue these topics on their own: with
>> >> the proviso that quoting someone doesn't mean I fully agree with them.
>> >> "Economic theory is an axiomatic system: as long as the basic
>> >> assumptions hold, the conclusions follow. But when we examine the
>> >> assumptions closely, we find that they do not apply to the real world."
>> >> -- George Soros, Atlantic Monthly 1997
>>
>> > Interesting, but I'd like to know what assumptions he meant. Surely
>> > there are some things that we can take for granted, such as laws that
>> > are actually enforced.
>>
>> I'd like to know what he means by "economic theory". The vast
>> majority of so-called "economists" believe the sort of utter nonsense
>> promulgated by Keynes and his successors is "economic theory". If
>> that's the sort of thing Soros thinks of (and it is, judging by other
>> stuff he's written/said), then of course he's absolutely right: it
>> doesn't apply to the real world (or to any imaginable world, in fact).
>
> Well, George Soros is a philanthropic multimillionaire (billionaire?)
> who made a fortune on the financial market.
>
> He's a capitalist, but sees some problems in its current incarnation.
Why don't you guys simply search for Soros's article, rather than spend
time posting, spending thought wondering what he wrote?
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Econ/soros/capital.htm
Let me warn though that those who don't like the following quotes
probably won't enjoy reading the thing, and shouldn't waste their time:
"Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear
that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and
the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our
open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I
believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.[...]
"Yet laissez-faire ideology, I contend, is just as much a perversion of
supposedly scientific verities as Marxism-Leninism is."
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> He's a capitalist, but sees some problems in its current incarnation.
>
> Why don't you guys simply search for Soros's article, rather than spend
> time posting, spending thought wondering what he wrote?
> http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Econ/soros/capital.htm
Because I didn't know that there was a "Soros's article". I've only
read that one book of his.
Well, thanks for the link.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:09:57 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>>> I'd like to know what he means by "economic theory".
>
>> Well, George Soros is a philanthropic multimillionaire (billionaire?)
>> who made a fortune on the financial market.
>
> I know who he is. Keynes made a lot of money in the financial
> markets, too; doesn't mean he understood anything about economics.
>
>> He's a capitalist, but sees some problems in its current incarnation.
>
> No, he's just another chardonnay socialist type.
I don't think he is. Take a read at this article
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Econ/soros/capital.htm (posted
here by Tayssir I believe?), which is a follow-up to his book "The
crisis of global capitalism".
It's NOT against capitalism, in that he doesn't propose any alternative.
Unlike most people Soros knows better than that. He simply point at a
few problems and says that society needs to look at more than just money.
I'm not sure I agree with his global financial market problem, because a
fixed money supply (instead of inflated money) might prevent heavy
bubbles in the market.
OTOH he merely points out an anarchist position: that societies might
not organize themselves in a totally laisser-faire manner, because of
certain points he raises. They're free to do so (if you're free to join
and leave).
To me this points into the direction of FOQNEs (franchise-operated
quasi-national entities), which would be small "states" with an agenda
layed out in their constitutional contract and that people could choose
to live in (like they choose to live in a building complex, accepting
the rental contract). There's nothing saying that these
kindof-countries need to be all laisser-faire, and I believe most people
in an anarchist society who aren't totally stupid will have lots of
contracts and cooperative agreements with other humans, because that's
what makes society. Since most people seem anti-laisser-faire I think
most parts of an anarchist society would also make up their own
sub-societies.
(The advantage or difference of FOQNEs to states is that they are
companies who depend on their people instead of plundering them. They
can go bankrupt. They can't simply inflate money to not go bankrupt.
They can't borrow infinite money. They might buy or sell areas of land,
depending on their member base (and therefore their money base). I.e.
instead of very simplistic competition like "I don't like Germany, so
I'll leave for some other country with another language", it's just
changing companies and moving (maybe not too far abroad). Also, FOQNEs
grow and shrink according to competition, which is a good thing, because
it discourages inefficient societies from simply buying and forever
taking up all land, say, for dumping nuclear waste.)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Paul Foley (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) wrote:
>> It's NOT against capitalism, in that he doesn't propose any
>> alternative.
>
> It can't be against capitalism unless it proposes an alternative?
> It certainly looks like it's against capitalism to me.
Ok, in that sense. I only think it's pretty pointless when people say
"Capitalism sucks" but don't present anything better. Until that
happens, we might just go with capitalism, IMHO, just like I use a Mac
until something better comes along that sucks even less.
When people aren't suggesting constructive criticism, they have no
rights whatsoever to say that something is totally bad (because then
it's still the best).
> Well, I'd started writing a rather long response to this, but then I
> found the following, which says most of what I wanted to say, and
> probably better than I would have said it:
> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1651
Interesting, but loooong.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Further, we often do not learn the tools to seriously evaluate
> different economic systems. For example, what allocation institutions
> exist other than markets and central planning? And what is an
> "institution" and "economics," anyway? Here is one attempt at answering
> these questions.
> http://www.parecon.org/writings/10lecs.htm
It's a great idea, but guess what: it's not an alternative system; it's
simple anarchism, or capitalism with employee-owned corporations, i.e.
just what exists in many cases already.
I'm all in favor of those ideas, but they can and do exist inside
capitalism (which is just a property rights framework) and can't (or
shouldn't) be forced on people with a gun to their neck.
The only thing to do is to convince people that they don't spend all
their money on SUVs and HDTV but invest more. Most people in Western
countries can (still) afford that.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thank you Tayssir, you make some excellent points.
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> Good post, Tim, OT though it may be...
>>
>> Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>>
>> > P.S. and yes, I do apologise for such an OT post. However, I have to
>> > say that while I've found some of the most intelligent and
>> > knowledgable posts regarding programming et. al. on this group, I
>> > would have to say I've not seen any other programming related group
>> > with such a strong conservative or individualist political
>> > leaning. Not sure if its somehow related to Lisp and the people it
>> > attracts or what - just an observation.
>>
>> Yes, there are some very good technical people here who,
>> unfortunately, and for whatever reason, do not seem to have much of a
>> clue politically (in the broad sense of that word). In some cases,
>> like the case of a twenty-five year old, it probably mostly reflects
>> lack of life experience; but in other cases, the ones towards the
>> other extreme in age, who knows? It's obviously not stupidity per
>> se. Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. It's hard to avoid the
>> conclusion that if it's not a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of
>> experience, then it must be a lack of decency. That's probably too
>> harsh, of course, but can't be discounted as being among the
>> possibilities, distasteful though it may be. It's shocking to discover
>> that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
>> immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
>> [Plato, Republic]
>
> I would like to be as brief as I can be, as the Usenet Junior Varsity
> Debate Team is salivating over this topic...
>
> I think you are both painting Lisp users badly.
Tim made a speculation. Neither of us know, nor claim to know, how
much truth may lie in it. It's a personal impression and nothing
more. I personally don't believe it very likely that c.l.l frequenters
or the Lisp community in general is unique in their spectrum of
political beliefs. I do agree with Tim that I've seen a lot of
greed-is-good ideology going on in c.l.l that I don't see
elsewhere. That, however, may say nothing about Lisp, but only about
the people who happen to be here, and who happen to open their mouths
(figuratively speaking, of course).
> You will likely find as broad a range of opinion as with any other
> group of people -- particularly if you actually meet Lisp users in
> person.
Actually, I personally don't generally find meeting people to be very
useful in understanding their beliefs about anything of great
significance in the political arena. Less gets said and differences
get glossed over. In addition, most people I meet make assumptions
about things that preclude a common ground for discussion, because I
am forever having to call them on their assumptions and the
conversation goes nowhere (can you say "recursion"?).
>
> In fact, you may see some sympathy with non-mainstream forms of
> economics, just as Lisp is non-mainstream.
Another speculation for which there is no real evidence? ;-)
>
> That said, I think _Disciplined Minds_ by Jeff Schmidt is a very good
> overview of the "professional class." There are free audio podcasts of
> the book.
Is that the one that explains how the professional class is actually
the working class, except that they identify with the propertied
ruling classes? :-) That's a joke. ;-)
>
> Further, we often do not learn the tools to seriously evaluate
> different economic systems. For example, what allocation institutions
> exist other than markets and central planning? And what is an
> "institution" and "economics," anyway? Here is one attempt at answering
> these questions.
> http://www.parecon.org/writings/10lecs.htm
Yes, I've looked briefly at participatory economics in the past, and
what I've seen so far looks good. I need to have a proper look and
evaluation before I can make any real comment, but it so far at least
seems to fit within the anarchist or libertarian (in its true sense,
not the American "right wing" sense) paradigm (which, of course,
covers any voluntary organisation of people and resources).
>
> (This is not academic, as corporations tend to be heavy users of
> central planning,
No kidding ;-)
> and I hear that of the top 100 world economies, 51
> are corporations, with the rest countries (in 2000). Further, it's very
> unlikely that my nation (the US) has such a huge government, and
> magically not distort the markets.)
>
> I say all this only to point out that there are people here who don't
> simply rah-rah either state-capitalism or state-communism, neither of
> which is "free" from some powerful central authority.
Well, 'state-capitalism' refers to communism as it was practiced in
the Soviet Union in the bad old days. ;-)
<http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/goldman/there-is-no-communism-in-russia_emma-goldman.html>
If you're hinting that we have state-capitalism now, then that might
explain how come things are headed more and more towards being how
they were in mother Russia. Luckily, I don't live in the PSA (Police
State of America), but the PSA (Police State of Australia) is not far
behind now.
Now, of course, "capitalism" and "communism" are not the only two
possibilities for people to "rah-rah", as you put it, and neither, of
course, is "state-anything" the only choice. When people have no more
use for states, then they simply won't exist any longer. (The state,
for instance, is fundamentally opposed to the teachings of Jesus,
because the *divisive nature* of them violates the simple truth that
every Christian knows: that we are all brothers and sisters in one
family.)
Thanks for your thoughts. Parecon (the little I know of it) and more
ideas like that are what the world needs.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Reason never changed a man's opinion which by reason he never acquired.
-- Mark Twain
Hi David,
David Trudgett wrote:
> "Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > David Trudgett wrote:
> >> It's shocking to discover
> >> that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
> >> immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
> >> [Plato, Republic]
> >
> > [snippage..]
>
> I personally don't believe it very likely that c.l.l frequenters
> or the Lisp community in general is unique in their spectrum of
> political beliefs. I do agree with Tim that I've seen a lot of
> greed-is-good ideology going on in c.l.l that I don't see
> elsewhere.
Well, the "greed-is-good" people seem to think their viewpoint is the
most humane. Some say they behold a mathematical system driven by an
engine of greed, and claim this is the most humane system humanity can
have.
In my view, programming language flamewars are very similar to economic
ones. Very simple for participants to assume the other guy's some
retard or evil person. So these threads simultaneously go berzerk and
become boring, even though the participants are well-intentioned.
Discussing economics and programming seem to have comparable amounts of
religious fervor and inability to evaluate things rationally. (We don't
need no steenkin' definitions!) A lot of Lisp advocacy is very
misleading, for example.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> In my view, programming language flamewars are very similar to economic
> ones. Very simple for participants to assume the other guy's some
> retard or evil person. So these threads simultaneously go berzerk and
> become boring, even though the participants are well-intentioned.
That's a good comparison. Some people think their language should be
made The Law, just because it has some more features maybe.
But freedom is better than force: people have different requirements, so
they choose different languages (even for different tasks).
> Discussing economics and programming seem to have comparable amounts of
> religious fervor and inability to evaluate things rationally. (We don't
> need no steenkin' definitions!) A lot of Lisp advocacy is very
> misleading, for example.
Lots of advocacy for good things is misleading, because it is bad
marketing, i.e. it doesn't take into account others' requirements and
values. Maybe lots of people out there just don't value Lisp's
achievements enough?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Some people think their language should be made The Law, just
> because it has some more features maybe.
Or, even worse, because that happens to be the language they've
invested the most energy learning.
--
Steven E. Harris
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Maybe lots of people out there just don't value Lisp's achievements
> enough?
I'm pretty sure it's the parentheses. Once you get past the funny
syntax you then run into oddly named functions like TERPRI. Somewhere
along the line you decide that Emacs is not the editor you want to
learn just to learn Lisp. Then you run into the infamous library
issue.
What? There's no portable way to write threaded networking code with
a pretty GUI?
Also Lisp is somehow considered old even though Common Lisp is
actually younger than C and about the same age as C++.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
David Steuber wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Maybe lots of people out there just don't value Lisp's achievements
>> enough?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the parentheses. Once you get past the funny
> syntax you then run into oddly named functions like TERPRI. Somewhere
> along the line you decide that Emacs is not the editor you want to
> learn just to learn Lisp. Then you run into the infamous library
> issue.
>
> What? There's no portable way to write threaded networking code with
> a pretty GUI?
>
> Also Lisp is somehow considered old even though Common Lisp is
> actually younger than C and about the same age as C++.
Funny, all of the above are reasons why I still like to use C, Java,
ObjC sometimes, even though I don't really like them. Halfway I think
"how could I avoid this mess" and then decide that plugging it into Lisp
would probably be even more work. With big applications that'd probably
be different.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Hi Tayssir,
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> "Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > David Trudgett wrote:
>> >> It's shocking to discover that there are actually immoral people
>> >> in the world, and that the most immoral of them love to project
>> >> the image of consummate morality. [Plato, Republic]
Just by way of a small clarification of what I said there about
immoral people: what I had in mind is not particularly people who fall
prey to temptation and do the wrong thing from time to time or even on
a very regular basis (that could be any of us). I had in mind people
who do not feel constrained to govern themselves by petty
considerations like morality. Psychiatrists call these people
'psychopaths' (also known as sociopaths), although I cannot help but
get the feeling that this is just the medical profession's attempt to
diagnose plain evil (there is no known physical or other cause of
psychopathy at this stage, as far as I know).
The remarkable thing that I have recently learned is that there is
apparently evidence (studies within the U.S., I think) to suggest that
up to 3% of males and something less than 1% of females are
psychopaths. How much validity that has, I don't know at this stage,
since it seems clear that psychopathy is difficult to clinically
diagnose, because psychopaths are usually adept at projecting an
impressive facade of sanity. Another disturbing thing is that the rate
of psychopathy, in the U.S. at least, seems to be increasing.
The Plato reference I was thinking of is this one:
Equally, our immoral person must get away with any crimes he
undertakes in the proper fashion, if he is to be outstandingly
immoral; getting caught must be taken to be a sign of
incompetence, since the acme of immorality is to give an
impression of morality while actually being immoral. So we must
attribute consummate immorality to our consummate criminal, and if
we are to leave it intact, we should have him equipped with a
colossal reputation for morality even though he is a colossal
criminal. He should be capable of correcting any mistakes he
makes. He must have the ability to argue plausibly, in case any of
his crimes are ever found out, and to use force wherever
necessary, by making use of his courage and strength and by
drawing on his fund of friends and his financial resources.
(Plato, in "Republic", 361a-361b, the words of Glaucon)
I believe Plato had in mind the type of person who would today be
recognised as a psychopath. People like George Bush (both of them),
Bill (and Hillary) Clinton, John Howard, and Tony Blair are almost
certainly clinical psychopaths, pathological liars with no remorse, no
empathy for others, and no moral compunction whatsoever. They do,
however, all have the essential ability to hoodwink others into
believing they are virtuous (physical appearance can go a long way in
this regard, too).
Nicolo' Machiavelli also gave valuable advice to psychopathic rulers
in his "Il Principe" (The Prince). The main things to happen since
that time have been progressive refinements to the basic art.
>> >
>> > [snippage..]
>>
>> I personally don't believe it very likely that c.l.l frequenters
>> or the Lisp community in general is unique in their spectrum of
>> political beliefs. I do agree with Tim that I've seen a lot of
>> greed-is-good ideology going on in c.l.l that I don't see
>> elsewhere.
>
> Well, the "greed-is-good" people seem to think their viewpoint is the
> most humane.
Some do, yet they are misguided. Others know perfectly well what they
are advocating. These are the psychopaths, and they appear to be much
more common than I suspected until recently.
> Some say they behold a mathematical system driven by an engine of
> greed, and claim this is the most humane system humanity can have.
Although the genuine among them cannot see it, they are plainly
wrong. We should remember that the human mind literally sees what it
wants to see and disregards data that contradicts sincere belief. [*]
There is, for example, overwhelming evidence that shows, no matter how
unbelievable we think it is, that elements within the U.S. government
and armed forces engineered the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Most people,
because their information comes entirely from mainstream sources
controlled by the elite, have not been exposed to this evidence. Of
those who have (still a very large number of people), most are in
massive denial and reject the mountain of plain evidence because it
does not fit with their belief system: to believe it, they would have
to change the whole way they view the world. Others progress through a
state of cognitive dissonance caused by the clash of belief and
intellectual knowledge. Some or all of these people will have to
adjust their world-view to accommodate the new knowledge. The only
other possibility is to slip back into denial.
[*] Scientific experiments using hypnosis have proved this
fact. If you hypnotise a person and make a strong suggestion to
them that a third party has left the room, then when they awake
from the hypnotic state, they will be unable to see that third
party sitting and moving about in the same room with them. They
will become very agitated to see objects moving about the room
apparently of their own volition.
>
> In my view, programming language flamewars are very similar to
> economic ones. Very simple for participants to assume the other
> guy's some retard or evil person.
Yes, I know this phenomenon very well. The best example I can think of
is the abortion debate. Yet, I do not call people who are pro-abortion
"clueless" or evil. There are people who are sincere but
deluded [**]. There are people who do not value human life for its own sake
(and so have no in-principle objection to abortion), yet who live
their lives in a relatively moral and principled manner. There are
others who see that the mother's life is more important than a
pre-conscious baby in the womb. It is possible to sincerely take most
of these positions without necessarily being an evil ogre. (Of course,
the actual evil ogre is not likely to value either the mother's or the
baby's life, while trying to give the impression that he does so value
them.)
[**] 'Deluded' could be considered a form of cluelessness, except
that the implication is that at least the person has made some
effort to study the issues in some sort of objective way. The
properly clueless person, on the other hand, (and we are all no
doubt clueless about something, until we get "clued") if they
think at all, it is only along conventional, socially programmed
lines, accepting without question socially programmed values, and
regarding as absolute truth socially programmed "facts". It is
important to notice that one does not have to be stupid to be
clueless.
I do not call people "clueless" (much less "evil") simply because they
disagree with me. There's quite a bit more to it than that. In fact,
it's better to avoid appearing to be name calling in the first
place. But when there is a choice between believing a person is
lacking in clues, or lacking in morals, I prefer to err on the side of
benevolence. It then becomes a choice of whether you actually say what
you believe, or keep it to yourself. I usually keep it to myself.
> So these threads simultaneously go berzerk and become boring, even
> though the participants are well-intentioned.
Let's not go berserk, then.
>
> Discussing economics and programming seem to have comparable amounts of
> religious fervor and inability to evaluate things rationally.
Rationality is not necessarily the problem (though it can be). When
people start from fundamentally different values (or, in some case, no
values at all) then logic and reason are of no use whatsoever.
> (We don't need no steenkin' definitions!) A lot of Lisp advocacy is
> very misleading, for example.
You noticed, too? Hang on, you mentioned Lisp in that sentence. Are
you feeling OK?
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
The world is pretty awful today, but it is far better than yesterday,
not only with regard to unwillingness to tolerate aggression, but also
in many other ways, which we now tend to take for granted. There are
very important lessons here, which should always be uppermost in our
minds -- for the same reason they are suppressed in the elite
culture.
-- Noam Chomsky
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm>
David Trudgett wrote:
> Yes, there are some very good technical people here who,
> unfortunately, and for whatever reason, do not seem to have much of a
> clue politically (in the broad sense of that word). In some cases,
I don't claim to be in any politically mainstream, but I don't think
that mainstream is of any value. Millions of flies can't be wrong...?
> like the case of a twenty-five year old, it probably mostly reflects
> lack of life experience; but in other cases, the ones towards the
I'll see (I think you're speaking of me). Let me just say that the
other views I had before (more or less left-wing) had their
inconsistencies and there were things that I couldn't explain from that
view.
Now I can explain everything that I see in the world, understanding it
in a logical way. Maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but I see sooo many people
who didn't ever consider many things I already read about, thought
about, considered, so I don't take their opinion as a measure for me.
I'm not an economist, but at least I'm interested. Most people aren't
interested at all, so call it arrogant, but I don't think those people's
(the mainstream's) opinions are good for the economy, just because they
look good at a quick first glance.
Here's one (probably biased ;) ) article why people hate economics:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/112105A.html
> other extreme in age, who knows? It's obviously not stupidity per
> se. Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. It's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that if it's not a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of
> experience, then it must be a lack of decency. That's probably too
> harsh, of course, but can't be discounted as being among the
> possibilities, distasteful though it may be. It's shocking to discover
> that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
> immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
> [Plato, Republic]
Yes, I'm not the authority on what's moral, but then who is? 55% of a
democratic society? Their bribed representatives?
> Perhaps some (a lot of?) people just don't learn empathy (and in fact
> despise the word and associate it with weakness), think of others as
> objects (though they would never admit it, even to themselves), and
> maybe never learn much about how things work except within their own
> little sphere.
I actually tend more to the soft side of being somewhat sentimental.
But that doesn't mean that I try to think about economic issues in a
rational way instead of in an emotional way.
*After* having an economic foundation you can think of poor people and
institute some welfare (say, negative income tax). That doesn't mean we
have to use lots of interventionism just so people don't starve.
> There's more to it than that, though. For instance, most people
> (especially the arrogant, intelligent ones) are also much more subject
> to the effects of social conditioning than they realise. Then there is
I've never really had the chance to associate with like thinkers,
because I'm surrounded by mainstream.
Likewise, I came to find and like Lisp, but I don't share all of this
NG's opinions, I have my own judgement entirely. (As I said, I try to
be rational on "technical" issues, not emotional just because I know
somebody etc.)
Of course my impressions and experiences are just my own imperfect view
of my surroundings.
> the sheeple effect, where people struggle to have an independent
> thought, and rely on ingratiating themselves with peers by all
> agreeing to think the same way and have the same beliefs. Intelligence
> doesn't seem to lessen this effect in any way, but may even intensify
> it (think of the behaviour of academic and scientific communities).
Uuuuh, there is a reason I avoid academic communities. You can't hang
out with nerds all day (and often I don't even share their opinions) ;)
> Much more could be said, but now that I've annoyed enough people, I
> think I'll go back to do some more lisping... ;-)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hi Ulrich,
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> Yes, there are some very good technical people here who,
>> unfortunately, and for whatever reason, do not seem to have much of a
>> clue politically (in the broad sense of that word). In some cases,
>
> I don't claim to be in any politically mainstream, but I don't think
> that mainstream is of any value. Millions of flies can't be wrong...?
My comment didn't really have anything to do with mainstream political
thought per se. Many of the "clueless" I was thinking of in the back
of my mind do not see their political thinking as "mainstream",
including you, it appears. They do seem to have certain things in
common, though. One of them appears to be their defence of the system
of personal and institutionalised greed that they like to refer to as
"capitalism". "Greed is good" appears to be one of their mottoes.
Anyone with a child's grasp of morality would have to wonder at that,
but apparently grown men can manage, without hint of a blush, to say
what amounts to the same thing.
Yes, billions of flies *are* wrong. That's no surprise.
>
>> like the case of a twenty-five year old, it probably mostly reflects
>> lack of life experience; but in other cases, the ones towards the
>
> I'll see (I think you're speaking of me).
Don't get all excited, your age just happened to be the closest at
hand. ;-) I'm not interested in personal attacks out of spite, or
malice or whatever, but at the same time, I do say what I think. What
that means is that no one should try to read too much between the
lines of what I say, because I generally say just exactly (hopefully)
what I mean without beating around the bush. That means, for instance,
that if I want to say I think you're an idiot, then that's what I'll
say; I won't try to imply it with innuendo. It also means, for
example, that, "I think you may be being disingenuous," is not a
circumlocution for, "I think you are dishonest."
Some of my comments may have applied to you, but others didn't (unless
the cap fits, of course). For instance, you haven't given me the
impression of being overly arrogant, but that could be due to
inattention! ;-)
> Let me just say that the other views I had before (more or less
> left-wing) had their inconsistencies and there were things that I
> couldn't explain from that view.
If you think of political theory in terms of left and right, you
already took the wrong turn. Real life isn't single dimensional. It
isn't capitalism versus communism. People who tell you it is are
trying to manipulate you.
Furthermore, 'capitalism and 'communism are symbols with different
function values for different people.
>
> Now I can explain everything that I see in the world, understanding it
> in a logical way.
Then you have a lot to learn. The less you know, the more you think
you know.
> Maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but I see sooo many people who didn't
> ever consider many things I already read about, thought about,
> considered, so I don't take their opinion as a measure for me.
Too true. A lot of people have never voluntarily read a book in their
life. Luckily, most of the people hanging out around here are way past
that standard.
>
> I'm not an economist, but at least I'm interested.
Economics, as generally conceived and taught, is all about the
emperor's new clothes. Do you know that story?
> Most people aren't interested at all, so call it arrogant, but I
> don't think those people's (the mainstream's) opinions are good for
> the economy, just because they look good at a quick first glance.
>
> Here's one (probably biased ;) ) article why people hate economics:
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/112105A.html
People have prejudices against lots of things. It's possible to be
correctly prejudiced for the wrong reasons.
>
>> other extreme in age, who knows? It's obviously not stupidity per
>> se. Whatever it is, it's very perplexing. It's hard to avoid the
>> conclusion that if it's not a lack of intelligence, nor a lack of
>> experience, then it must be a lack of decency. That's probably too
>> harsh, of course, but can't be discounted as being among the
>> possibilities, distasteful though it may be. It's shocking to discover
>> that there are actually immoral people in the world, and that the most
>> immoral of them love to project the image of consummate morality.
>> [Plato, Republic]
>
> Yes, I'm not the authority on what's moral, but then who is? 55% of a
> democratic society? Their bribed representatives?
You don't seem to have much of a handle on morality, so I would
recommend you do some reading in that area. (That is not an
insult. Remember, I say exactly what I mean.) Look up moral philosophy
in the library.
>
>> Perhaps some (a lot of?) people just don't learn empathy (and in fact
>> despise the word and associate it with weakness), think of others as
>> objects (though they would never admit it, even to themselves), and
>> maybe never learn much about how things work except within their own
>> little sphere.
>
> I actually tend more to the soft side of being somewhat
> sentimental. But that doesn't mean that I try to think about economic
> issues in a rational way instead of in an emotional way.
You demonstrate my point. Empathy is not about being soft and
emotional. It is a type of understanding (a type you won't get from
reading books).
>
> *After* having an economic foundation you can think of poor people and
You gloss over the fact that 'economics', as generally bandied about,
is *capitalist* economics. As such, it is not value neutral. So, your
point about "after" is completely incorrect.
> institute some welfare (say, negative income tax). That doesn't mean
> we have to use lots of interventionism just so people don't starve.
Welfare is a wrong concept to begin with.
>
>> There's more to it than that, though. For instance, most people
>> (especially the arrogant, intelligent ones) are also much more subject
>> to the effects of social conditioning than they realise. Then there is
>
> I've never really had the chance to associate with like thinkers,
> because I'm surrounded by mainstream.
Join the club. Mr and Mrs Conventionality seem to rule the roost
around these parts.
>
> Likewise, I came to find and like Lisp, but I don't share all of this
> NG's opinions, I have my own judgement entirely. (As I said, I try to
> be rational on "technical" issues, not emotional just because I know
> somebody etc.)
>
> Of course my impressions and experiences are just my own imperfect
> view of my surroundings.
I think you missed the whole point of what I said there.
>
>> the sheeple effect, where people struggle to have an independent
>> thought, and rely on ingratiating themselves with peers by all
>> agreeing to think the same way and have the same beliefs. Intelligence
>> doesn't seem to lessen this effect in any way, but may even intensify
>> it (think of the behaviour of academic and scientific communities).
>
> Uuuuh, there is a reason I avoid academic communities. You can't hang
> out with nerds all day (and often I don't even share their opinions) ;)
You can always tell a teacher but you can't tell them much? Goes
pretty much for anyone who fancies himself with a high IQ. Even those
who don't, come to think of it.
Back to lisp?
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
A person cannot support the policies of the Bush administration
unless said person is lacking in either intelligence or decency -- or,
in the case of Bush himself, both. "I just didn't know" simply doesn't
cut it when your proclaimed ignorance is based on lies that are an
insult to the intelligence of a child.
-- David McGowan, April 2003.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr34.html
David Trudgett wrote:
> My comment didn't really have anything to do with mainstream political
> thought per se. Many of the "clueless" I was thinking of in the back
> of my mind do not see their political thinking as "mainstream",
> including you, it appears. They do seem to have certain things in
> common, though. One of them appears to be their defence of the system
> of personal and institutionalised greed that they like to refer to as
> "capitalism". "Greed is good" appears to be one of their mottoes.
> Anyone with a child's grasp of morality would have to wonder at that,
> but apparently grown men can manage, without hint of a blush, to say
> what amounts to the same thing.
But greed, in the sense that you try to reduce costs (raise efficiency)
and make a profit means that production happens there where it makes
sense, where it's efficient enough. That produces wealth (living
standards).
>> Let me just say that the other views I had before (more or less
>> left-wing) had their inconsistencies and there were things that I
>> couldn't explain from that view.
>
> If you think of political theory in terms of left and right, you
> already took the wrong turn. Real life isn't single dimensional. It
> isn't capitalism versus communism. People who tell you it is are
> trying to manipulate you.
I'm not right against left, I reject both. Both are authoritarian, I'm
libertarian, which is, um, some second dimension I'd say.
> Furthermore, 'capitalism and 'communism are symbols with different
> function values for different people.
Maybe. But I haven't yet heard of communism that wasn't Communism ;)
Sometimes people say "no I don't want Communism, but just abolish
private ownership or corporations" and you'd end up with the same...
>> I'm not an economist, but at least I'm interested.
>
> Economics, as generally conceived and taught, is all about the
> emperor's new clothes. Do you know that story?
The tale, yes, but economics as it is, is just about trade and money. I
don't see a problem with that; it helped people for many centuries.
>> Yes, I'm not the authority on what's moral, but then who is? 55% of a
>> democratic society? Their bribed representatives?
>
> You don't seem to have much of a handle on morality, so I would
> recommend you do some reading in that area. (That is not an
> insult. Remember, I say exactly what I mean.) Look up moral philosophy
> in the library.
Oh, I do have morals :)
I only refuse to take them into account as to what is good economy.
People differ about morals, so it should be up to them. I grew up in
Germany with an extensive welfare system around (though not dependent on
it) and I think it's a good thing to have, in a simpler form that
encourages people to take up work.
Everything else (subsidies for this and that) shouldn't be part of the
state, though, one monetary subsidy should be enough to unify them.
> You demonstrate my point. Empathy is not about being soft and
> emotional. It is a type of understanding (a type you won't get from
> reading books).
Empathy is about feeling what others feel. That's what makes me
sentimental, even when I myself have a different view of the world
(where sad things happen, old people die, and there's nothing
spectacular about that; life goes on).
>> *After* having an economic foundation you can think of poor people and
>
> You gloss over the fact that 'economics', as generally bandied about,
> is *capitalist* economics. As such, it is not value neutral. So, your
> point about "after" is completely incorrect.
All economics has to be capitalist, unless you abolish property rights,
and then you don't have any way to calculate profits, efficiency, value,
so you don't have economics anymore.
> Welfare is a wrong concept to begin with.
I don't think so. Without welfare there's just yourself in the worst
case, so charity is good. To some degree some state subsidy makes sense
too, to soften the hard capitalism a little bit.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
> One of them appears to be their defence of the system of personal and
> institutionalised greed that they like to refer to as
> "capitalism". "Greed is good" appears to be one of their mottoes.
Of course, that line comes from an Oliver Stone film. I don't think
that greed is good--it's just inevitable. Given that it's inevitable,
how can we best mitigate its effects? As it turns out, we can harness
the evil of greed towards good ends; as Adam Smith points out, the
butcher and the baker don't serve me out of charity but out of a concern
for their own benefit.
As far as cluelessness goes, I tend to think that those proposing
socialised programmes are the clueless ones. But really, we're both
wrong: neither side is clueless; all of us are operating on incomplete
information. Perhaps that means we're all clueless:-)
In reality, intelligent, rational, decent people are to be found on both
sides of economic and political debates. And we really have much the
same goals, even.
> A person cannot support the policies of the Bush administration
> unless said person is lacking in either intelligence or decency -- or,
> in the case of Bush himself, both. "I just didn't know" simply doesn't
> cut it when your proclaimed ignorance is based on lies that are an
> insult to the intelligence of a child.
>
> -- David McGowan, April 2003.
> http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr34.html
Sigh--that's just more of the same. It's like the old saw that leftists
think that rightists are evil, and rightists think that leftists are
stupid. Maybe my opponents are neither evil nor ignorant.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The Borg after assimilating vodka: We are Drunk of Borg. Resilience is
floor tile. Wan'be sim'lated?
--TyZone
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>>
>> One of them appears to be their defence of the system of personal and
>> institutionalised greed that they like to refer to as
>> "capitalism". "Greed is good" appears to be one of their mottoes.
>
> Of course, that line comes from an Oliver Stone film. I don't think
> that greed is good--it's just inevitable.
That is a socially programmed idea that is continually reinforced by
the people who effectively control society in the large. It is
wrong. People are *not* inherently evil and greedy, but the society we
live in *does* promote these qualities. There are societies that have
succeeded for tens of thousands of years in relative harmony and peace
and very little greed. Greed on the scale we see it now is a
relatively new phenomenon, and therefore is *not* part of human
nature.
What humans have by nature are *desires*. Desires only become greed
when they rule one's life and cause one to pursue the attainment of
desires at the expense of others.
> Given that it's inevitable,
First mistake.
> how can we best mitigate its effects?
Second mistake. Haven't you ever read The Lord of the Rings? ;-) No
one can wield the ring of power without becoming corrupted by it. What
you are talking about is using evil to combat evil. It doesn't work,
and never will.
> As it turns out, we can harness the evil of greed towards good ends;
> as Adam Smith points out, the butcher and the baker don't serve me
> out of charity but out of a concern for their own benefit.
I don't think Adam Smith had much of a clue, sorry. :-)
>
> As far as cluelessness goes, I tend to think that those proposing
> socialised programmes are the clueless ones. But really, we're both
> wrong: neither side is clueless; all of us are operating on incomplete
> information. Perhaps that means we're all clueless:-)
The first thing you got wrong was thinking that there are two
sides. There are not. It is easy to knock those "promoting socialised
programmes", but not so easy to see that these programmes are
conceived (by you or by others) as operating within the existing
social paradigms. It is the existing social paradigms that have to
change. This is *fundamental* change, not window dressing, and it's
not going to happen overnight. And it's not *guaranteed* to happen at
all, because all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good
people to do nothing. Lots of good people are doing lots of nothing at
the moment. Perhaps that will change.
>
> In reality, intelligent, rational, decent people are to be found on both
> sides of economic and political debates.
There you go with "both" sides again. That is a huge error.
> And we really have much the same goals, even.
>
>> A person cannot support the policies of the Bush administration
>> unless said person is lacking in either intelligence or decency -- or,
>> in the case of Bush himself, both. "I just didn't know" simply doesn't
>> cut it when your proclaimed ignorance is based on lies that are an
>> insult to the intelligence of a child.
>>
>> -- David McGowan, April 2003.
>> http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr34.html
>
> Sigh--that's just more of the same.
I'm afraid it isn't in this case. Although the literal meaning of the
above is doubtless rhetorical hyperbole [*], because of course there
will be many exceptions, there *is* such a thing as objective evil,
*and* such a thing as people who knowingly turn a blind eye to it to
avoid having to deal with it, or because they consciously or
unconsciously want the benefits that accrue from U.S. world hegemony.
[*] McGowan has a background in psychology and therefore should
know perfectly well how denial works, and how people fail to
perceive things that contradict entrenched beliefs.
> It's like the old saw that leftists think that rightists are evil,
> and rightists think that leftists are stupid. Maybe my opponents
> are neither evil nor ignorant.
And maybe they are. You shouldn't rule out possibilities. In the
future, assuming there is a future with humans in it, there is a good
chance that Americans will be held in much greater contempt and
reviled far more than the Germans ever were during and after World War
II, which saw the deaths of 65 million people. Of course, the powers
that are controlling the U.S. do not stop at the U.S. borders, and
therefore the whole world (more or less) shares in the guilt for what
is about to happen.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Problems cannot be solved
at the same level of awareness
that created them.
-- Albert Einstein
David Trudgett wrote:
> There are societies that have
> succeeded for tens of thousands of years in relative harmony and peace
> and very little greed.
Where are these societies?
> Greed on the scale we see it now is a
> relatively new phenomenon, and therefore is *not* part of human
> nature.
If the answer is "they got killed by greedy societies", I'm going to
ask
the obvious question....
BTW - Glasses are not part of human nature either.
-andy
······@earthlink.net writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> There are societies that have
>> succeeded for tens of thousands of years in relative harmony and peace
>> and very little greed.
>
> Where are these societies?
It does not matter where these societies are. The fact that they have
existed at all proves my point that greed as a way of life is not
human nature, *contrary* to the socially programmed idea of humans as
evil and greedy by nature.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Mr Howard's ideal in these areas [health and education] has always
been a public safety net for the poor, with everyone else free to buy
privately the best quality service they can afford. This is the
hidden logic behind his otherwise piecemeal changes to Medicare.
-- Ross Gittins of the SMH explaining to us how Howard's plan is
to make sure that you and your children receive only the level
of medical care and education that your low wage can afford.
David Trudgett wrote:
> It does not matter where these societies are.
Actually, it does. If they can only exist in certain circumstances,
they're
irrelevant in other circumstances and identifying the current
circumstances
becomes extremely important.
> The fact that they have
> existed at all proves my point that greed as a way of life is not
> human nature, *contrary* to the socially programmed idea of humans as
> evil and greedy by nature.
Their existence proves no such thing. It's quite possible for humans
to be both greedy and not-greedy "by nature".
FWIW, computers, clothing, etc. aren't "natural" either.
-andy
······@earthlink.net wrote:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> It does not matter where these societies are.
>
> Actually, it does. If they can only exist in certain circumstances,
> they're
> irrelevant in other circumstances and identifying the current
> circumstances
> becomes extremely important.
Well, obviously current circumstances have had the effect that our
societies are non-free. One is government brainwashing, one the almost
religious belief that government could solve the peoples' problems, and
finally the fact that many people think their world has a problem, just
because somebody else earns ten times their salary (I don't mind).
> It's quite possible for humans
> to be both greedy and not-greedy "by nature".
Hey sure. In our current world which doesn't reward honesty etc. if I
were one of the winners, i.e. one favored by government, I might abuse
that power (hard to tell), sure, it'd be easy.
But since I'm not is power, I'd rather band up with the majority of
people to fight those in power. As long as these people think in
black/white left/right patterns, that won't work, because they're almost
allergically opposed to anything that says "market" or that says
"legalize drugs".
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
······@earthlink.net writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> It does not matter where these societies are.
>
> Actually, it does. If they can only exist in certain circumstances,
> they're irrelevant in other circumstances and identifying the
> current circumstances becomes extremely important.
<sigh> If you think it matters, then you have missed the point. Humans
have proved that they are quite capable of living for tens of
thousands of years without a great amount of greed or a materialistic
[*] world-view.
[*] 'Materialism' here doesn't mean what you probably think it
means. I'm not talking about people addicted to shopping.
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=materialism
The fact that humans can be taught to be greedy only proves they are
teachable, not that greed is their essential nature.
The reason that "current circumstances" are irrelevant is precisely
because I am talking about the need to *change* these
circumstances. You appear to have overlooked that important point.
>
>> The fact that they have existed at all proves my point that greed
>> as a way of life is not human nature, *contrary* to the socially
>> programmed idea of humans as evil and greedy by nature.
>
> Their existence proves no such thing.
Of course it does, for some reasonable understanding of 'proof'.
> It's quite possible for humans
> to be both greedy and not-greedy "by nature".
No it isn't, because you misunderstand the terms 'by nature' and
'human nature'. It has nothing to do with 'natural' in this case. It
is another way of saying, "in essence" or to point out that a certain
quality must abide in a thing. What I have proved is that a greedy way
of life is not a quality that must abide in human beings. Therefore,
it was wrong for the original poster to posit that such greed is
"inevitable" (I believe that was the word used). Q.E.D.
>
> FWIW, computers, clothing, etc. aren't "natural" either.
That is the bit that shows your misunderstanding.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
In order for evil to triumph, good men need do nothing!
David Trudgett wrote:
> ······@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > David Trudgett wrote:
> >> It does not matter where these societies are.
> >
> > Actually, it does. If they can only exist in certain circumstances,
> > they're irrelevant in other circumstances and identifying the
> > current circumstances becomes extremely important.
>
> <sigh> If you think it matters, then you have missed the point. Humans
> have proved that they are quite capable of living for tens of
> thousands of years without a great amount of greed or a materialistic
The only point that I've missed is in assuming that you might be
serious.
The circumstances matter because we may not be in those circumstances
and it may not be possible to get there from here. Or, it may be
extremely
difficult. For example, if those societies lost out to greed
societies, there's
an obvious problem.
> The fact that humans can be taught to be greedy only proves they are
> teachable, not that greed is their essential nature.
If it can be taught away, it's clearly not "essential nature".
BTW - Babies are quite greedy. Parents teach sharing, or at least
"leave
Mommy's stuff alone". Which is "natural"?
> >> The fact that they have existed at all proves my point that greed
> >> as a way of life is not human nature, *contrary* to the socially
> >> programmed idea of humans as evil and greedy by nature.
> >
> > Their existence proves no such thing.
>
> Of course it does, for some reasonable understanding of 'proof'.
The fact that greed societies have existed at all proves my point
that greed societies are human nature, *contrary* to the idea of
humans as not-greedy by nature.
-andy
······@earthlink.net wrote:
> BTW - Babies are quite greedy. Parents teach sharing, or at least
> "leave
> Mommy's stuff alone". Which is "natural"?
Sure, babies take everything into their mouth, and they have to learn
that not everything is healthy, and that not everything is just theirs
for the taking.
>>>> The fact that they have existed at all proves my point that greed
>>>> as a way of life is not human nature, *contrary* to the socially
>>>> programmed idea of humans as evil and greedy by nature.
>>> Their existence proves no such thing.
>> Of course it does, for some reasonable understanding of 'proof'.
>
> The fact that greed societies have existed at all proves my point
> that greed societies are human nature, *contrary* to the idea of
> humans as not-greedy by nature.
A single human in Paradise would maybe just eat everything, "according
to his needs". But a human society can only work using exchange,
cooperation, and contribution. That means that you don't allow people
to take others' stuff; it also means that you bite them should they take
your stuff, if they don't learn otherwise.
It seems like Big Fish like CEOs and politicians don't all know that.
Maybe they always got everything, so they never unlearned greed and
never learned civilization.
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> <sigh> If you think it matters, then you have missed the point. Humans
> have proved that they are quite capable of living for tens of
> thousands of years without a great amount of greed or a materialistic
> [*] world-view.
Knowing something about those alleged societies *does*
matter, for three reasons.
1. It's possible that you're wrong; that societies with a
markedly lower level of greed haven't actually existed.
Maybe it's common knowledge among anthropologists that
they have, but those of us who aren't anthropologists
may not want to take your word for it.
2. It's possible that markedly lower levels of greed
are only possible at some cost that makes such societies
not really an improvement on what we have now. For
instance, maybe greed is sure to flourish wherever
material comfort gets above a certain level. Material
comfort is (in itself, and so far as it goes) a good
thing, and it's far from clear that losing it and greed
together would be an improvement. For another instance,
maybe when greed is suppressed some sort of other
undesirable behaviour or attitude inevitably shows up.
There are plenty of other such possibilities.
3. It's possible that non-greedy societies do exist,
and are better than ours, but can't survive in a
world that also contains greedy socities. If so,
then any plan for doing away with greed needs to
answer not only the very difficult question "how
do we get our society to be like that?" but also
the much more difficult question "how do we get
*every* society to be like that, when on their own
terms it's to their advantage not to be?".
> [*] 'Materialism' here doesn't mean what you probably think it
> means. I'm not talking about people addicted to shopping.
> http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=materialism
The word has more than two senses (and more than two
senses listed at the page you point to), so you haven't
fully clarified your meaning yet. Do you mean "concerned
with the material rather than the spiritual" (which
seems to me a matter of attitude rather than world-view),
or "believing that there is nothing but matter" (which
on the face of it is largely irrelevant to the point at
issue, though it might turn out that there are subtle
connections), or what?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Hi Gareth,
Since you make points that are actually rational, I suppose I had
better reply, even though this OT thread has meandered on uselessly
for far too long. :-)
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>> <sigh> If you think it matters, then you have missed the point. Humans
>> have proved that they are quite capable of living for tens of
>> thousands of years without a great amount of greed or a materialistic
>> [*] world-view.
>
> Knowing something about those alleged societies *does*
> matter, for three reasons.
>
> 1. It's possible that you're wrong; that societies with a
> markedly lower level of greed haven't actually existed.
> Maybe it's common knowledge among anthropologists that
> they have, but those of us who aren't anthropologists
> may not want to take your word for it.
This is quite true, but the OP didn't make that point. The OP
implicitly accepted the truth of the "fact" I stated and proceeded to
harp on about how these societies may not actually exist any more, and
*therefore* the fact is not interesting.
My point (also assuming the fact) is that it *is* interesting because
it proves the fact that human societies are not necessarily
characterised by greed. This is, of course, quite different from
saying that individual humans can be entirely free from greedy
impulses. We are, after all, talking about macro society-level
phenomena, things that impact on large groups; which means we are not
talking about who ate the most last Sunday.
As for taking my word for it, I'm not asking anyone to do so, but so
far (strange for a discussion that is supposed to be rational) you are
the only one to have questioned the supposed fact. Indeed, as a fact,
it is probably only true to a first approximation, since no one can
have perfect knowledge of the past.
I have spent some time (I am no anthropologist -- though even if I
were, that might not count for much) studying what is known about
Australian Aboriginal societies, which have existed for 40000 to 60000
years, and which have only recently, in the last 200 years, been
decimated by the European invasion (which to the Europeans was a
"settlement", mostly, although there is no doubt after studying
primary sources that the settlers themselves understood that it was
also a type of war).
Aboriginal societies lived a highly spiritual type of life, so much so
that it is very difficult or impossible for most of us (from any other
type of culture, but especially Western cultures) to understand
it. The Western connotations of the word 'spiritual' do not apply, for
instance[*]. The Aboriginal's life was infused and given meaning by the
Dreaming, and everything in life was understood in relation to it. The
Dreaming is often also referred to as the "Dreamtime", and therefore
often (mis)conceived by Europeans and others as a period in
history. The Dreaming incorporates historical aspects, but it is not
history as we understand it. It is primarily a spiritual tradition,
world-knowledge and philosophy.
[*] Spirituality in general also does not imply a rejection of science
or lack of scientific rigour, but obviously the Australian Aboriginals
were in the Stone Age as far as technology and science goes. But the
phrase "Stone Age" itself seems to have an unnecessary negative
connotation in the minds of Westerners, who think in terms of the
paradigm of "progress" without really properly considering what such
"progress" entails.
The Dreaming was very far from a materialistic philosophy. The
Dreaming stories usually make little or no sense when viewed from a
material-minded Western perspective. The Westerner will think, "How
primitive and unscientific to believe that snakes can turn into rivers
or that mythical beasts can interbreed with humans." To think like
that is to miss the spiritual significance, which is what most or all
of the stories are really about (though they do have different levels
of interpretation, just as the best literature does).
Any society based on the Dreaming cannot be based on materialism or
greed, though, of course, greed, as an individual human quality that
may appear from time to time, has always existed. This is also not to
say that, for example, inter-tribal warfare never occurred, because we
know it did. The motives for these (I believe) relatively few wars
cannot be put down to greed-based social organisation with a growth
imperative, like they can with the type of Western war with which we
are familiar.
So, in brief, I believe it is entirely reasonable to claim, as a broad
first approximation, that Australian Aboriginal societies (there were
many of them) existed for tens of thousands of years in a relatively
static and stable social structure not based on materialism or
dominated by greed, nor disrupted by constant or even regular warfare,
thus relatively peaceful in comparison to the societies we know
through our own history books.
If we accept this as a fact (which seems reasonable, as I just
mentioned) then it quite definitely proves that human nature in the
large does not need to be based on greed. It does *not* prove that
greed is not a *factor* in individual human psychology. It *does*
prove that greed doesn't have to be a dominating motive of human
behaviour, because the society itself influences and shapes the
psychology of the individual human beings that live within it.
Notice that this proof is quite valid by itself and does not pretend
to extend to additional proofs about whether such non-greedy societies
can actually exist in today's world without being destroyed by the
greedy ones (which, by the way, is a pretty simplistic thought). That
is an entirely separate matter for another discussion, which I was not
addressing at the time, and which was only addressed by innuendo by
the OP.
And finally, remember that I was replying to a person who implied or
claimed as fact that humans are evil and greedy by nature and that it
therefore makes sense to harness that greed through societal
structures. I think I very well demonstrated the fallacies in that
particular line of thinking.
>
> 2. It's possible that markedly lower levels of greed
> are only possible at some cost that makes such societies
> not really an improvement on what we have now. For
> instance, maybe greed is sure to flourish wherever
> material comfort gets above a certain level. Material
> comfort is (in itself, and so far as it goes) a good
> thing, and it's far from clear that losing it and greed
> together would be an improvement. For another instance,
> maybe when greed is suppressed some sort of other
> undesirable behaviour or attitude inevitably shows up.
> There are plenty of other such possibilities.
Well, you can speculate as much as you like about things like that,
but speculations mean nothing by themselves. What you need is hard
evidence and a theoretical basis that makes sense.
My personal response to this point (2) is that the speculation is way
wrong, and even contains within itself misconceptions (such as the
concept of "suppressing" greed). Unless you can show real evidence for
these speculations (and such evidence *cannot* be found simply by
indicating the obvious greed of current societies), then there is
nothing more I, or anyone else, needs to say to refute them.
>
> 3. It's possible that non-greedy societies do exist,
> and are better than ours, but can't survive in a
> world that also contains greedy socities.
As I mentioned above already, but I'll say it here, too, this is a
simplistic concept because it is thinking in terms of "building
blocks", whereby a child might have several yellow (greedy) blocks
scattered on the ground, and then place a green (non-greedy) block in
their midst, whereupon, of course, the yellow blocks begin immediately
to attack and plunder the rather unfortunate green block. :-) In real
life, it can obviously never work that way. In "real" ;-) life, the
blocks would actually change shade, gradually changing from more
yellow to more green, sometimes moving in the opposite direction, with
different groups of blocks influencing the blocks around them
dynamically, so looking down upon them all you would see shifting
patterns of yellow and green moving among the blocks, with loci of
green-ness and yellow-ness moving about, but over time the whole group
of blocks would become predominately green. At that stage we have a
group of societies that are predominately green (non-greedy) without
there ever having to be a purely green society surviving out there in
the wilds of the greedy world all by itself.
> If so, then any plan for doing away with greed
The word 'plan' also demonstrates the "block" way of thinking. Blocks,
of course, are controlled by the child's arm, being placed and
manipulated according to some master concept or plan. That analogy
does not apply to something as complex as human societies, and many of
the ills of the world have been created by people (do-gooders?) who
believed otherwise.
> needs to answer
> not only the very difficult question "how do we get our society
> to be like that?" but also the much more difficult question "how
> do we get *every* society to be like that, when on their own
> terms it's to their advantage not to be?".
Interesting, but incorrect, questions. People have the power to effect
change according to their own spiritual understanding. "Societies" and
governments and states have no such power because they are not
personal actors.
>
>> [*] 'Materialism' here doesn't mean what you probably think it
>> means. I'm not talking about people addicted to shopping.
>> http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=materialism
>
> The word has more than two senses (and more than two
> senses listed at the page you point to), so you haven't
> fully clarified your meaning yet. Do you mean "concerned
> with the material rather than the spiritual" (which
> seems to me a matter of attitude rather than world-view),
There are issues that are interrelated here. To reverse what you have
in quotation marks, to be concerned with the spiritual rather than the
material must have a cause. It is easy to perceive the material, but
not so easy to perceive the spiritual. Therefore, it is not just an
attitude or preference, but a state of knowledge and being. One will
be concerned with the material if that is all one knows.
> or "believing that there is nothing but matter" (which
> on the face of it is largely irrelevant to the point at
> issue, though it might turn out that there are subtle
> connections), or what?
Yes, there are subtle connections. The grosser forms of greed (but not
gluttony, I would think) can best thrive within a personal philosophy
or world-knowledge based on materialism, or the view that matter (or
matter/energy) is all that exists. It is possible for an individual to
pay lip service to spiritual values and be greedy in practice, but a
society based on spiritual principles cannot be greedy in
practice. That pretty well shows that no Western society of which I am
aware has ever really been based on spiritual values, but something
else entirely has been going on.
Cheers,
David
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan
> .sig under construc
good luck with the .sig
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Java: all the speed of an interpreter combined with the convenience of
an extra compilation step.
An interesting article has recently appeared regarding the supposed
"evilness" (this time under the guise of "predatory urges") of
humans. The "killer ape" meme is a socially programmed belief system
that has no real basis in fact.
One quote from the article (attributed to Erich Fromm):
"Human nature is not fixed, and culture thus is not to be
explained as the result of fixed human instincts; nor is culture a
fixed factor to which human nature adapts itself passively and
completely." (Fromm, 'Man for Himself', Routledge, 2003, p. 15)
The author writes:
Human nature is dynamic, displaying considerable variations
according to circumstances and context, rather than being fixed,
predetermined or static. Our reader's depiction of homo sapiens as
"predatory" is therefore one-dimensional; or worse, plain wrong.
"Plain wrong" gets my vote.
The point is that "killer ape", "predatory animal", "greedy" and
"evil" are all variations on the same programmed meme, which has been
foistered upon society for specific purposes.
The article can currently be found at:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
and is entitled: "MEDIA LENS COGITATION: PREDATORY URGES, PLASTIC
BRAINS AND EMPOWERMENT"
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
The state is so organized that wherever a man is placed in the social
scale, his irresponsibility is the same. The higher his grade the more
he is under the influence of demands from below, and the less he is
controlled by orders from above, and vice versa.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> Hi Gareth,
>
> Since you make points that are actually rational, I suppose I had
> better reply, even though this OT thread has meandered on uselessly
> for far too long. :-)
It has, hasn't it? Shall we take it to e-mail, or would you
prefer to continue here?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Hi Gareth,
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>> Hi Gareth,
>>
>> Since you make points that are actually rational, I suppose I had
>> better reply, even though this OT thread has meandered on uselessly
>> for far too long. :-)
>
> It has, hasn't it? Shall we take it to e-mail, or would you
> prefer to continue here?
You're welcome to take it to email if you like, but I'm not sure how
much more of value I've got to say on the subject! If you think you
would like to talk more about it, then by all means.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Only let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that
this cruel social organization, which holds them in bondage, and is
represented to them as something stable, necessary, and ordained of
God, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of
hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
David Trudgett wrote:
> ······@earthlink.net writes:
>
>> David Trudgett wrote:
>>> There are societies that have
>>> succeeded for tens of thousands of years in relative harmony and peace
>>> and very little greed.
>> Where are these societies?
>
> It does not matter where these societies are. The fact that they have
> existed at all proves my point that greed as a way of life is not
> human nature, *contrary* to the socially programmed idea of humans as
> evil and greedy by nature.
Yes, basically all government started with the temptation of The Nine
Rings, i.e. for just a little money and transfer of authority to The
State, we get all that social security and healthcare etc. It was too easy.
We now see that was a mistake, and those institutions should have
remained private (even while holding 100% market share; that's not
evil), without force over people.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
David Trudgett wrote:
> And it's not *guaranteed* to happen at
> all, because all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good
> people to do nothing. Lots of good people are doing lots of nothing at
> the moment. Perhaps that will change.
Of course now it would be cool to use a little violence to put all the
good people in power, but that doesn't work, because:
* power might corrupt them
* we don't know exactly who is good
* bad people are much more attracted to power than good ones and will do
anything to get there first (even pretend to be good)
So what's left is convince people of what's good, and that against the
ever-growing power of the brain-washing establishment that defends its
authority.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> And it's not *guaranteed* to happen at
>> all, because all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good
>> people to do nothing. Lots of good people are doing lots of nothing at
>> the moment. Perhaps that will change.
>
> Of course now it would be cool to use a little violence to put all the
> good people in power, but that doesn't work, because:
> * power might corrupt them
> * we don't know exactly who is good
> * bad people are much more attracted to power than good ones and will do
> anything to get there first (even pretend to be good)
* using evil to get to good doesn't work, and you're stuck with the evil.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu> { s/example/whoi/ }
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> And it's not *guaranteed* to happen at
>> all, because all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good
>> people to do nothing. Lots of good people are doing lots of nothing at
>> the moment. Perhaps that will change.
>
> Of course now it would be cool to use a little violence
And just to be *ultra* clear, my position is not one of advocating
violence. That is another case of using evil to combat evil. But the
seduction of violence is that it seems to work (in the immediate,
short term): "Hey, got enemies? Kill 'em. There, no enemies." It's a
very simply and seductive formula, but it doesn't work in the real
world. There are *always* unavoidable evil consequences that will
result in the perpetuation of evil, not its destruction.
> to put all the good people in power, but that doesn't work, because:
... and other reasons, besides...
> * power might corrupt them
s/might/will/
> * we don't know exactly who is good
Which, as you know, is a very powerful argument against governments
(i.e., putting people in power). It appears that wherever there is
power, "checks and balances" will always be circumvented sooner or
later. One reason for this is that the very nature of hierarchical
power structures is one of secrecy and conspiracy. Oops, I used the
"c" word. We all know they don't happen; in fact, I'm not even sure
why we have the word...
> * bad people are much more attracted to power than good ones and will
> do anything to get there first (even pretend to be good)
Most assuredly. And (as in our current political systems) relying on
psychopaths to keep other psychopaths in check is literally insane.
>
> So what's left is convince people of what's good, and that against the
> ever-growing power of the brain-washing establishment that defends its
> authority.
A reasonable analysis would deem the situation a sure victory for
evil. Luckily, humans aren't reasonable.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave
social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why
should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating
farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the
power?
-- Dmitry Orlov
David Trudgett wrote:
> But the
> seduction of violence is that it seems to work (in the immediate,
> short term): "Hey, got enemies? Kill 'em. There, no enemies." It's a
> very simply and seductive formula, but it doesn't work in the real
> world. There are *always* unavoidable evil consequences that will
> result in the perpetuation of evil, not its destruction.
I don't see a lot of Nazis around these days. Instead, current
references to Nazi are basically equivalent to "poopyhead".
-andy
Let me see if I have this right. As long as I say "OT" in the subject I
am free to pollute the Lisp newsgroup with any crap I want? That is so cool!
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]
Date:
Message-ID: <dLPif.133515$S4.1698@edtnps84>
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Let me see if I have this right. As long as I say "OT" in the subject I am
> free to pollute the Lisp newsgroup with any crap I want? That is so cool!
Take a pill.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
PS. Hi, Kenny! I think I've seen you slipping from "coddler of newbies" to
"newsgroup bully" since I left!
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>Let me see if I have this right. As long as I say "OT" in the subject I am
>>free to pollute the Lisp newsgroup with any crap I want? That is so cool!
>
>
> Take a pill.
>
> PS. Hi, Kenny! I think I've seen you slipping from "coddler of newbies" to
> "newsgroup bully" since I left!
I raised a simple question: does the character string "OT" constitute a
sufficient fig leaf for an extended and voluminous thread on Marxism (or
whatever you guys are yelping about) on what is meant to be a technical
forum dedicated to the Lisp programming language?
If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own
conscience the thug. To the extreme.
kenny
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]
Date:
Message-ID: <Zs3jf.225739$ir4.10512@edtnps90>
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> ··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>Let me see if I have this right. As long as I say "OT" in the subject I
>>>am free to pollute the Lisp newsgroup with any crap I want? That is so
>>>cool!
>>
>>
>> Take a pill.
>>
>> PS. Hi, Kenny! I think I've seen you slipping from "coddler of newbies"
>> to "newsgroup bully" since I left!
>
> I raised a simple question: does the character string "OT" constitute a
> sufficient fig leaf for an extended and voluminous thread on Marxism (or
> whatever you guys are yelping about) on what is meant to be a technical
> forum dedicated to the Lisp programming language?
Yes.
> If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own conscience
> the thug. To the extreme.
You misunderstood, I didn't feel bullied. And I intended no malice.
Cheers,
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> > I raised a simple question: does the character string "OT" constitute a
> > sufficient fig leaf for an extended and voluminous thread on Marxism (or
> > whatever you guys are yelping about) on what is meant to be a technical
> > forum dedicated to the Lisp programming language?
>
> Yes.
No. No no no no no. No!
Christ, especially when it changes names.
What? No!
Uh ... no!
"But all I", no!
"But we", no!
...
No!
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>··························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let me see if I have this right. As long as I say "OT" in the subject I
>>>>am free to pollute the Lisp newsgroup with any crap I want? That is so
>>>>cool!
>>>
>>>
>>>Take a pill.
>>>
>>>PS. Hi, Kenny! I think I've seen you slipping from "coddler of newbies"
>>>to "newsgroup bully" since I left!
>>
>>I raised a simple question: does the character string "OT" constitute a
>>sufficient fig leaf for an extended and voluminous thread on Marxism (or
>>whatever you guys are yelping about) on what is meant to be a technical
>>forum dedicated to the Lisp programming language?
>
>
> Yes.
Ah, the classic Brass Balls Defense. Lame, but where else can one turn
when cornered by the dictates of common Usenet courtesy?
>
>
>>If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own conscience
>>the thug. To the extreme.
>
>
> You misunderstood, I didn't feel bullied. And I intended no malice.
OK, so I should move "Take a pill." and "You bully!" to the amicable
column? I am learning so much from this thread...
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]
Date:
Message-ID: <Wu9jf.134483$S4.122116@edtnps84>
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
>>>If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own conscience
>>>the thug. To the extreme.
>>
>>
>> You misunderstood, I didn't feel bullied. And I intended no malice.
>
> OK, so I should move "Take a pill." and "You bully!" to the amicable
> column? I am learning so much from this thread...
What more do you want from me? I meant no offense, why are you trying to
provoke me?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> ························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own conscience
>>>>the thug. To the extreme.
>>>
>>>
>>>You misunderstood, I didn't feel bullied. And I intended no malice.
>>
>>OK, so I should move "Take a pill." and "You bully!" to the amicable
>>column? I am learning so much from this thread...
>
>
> What more do you want from me? I meant no offense, why are you trying to
> provoke me?
>
Funny how perfectly reasonable things like asking you to stop spamming
c.l.l (and waiting a week before doing so) becomes "kenny is a bully and
needs to take a pill", and something like "you call 'bully'
unmalicious?" becomes "kenny is provoking me!". Nice clear pattern
there, turning all your Usenet misconduct into someone else's problem.
btw, nothing before or here is meant to provoke, I am actually just
trying to help you see how your words come across to one reader, however
benign your internal intent, and that you have a pattern of reacting
with more bad conduct when confronted over prior bad conduct.
How hard would it have been to respond to my first post with "OK, let's
continue this over on alt.alt.alt.bullshit..."?
Well, our fifty minutes is up...
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: I'm working on yet another license]
Date:
Message-ID: <TBmjf.135239$S4.124347@edtnps84>
"Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
·························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "Kenny Tilton" <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> ························@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>>Coby Beck wrote:
>>>
>>>>>If that question leaves you feeling bullied, methinks your own
>>>>>conscience the thug. To the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>You misunderstood, I didn't feel bullied. And I intended no malice.
>>>
>>>OK, so I should move "Take a pill." and "You bully!" to the amicable
>>>column? I am learning so much from this thread...
>>
>> What more do you want from me? I meant no offense, why are you trying to
>> provoke me?
>
> Funny how perfectly reasonable things like asking you to stop spamming
> c.l.l (and waiting a week before doing so) becomes "kenny is a bully and
> needs to take a pill", and something like "you call 'bully' unmalicious?"
> becomes "kenny is provoking me!". Nice clear pattern there, turning all
> your Usenet misconduct into someone else's problem.
>
> btw, nothing before or here is meant to provoke, I am actually just trying
> to help you see how your words come across to one reader, however benign
> your internal intent
Your request was reasonable, my reply was intended as "flippant", not "flip
the bird".
I'll try to be more careful that my words come across as I intend them to.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>
> In my little microcosm, I don't see many lazy pot smoking dropouts who
> are not looking for work. Instead, I see lots of previously hard
> working individuals who have been retrenched or made redundent due to
> falling company profits that are unable to obtain new jobs - often
> because younger potential employees with a potentially longer useful
> worklife are getting the jobs - often because they are prepared to
> work for less as they don't have the same financial committments
> (yet).
If the younger folks will do the same job for less money, then why
shouldn't an employer be allowed to hire them? To put it another way,
why should an employer be forced to pay more money for the same output?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
"Heisenberg may have slept here." --BSD fortune file
"Actually, we have scientifically determined that Heisenberg did indeed
sleep exactly here. However, we have no idea whatsoever just how fast
asleep he was." --Dave Aronson
I doubt that this discussion can reach any consensus because there is
no agreed-upon goal for an economy. Here are some possible goals for
an economy that I came up with off the top of my head, all likely to
be attainable only by some sacrifice of most of the other goals:
Maximize freedom
Maximize security
Maximize output
Maximize efficiency
Maximize participation
Maximize the ability to accomplish tasks that require a lot of resources
Minimize poverty
Minimize ecological impact
Minimize social unrest
Minimize utilization of scarce resources
Minimize change
Minimize dependence on others
Minimize required effort to accomplish any given thing
Maximize utility of family unit
Maximize control over people
Maximize the ability for hardworking people to make a lot of money
Maximize return on investment
Maximize investment
Maximize artistic endeavor
Maximize social cohesion
Maximize the ability to exploit all natural resources
Maximize the number of "great" people
Maximize the ability to support warfare
If you can't agree on which of these are the most important, then you
will never agree on whether an economy is doing the right thing or
not.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Code deleted is code debugged. -- Ian Bicking
Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> In what way would it be worse if you simply got that money and could
>> manage it yourself (i.e. higher salary), so you had the choice to: pay
>> some of your mortgage, take a trip to the caribbean, or maybe just
>> save it for next year...?
>
> It would be worse in the way that now the employer decides how much
> vacation you have. For most people it is not as simple as telling
> the boss, 'Hey, I'll take a couple of weeks off'.
Well, you can't do that in current Germany either. They'll tell you
"too much stuff to do this summer, take your vacation in october". So I
don't think there'd be much of a difference.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
> > Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> >
> >> In what way would it be worse if you simply got that money and could
> >> manage it yourself (i.e. higher salary), so you had the choice to: pay
> >> some of your mortgage, take a trip to the caribbean, or maybe just
> >> save it for next year...?
> > It would be worse in the way that now the employer decides how much
> > vacation you have. For most people it is not as simple as telling
> > the boss, 'Hey, I'll take a couple of weeks off'.
>
> Well, you can't do that in current Germany either. They'll tell you
> "too much stuff to do this summer, take your vacation in october". So
> I don't think there'd be much of a difference.
>
The difference is in one system, the employer can say "we are too
busy, you will have to take your holidays in 6 months.", which may be
inconvenient or even frustrating, but at least you will eventually get
a break, compared to "We are too busy, so we are going to just pay you
out for your holidays and you don't get a break at all and no you
don't have a choice". If your young and single, this might not seem
like much, but if you have a family and don't have the energy you had
in your 20's it is a BIG difference.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: [OT political rant] Re: I'm working on yet another license
Date:
Message-ID: <3v0b01F131vb0U1@individual.net>
Tim X wrote:
> The difference is in one system, the employer can say "we are too
> busy, you will have to take your holidays in 6 months.", which may be
> inconvenient or even frustrating, but at least you will eventually get
> a break, compared to "We are too busy, so we are going to just pay you
> out for your holidays and you don't get a break at all and no you
> don't have a choice". If your young and single, this might not seem
> like much, but if you have a family and don't have the energy you had
> in your 20's it is a BIG difference.
You seem to assume that 100% of all employers are evil. There needs to
be just one who will give you vacation (if he doesn't have to pay, but
since you got the full salary that's no problem).
And hey, guess which employer will attract the best employees, and who
else will maybe follow his example?
In the forced vacation system there is no way at all to just have no
vacation.
The world isn't all evil employers on one side, and poor employees on
the other side. Somebody has to employ, and this someone often is
share-owned, or even employee-owned (which is just a special case of
share-owned). Most shareholders are themselves employees.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> (The USA have very high taxes too, but that's because of the war, and
> because they went the same way as Germany during the last
> decades. Ireland for instance has on average HALF the taxes, that is,
> just 25% of what people earn. If the Irish want vacation, they have
> the money to afford just that on their own.)
We had high taxes long before Iraq. The States, in their naivete,
ratified the 16th amendment allowing the income tax. Things kinda
went downhill from there.
Longer vacations and shorter work weeks would sure be nice though. I
suppose if you own your own company, you can arrange that ;-)
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>
>> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>>
>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>
> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
have 8 or 2 weeks.
People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
want to work and when.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
The rule for today:
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> >
> >> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> >>
> >> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
> >>
> >> That largely depends on your point of view.
> >
> > Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>
> You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
> exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
> have 8 or 2 weeks.
Forced? Of course, in my case it was a decision, but I don't here
anyone here complaining that they don't want their vacation.
> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
> want to work and when.
That's not even at all close to how I remember things working the the
US, where actually being able to use the pitiful 2 weeks vacation
involves working at least 2 weeks' worth of lots of extra hours.
There are exceptions, of course, but that's the system.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Forced? Of course, in my case it was a decision, but I don't here
> anyone here complaining that they don't want their vacation.
That's because they don't ever ask. I might like to work with only two
weeks off a year and a six day week for a while (to make some money),
and then take a year-long sabbatical.
>> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
>> want to work and when.
>
> That's not even at all close to how I remember things working the the
> US, where actually being able to use the pitiful 2 weeks vacation
> involves working at least 2 weeks' worth of lots of extra hours.
> There are exceptions, of course, but that's the system.
But the salaries aren't reduced by the amount that the vacation DOES
cost your employer. (you don't work for all those weeks, remember?)
Maybe some salaries in Germany are as good, or better, but that's a
result of your work being in higher demand here than in the US, not a
result of the system we have.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:00:03 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
<····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
>> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>>
>>> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>>>
>>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>>
>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>
> You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
> exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
> have 8 or 2 weeks.
>
> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
> want to work and when.
>
Don't know you do things but in Norway you are rarely forced to take
vacation.
If you choose not to have the vacation at the given time you accumulate
days you can take off later. If you choose not to use them that is fine
too.
Of course we are talking payed vacation..
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:00:03 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
> <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>>
>>> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>>>>
>>>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>>>
>>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>>
>> You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
>> exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
>> have 8 or 2 weeks.
>>
>> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
>> want to work and when.
>>
>
> Don't know you do things but in Norway you are rarely forced to take
> vacation.
> If you choose not to have the vacation at the given time you accumulate
> days you can take off later. If you choose not to use them that is
> fine too.
> Of course we are talking payed vacation..
But in Norway, if you don't take your vacations, are you reimbursed of
what you paid for them?
--
"A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!"
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:32:20 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
<····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:00:03 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
>> <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>>>
>>>> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
>>>>>
>>>>> That largely depends on your point of view.
>>>>
>>>> Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>>>
>>> You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
>>> exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
>>> have 8 or 2 weeks.
>>>
>>> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
>>> want to work and when.
>>>
>>
>> Don't know you do things but in Norway you are rarely forced to take
>> vacation.
>> If you choose not to have the vacation at the given time you accumulate
>> days you can take off later. If you choose not to use them that is
>> fine too.
>> Of course we are talking payed vacation..
>
> But in Norway, if you don't take your vacations, are you reimbursed of
> what you paid for them?
>
>
Let's just say I have never met anyone who considered having payed for
them.
It is a service offered by the company.
Technically, of course, the money has to come from somewhere..
But if you know Norwegian prices I think you can guess where :)
Anyhow you get something called vacation money in June.
You get this weather you take vacation or not.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> Anyhow you get something called vacation money in June.
You do not get payed vacations in Norway. Vacation-money is just the
government forcing your employer to save a certain percentage (10,2% I
believe) of your monthly salary. Then you typically get this saved
money in June the following year.
Personally I would rather get my full payment so I could invest the
money and earn the interest myself.
Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> >
> >> Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> >>
> >> > It seems USA is not good place to live :)
> >>
> >> That largely depends on your point of view.
> >
> > Hello from Germany, where I have 6 weeks vacation :-)
>
> You don't HAVE them. You are forced to save on your pay and to take
> exactly 6 week, whether you want them or not, and whether you'd rather
> have 8 or 2 weeks.
Just like in other countries, where you might have 2, 5 or even 0
weeks, but never a choice.
> People should have the freedom to choose for themselves how much they
> want to work and when.
That sounds like an ideal situation, but that is not the case
anywhere.
Bj�rn
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> On 9301 day of my life David Steuber wrote:
> > I made a bone headed mistake here. The DeCSS cases was about the
> > DMCA, not patents. D'oh!
>
> IMHO, DeCSS case was in Europe (Norway?), but DMCA is USA law :)
I had the alt.2600 case in mind where the magazine was sued for
linking to the DeCSS code. They removed the link and replaced it with
the plain text URL to the code. That wasn't deemed good enough.
After that legal fiasco (I suspect the alt.2600 lawyers were
thoroughly inept), a bunch of people started spreading the DeCSS code
by pretty much every means imaginable.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> I present to you my (possibly quite naive) software license:
[...]
One day, the disciple said unto the master: "Master, there are so
many free software licenses with so many different requirements
that nobody can possibly remember them all. I shall design my own
set of unified free software licenses to replace all the others,
and thereby set us all free!"
The master immediately slapped the disciple.
"Master, why did you strike me?"
The master said nothing, and the disciple went away.
The next day, the disciple returned to the master, but before he
could say anything, the master immediately slapped the disciple.
"Master, why did you strike me again?"
"I did not strike you again. Yesterday, I struck you with my left
hand. Today I strike you with my right hand. Tomorrow I shall kick
you."
The disciple was suddenly enlightened.
(Taken from http://lwn.net/Articles/19035/ (at the bottom), attributed
to Tim Lesher.)
Bj�rn
·····@runa.se (Bj�rn Lindberg) writes:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
>> I present to you my (possibly quite naive) software license:
>
> [...]
>
> One day, the disciple said unto the master: "Master, there are so
> many free software licenses with so many different requirements
> that nobody can possibly remember them all. I shall design my own
> set of unified free software licenses to replace all the others,
> and thereby set us all free!"
>
> The master immediately slapped the disciple.
>
> "Master, why did you strike me?"
>
> The master said nothing, and the disciple went away.
>
> The next day, the disciple returned to the master, but before he
> could say anything, the master immediately slapped the disciple.
>
> "Master, why did you strike me again?"
>
> "I did not strike you again. Yesterday, I struck you with my left
> hand. Today I strike you with my right hand. Tomorrow I shall kick
> you."
>
> The disciple was suddenly enlightened.
>
>
> (Taken from http://lwn.net/Articles/19035/ (at the bottom), attributed
> to Tim Lesher.)
There's a penury of slapping masters.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush