babrjkl

> > > > if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
> > > > sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless
> > > > war does not promote a "culture of life".
> >

>
>What about the notion 'war can save lives'.
>

Well as far as I know, that's BS in the case of the current war. It's
often said that "more people would have died" under Saddam, but I'd have
to see proof that he was killing more than 100000 civilians a year.

Plus this is a pragmatic argument. . . .if one believes in pragmatic
arguments, then how can one be against abortion rights? Pro-choice
people are not pro-death, they're pro-choice, being able to choose that
path when the situation warrants it. That's pragmatic. If you're going
to be pragmatic about war, then you have to be pragmatic about abortion.
Death is death.

>> I'm talking about my friends' parents, etc. who really believe
>> in this stuff. I'm talking about the people who've been duped:
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4045.php
>>
>> I think there might be some point in trying to talk to those
>> people.

>Yes, let's undupe them, with our superior knowledge of the
>situation, that correlates democratic votes to IQ, and all
>the rest.

Actually, I believe when I was young I was diagnosed with the IQ of a
vegetable. I probably do have a superior knowledge of the situation,
because I try to read/watch/listen widely. If I know more facts, why
shouldn't I try to share them with people? (of course I'm just posting
to metatuning, which is useless). But at any rate, If all someone
watches is FOX news, one will be duped.

>>> > () Opening a true dialog with them would mean that the
>>> > progressives would stand an equal chance of being converted
>>> > to Bushism.
>>>
>>> If Bushism is the better way to go, then fine. I kind of
>>> doubt it though.

>>How much time have you spent trying to understand the
>>neoconservative platform?

I've spent some serious time thinking about it. I've thought of
subscribing to National Review. But then I'd have to pay money. I don't
have much of that stuff at the moment. But when I try to think about what
an ideal society might look like, I definitely spend a lot of time
considering their point of view.

However, the thing about unfettered unregulated capitalism is that it's
been tested by history. And as far as I've learned, it failed, pretty
grimly. Well I suppose if your only goal to is to have an "efficient"
society that builds lots of cool-looking skyscrapers and neat new
inventions, then it succeeded. But if you want to take into account
human suffering, then it failed.

The other other part of the neo-con platform, the America as Empire,
"take up the white man's burden" part, has also been tested by history,
and failed (UK last century).

But again, I don't think most of the people who voted for Bush are really
"neo-cons" in the sense of being very concerned about extending American
Empire and the Greatness of mega-corporate Capitalism throughout the
world, etc. etc. Remember, originally Bush ran on a "we won't be the
world's cop anymore" platform.

> > > if most of the rank-in-file believe in a "culture of life"
> > > sincerely, than surely it can be argued that a senseless
> > > war does not promote a "culture of life".
> >
> > What about the notion 'war can save lives'.
>
> Well as far as I know, that's BS in the case of the
> current war.

That's possibly yet to be determined.

> Plus this is a pragmatic argument. . . .if one believes in
> pragmatic arguments, then how can one be against abortion
> rights? Pro-choice people are not pro-death, they're
> pro-choice, being able to choose that path when the situation
> warrants it. That's pragmatic. If you're going to be
> pragmatic about war, then you have to be pragmatic about
> abortion. Death is death.

I gather you think there isn't a consistent belief system
which holds abortion as too barbaric (except, say, when
medically indicated) and war as acceptably barbaric in cases
like the present one?

If you look at the neocon view, the Iraq initiative could
have far-ranging positive consequences in the future (disclaimer:
I don't buy this myself, but it isn't trivial to debunk).

I am pro-choice because I don't think we should extend the
rights of citizens to unborn children. However, I do think
it's a barbaric practice that's best discouraged. If I
believed that unborn children had rights (which seems wrong
but not impossibly far-fetched), I'd be against abortion.

Should society condone a practice like abortion so that
women can 'change their minds'? Can such a strategically
important area of the world be left to leaders who openly
threaten the United States? Remember, the historically-
proven procedure, until just a few generations ago, would
have been to conquer Iraq outright and take the oil. That
we wish to install a government, however puppet, and pay
for the oil is decent progress.

Ok, I'm not doing a very good job here. I'm too tired.
But you get the idea.

>>> I'm talking about my friends' parents, etc. who really
>>> believe in this stuff. I'm talking about the people
>>> who've been duped:
//
>>> I think there might be some point in trying to talk to those
>>> people.
>>
>>Yes, let's undupe them, with our superior knowledge of the
>>situation, that correlates democratic votes to IQ, and all
>>the rest.
>
> Actually, I believe when I was young I was diagnosed with the
> IQ of a vegetable. I probably do have a superior knowledge
> of the situation, because I try to read/watch/listen widely.
> If I know more facts, why shouldn't I try to share them with
> people? (of course I'm just posting to metatuning, which is
> useless). But at any rate, If all someone watches is FOX
> news, one will be duped.

I've got nothing against talking to people. It's only the
apparent presumption of correctness that bothered me.

But personally, rather than talk to them about politics, I'd
rather talk about something fun.

> >>> > () Opening a true dialog with them would mean that the
> >>> > progressives would stand an equal chance of being
> >>> > converted to Bushism.
> >>>
> >>> If Bushism is the better way to go, then fine. I kind of
> >>> doubt it though.
> >>
> >>How much time have you spent trying to understand the
> >>neoconservative platform?
>
> I've spent some serious time thinking about it. I've thought
> of subscribing to National Review. But then I'd have to pay
> money. I don't have much of that stuff at the moment. But
> when I try to think about what an ideal society might look
> like, I definitely spend a lot of time considering their
> point of view.

Well OK then.

> However, the thing about unfettered unregulated capitalism is
> that it's been tested by history. And as far as I've learned,
> it failed, pretty grimly. Well I suppose if your only goal
> to is to have an "efficient" society that builds lots of cool-
> looking skyscrapers and neat new inventions, then it succeeded.
> But if you want to take into account human suffering, then it
> failed.

The game's still afoot.

> The other other part of the neo-con platform,

Actually, free market capitalism isn't part of the neocon
philosophy.

> the America as Empire, "take up the white man's burden" part,
> has also been tested by history, and failed (UK last century).

You lost me with "whit man's burden", and I'm not placing
the UK reference.

> But again, I don't think most of the people who voted for
> Bush are really "neo-cons" in the sense of being very concerned
> about extending American Empire and the Greatness of mega-
> corporate Capitalism throughout the world, etc. etc. Remember,
> originally Bush ran on a "we won't be the world's cop anymore"
> platform.

I do remember that. But the Bush administration is clearly
on the neocon path now. The neocons are running the most
powerful political machine around, and knowingly or unknowingly,
the President rode it to the top.

-Carl

If society is going to take "responsibility" for determining that every unwanted child is born, then they need to take on the whole responsibility of raising and treating every single one equally. As i see it society fails to take responsibility for providing much for any of its citizens, much less children. All cities are by the very nature in which they are operated are child abuse. and in some cases just short of torture. overpopulation has lead us to the point where we can no longer provide for even those that are here.
Democracy demand personal responsibility in opposition to surrendering responsibility to tribalic taboos. the latter case becomes totalitarian by nature of setting up a special class.
The goal should always be to moralize politics and not to politizes morals

>carl Wrote
>
>Should society condone a practice like abortion so that
>women can 'change their minds'? Can such a strategically
>important area of the world be left to leaders who openly
>threaten the United States? Remember, the historically-
>proven procedure, until just a few generations ago, would
>have been to conquer Iraq outright and take the oil. That
>we wish to install a government, however puppet, and pay
>for the oil is decent progress.
>
> >
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

On Monday 15 November 2004 09:15 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> If society is going to take "responsibility" for determining that every
> unwanted child is born, then they need to take on the whole
> responsibility of raising and treating every single one equally. As i
> see it society fails to take responsibility for providing much for any
> of its citizens, much less children. All cities are by the very nature
> in which they are operated are child abuse. and in some cases just short
> of torture. overpopulation has lead us to the point where we can no
> longer provide for even those that are here.
> Democracy demand personal responsibility in opposition to surrendering
> responsibility to tribalic taboos. the latter case becomes totalitarian
> by nature of setting up a special class.
> The goal should always be to moralize politics and not to politizes
> morals

I agree with these arguments, Kraig!

A devil's advocate for the conservatives would say: why shouldn't I protect
the unborn fetus and *not* provide for it's raising (welfare)? The argument
is that I may not be responsible for your whole life, but I will protect from
episodes of danger where that life is threatened, just as I might stop you
from being mugged on the street, but not pay your salary.

My counter-argument is close to yours--abortion of an unwanted fetus measures
the value of a tortuous life for parents and child (emotional and physical
abuse, poverty, despair) against the life itself, and finds the reasons for
the life itself wanting. The flip side to this is that many great people have
come from lives of poverty and despair to do great things for humanity. So
it's a toss-up in my book.

Personally, I find abortion more and more to be a cowardly and irresponsible
form of birth control, and I don't think it ought to be encouraged, so I can
see the middle path. But I'm pro-choice *precisely* because to keep the
middle path, we need the option to remain legal.

As always, the bedrock of improving conditions in the inner city, etc. is a
reform of education, and that is going to take some time. Throwing money at
unqualified teachers doesn't help, that's for sure.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

> > If society is going to take "responsibility" for determining
> > that every unwanted child is born, then they need to take on
> > the whole responsibility of raising and treating every single
> > one equally. As i see it society fails to take responsibility
> > for providing much for any of its citizens, much less children.
> > All cities are by the very nature in which they are operated
> > are child abuse. and in some cases just short of torture.
> > overpopulation has lead us to the point where we can no longer
> > provide for even those that are here. Democracy demand
> > personal responsibility in opposition to surrendering
> > responsibility to tribalic taboos. the latter case becomes
> > totalitarian by nature of setting up a special class.
> > The goal should always be to moralize politics and not to
> > politizes morals
>
> I agree with these arguments, Kraig!
>
> A devil's advocate for the conservatives would say: why
> shouldn't I protect the unborn fetus and *not* provide for
> it's raising (welfare)? The argument is that I may not be
> responsible for your whole life, but I will protect from
> episodes of danger where that life is threatened, just as
> I might stop you from being mugged on the street, but not
> pay your salary.
>
> My counter-argument is close to yours--abortion of an unwanted
> fetus measures the value of a tortuous life for parents and
> child (emotional and physical abuse, poverty, despair) against
> the life itself, and finds the reasons for the life itself
> wanting. The flip side to this is that many great people have
> come from lives of poverty and despair to do great things for
> humanity. So it's a toss-up in my book.
>
> Personally, I find abortion more and more to be a cowardly
> and irresponsible form of birth control, and I don't think
> it ought to be encouraged, so I can see the middle path. But
> I'm pro-choice *precisely* because to keep the middle path,
> we need the option to remain legal.
>
> As always, the bedrock of improving conditions in the inner city,
> etc. is a reform of education, and that is going to take some
> time. Throwing money at unqualified teachers doesn't help, that's
> for sure.

Well said, Aaron!

-Carl

>>I agree with these arguments, Kraig!
>>
>>A devil's advocate for the conservatives would say: why
>>shouldn't I protect the unborn fetus and *not* provide for
>>it's raising (welfare)? The argument is that I may not be
>>responsible for your whole life, but I will protect from >>episodes of danger where that life is threatened, just as
>>I might stop you from being mugged on the street, but not
>>pay your salary.
>>
I would argure that one is then being inconsistant. Same with death penalty. They will claim the right of the state to execute but pull out the bible when it is a many celled animal that at one point can be come a hiuman. possibly we should show them pictures of embryos of chimps and see what they say. that something looks like something, doesn't make it so. thy shall not kill. either you buy it or don't but you can't make excuses. ( it is interesting to note that it is my understanding that it capital offences the number of jewish jurors was upped to 23, this is from a passing referance by Westcott, i do not know more about this )
what if one takes away my right to have two arms because of some taboo, and then turns around and says too bad you can't support your self. or that i must go to church on a certain day and my crops are ruined because i am forced to do so. There is no way to determined that exactly when something is a human being. One could argure that even after birth one is still just a potential to being human. this question is not scientific.
It i have a tree and you refuse to let me cut it down, you can not hold me responsible for if it falls on you.
The ethics of religion ( not that i think that two need to be related and both will do better without the other) is based on its own conviencance, they tell you what to do yet will not lift a hand or take responsibility of their impositions. If i tell you to orchestrate a passsage in a certain way and it sounds like shit, it is unethical for me not to take responsibility. same with a tuning i might add
If we empty out the churches , we would have more than enough housing for the homeless. Instead these institutions hoard their property when 6 days out of the week, it is dysfunctional. give it to the homeless for these days. what ethical groound do they have to turn them away.

>>
>>My counter-argument is close to yours--abortion of an unwanted
>>fetus measures the value of a tortuous life for parents and
>>child (emotional and physical abuse, poverty, despair) against
>>the life itself, and finds the reasons for the life itself
>>wanting. The flip side to this is that many great people have >>come from lives of poverty and despair to do great things for
>>humanity. So it's a toss-up in my book.
>>
>>Personally, I find abortion more and more to be a cowardly
>>and irresponsible form of birth control, and I don't think
>>it ought to be encouraged, so I can see the middle path. But
>>I'm pro-choice *precisely* because to keep the middle path,
>>we need the option to remain legal.
>>
>>As always, the bedrock of improving conditions in the inner city,
>>etc. is a reform of education, and that is going to take some
>>time. Throwing money at unqualified teachers doesn't help, that's
>>for sure.
>> >>
>
>Well said, Aaron!
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> >>A devil's advocate for the conservatives would say: why
> >>shouldn't I protect the unborn fetus and *not* provide for
> >>it's raising (welfare)? The argument is that I may not be
> >>responsible for your whole life, but I will protect from
> >>episodes of danger where that life is threatened, just as
> >>I might stop you from being mugged on the street, but not
> >>pay your salary.
>
> I would argure that one is then being inconsistant. Same
> with death penalty. They will claim the right of the state to
> execute but pull out the bible when it is a many celled animal
> that at one point can be come a hiuman.

I see your point, but forget about religious arguments for a
second (it shouldn't be surprising that they're inconsistent).
I'm sure there's a 'reasoning' that assigns a greater social
cost to abortion than to war or the death penalty, that's as
consistent as any such reasoning.

By the way, I used to think Christianity was logically
indefensible, but in the last few years I've met som really
smart folks who have interpretations I hadn't considered
before, which seem sensical, even poetic.

> It i have a tree and you refuse to let me cut it down,
> you can not hold me responsible for if it falls on you.

Sure I can, unless cutting it down was the ONLY way to prevent
it from falling on me. Abortion is not the only way to
prevent children from growing up to be violent criminals.

> The ethics of religion ( not that i think that two need
> to be related and both will do better without the other)

Agreed.

> is based on its own conviencance, they tell you what to do
> yet will not lift a hand or take responsibility of their
> impositions.

Historically, there's probably a good case for this.

> If we empty out the churches , we would have more than enough
> housing for the homeless. Instead these institutions hoard
> their property when 6 days out of the week, it is dysfunctional.

Lots of churches run homeless shelters, or loan their space
to boy-scout troops or chess clubs.

In one sense, I think the money spent on churches is not being
used to the fullest. But -- I was just thinking about this the
other day on my way to somewhere -- in a wider sense, what if
this is the only way to reach some people? I mean, maybe some
folks would be even worse off if they didn't have that outlet
in their lives. Maybe it's not optimal, but if they're too
closed off to accept therapy, or shamanism, or whatever... maybe
it's still a good thing.

-Carl

On Monday 15 November 2004 07:44 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >>I agree with these arguments, Kraig!
> >>
> >>A devil's advocate for the conservatives would say: why
> >>shouldn't I protect the unborn fetus and *not* provide for
> >>it's raising (welfare)? The argument is that I may not be
> >>responsible for your whole life, but I will protect from
> >>episodes of danger where that life is threatened, just as
> >>I might stop you from being mugged on the street, but not
> >>pay your salary.
>
> I would argure that one is then being inconsistant. Same with death
> penalty. They will claim the right of the state to execute but pull out
> the bible when it is a many celled animal that at one point can be come
> a hiuman. possibly we should show them pictures of embryos of chimps and
> see what they say. that something looks like something, doesn't make it
> so. thy shall not kill. either you buy it or don't but you can't make
> excuses. ( it is interesting to note that it is my understanding that it
> capital offences the number of jewish jurors was upped to 23, this is
> from a passing referance by Westcott, i do not know more about this )
> what if one takes away my right to have two arms because of some taboo,
> and then turns around and says too bad you can't support your self. or
> that i must go to church on a certain day and my crops are ruined
> because i am forced to do so. There is no way to determined that
> exactly when something is a human being. One could argure that even
> after birth one is still just a potential to being human. this question
> is not scientific.
> It i have a tree and you refuse to let me cut it down, you can not
> hold me responsible for if it falls on you.
> The ethics of religion ( not that i think that two need to be
> related and both will do better without the other) is based on its own
> conviencance, they tell you what to do yet will not lift a hand or take
> responsibility of their impositions.
> If i tell you to orchestrate a passsage in a certain way and it sounds
> like shit, it is unethical for me not to take responsibility. same with
> a tuning i might add
>
> If we empty out the churches , we would have more than enough housing
> for the homeless. Instead these institutions hoard their property when 6
> days out of the week, it is dysfunctional. give it to the homeless for
> these days. what ethical groound do they have to turn them away.

Kraig,

Of course, I agree with all you say.

Cheers,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

valid points. i don't really feel like make it easy on them.
Either we have individual responsibility or the church takes responsibility. I am not going to let them have it both ways.

As far as the below i want to make it clear that i am not against religion as many of my colleges are. I have myself been subjected to some strong religious persecution due to my own unorthodox history with various individual, inside my family and out. It is not pleasant. There is one label that refused to put out my stuff for the reason of my web site in which they stated that it had too much religion . Where this was they were not able to point out.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> By the way, I used to think Christianity was logically
>
>indefensible, but in the last few years I've met som really
>smart folks who have interpretations I hadn't considered
>before, which seem sensical, even poetic.
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

on 11/15/04 8:43 AM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>
>
>> If society is going to take "responsibility" for determining that
>> every unwanted child is born, then they need to take on the whole
>> responsibility of raising and treating every single one equally.
>
> Good point.
>
>> As i see it society fails to take responsibility for providing
>> much for any of its citizens, much less children.
>
> I agree. Public education is a mess. The roads are falling
> apart. Social Security is falling apart. And it's everbody for
> themselves when it comes to healthcare.
>
> I think it should be possible, though, even with the current
> population.
>
> My Dad's a one-issue republican -- he doesn't want to pay taxes
> for social services (never mind for now that war is just as
> expensive). He came from an abusive, impoverished family, and
> he worked for a living, however comfortable. He's payed 60% of
> everything he earned to the government, and what did anybody ever
> get for it? Not only is he not getting the benefit, he can't see
> anyone getting a benefit. I can't help but sympathize with him.
>
> Libertarians might say, if the social services are so good, why
> not make their funding optional, rather than forcing people to
> pay for them? An intermediate idea would be to assess a certain
> amount of tax, but let folks choose how some of it gets spent.
> It could start with a few small options and expand, if successful,
> into the Libertarian ideal.

Right, and it is also good business, and not an uncommon business model for
the customer to customize their package. Insurance, etc., works like this,
and the "global" picture has a way to deal with individual variations in
preference. Why people *don't* abstract that common business model into
government is something that surprises me a little. Government seems to act
as if everyone must agree. The whole issue of majority rule clearly has
problems which render it not actually democratic, and models to work that
out, like more sophisticated models for elections (instant recount, etc.)
have the problem of being sophisticated. Yet it seems to me that somehow
making it into a bunch of businesses might resolve some of this. No one is
forced to participate in what they don't want to participate in. If this
could be extended to constitutional articles, and like some story I read
(what was it?) people could chose to live in areas where murder is legal, if
that's what they wanted. Everybody there would "live" with the
consequences.

The downside is perhaps that people who make bad choices may still be in the
majority, and so the market will be dragged down by that, with better
offerings looking like bad business to the savvy.

Not that I feel totally thrilled about the idea of the government being just
a bunch of corporations. But it *would* be more honest perhaps. Only the
really stupid trust a corporation to love them and take care of their best
interests.

One thing that seems clear: we are headed for a strange world, if we ever
make it there.

-Kurt

>>Libertarians might say, if the social services are so good, why
>>not make their funding optional, rather than forcing people to
>>pay for them? An intermediate idea would be to assess a certain
>>amount of tax, but let folks choose how some of it gets spent.
>>It could start with a few small options and expand, if successful,
>>into the Libertarian ideal.
//
> Government seems to act as if everyone must agree. The whole
> issue of majority rule clearly has problems which render it not
> actually democratic,

What is actually demorcatic? It seems to me the problems to
which you allude are the essence of democracy.

> and models to work that out, like more sophisticated models for
> elections (instant recount, etc.)

That's the Democratic party model. :) You're thinking of
Instant Runoff. See...

http://lumma.org/microwave/#2004.01.07

> have the problem of being sophisticated. Yet it seems to me
> that somehow making it into a bunch of businesses might resolve
> some of this. No one is forced to participate in what they
> don't want to participate in.

Well, that's the whole idea behind anarcho-capitalism.

> If this could be extended to constitutional articles, and like
> some story I read (what was it?) people could chose to live in
> areas where murder is legal, if that's what they wanted.

We were talking about this the other night, but I don't
remember a reference to a work of fiction. The colonies of
Australia and Georgia, to name two, were perhaps in this
direction.

> The downside is perhaps that people who make bad choices may
> still be in the majority, and so the market will be dragged
> down by that, with better offerings looking like bad business
> to the savvy.

If you don't want to impose any external metric, then anarchy
is the only way. If you want to protect individual rights,
you need a common-law layer or something. If you want to
maximize market efficiency, you need a Keynesian layer, or
similar. If you want to maximize civility, you need a socialist
layer (heathcare for all, etc.).

> Not that I feel totally thrilled about the idea of the
> government being just a bunch of corporations. But it
> *would* be more honest perhaps.

It amazes me how many liberals are completely unfamiliar
with libertarian ideas.

> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love them and
> take care of their best interests.

How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy than
the structure of government?

-Carl

on 11/16/04 12:00 AM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>>> Libertarians might say, if the social services are so good, why
>>> not make their funding optional, rather than forcing people to
>>> pay for them? An intermediate idea would be to assess a certain
>>> amount of tax, but let folks choose how some of it gets spent.
>>> It could start with a few small options and expand, if successful,
>>> into the Libertarian ideal.
> //
>> Government seems to act as if everyone must agree. The whole
>> issue of majority rule clearly has problems which render it not
>> actually democratic,
>
> What is actually demorcatic? It seems to me the problems to
> which you allude are the essence of democracy.

Yes.

>> and models to work that out, like more sophisticated models for
>> elections (instant recount, etc.)
>
> That's the Democratic party model. :) You're thinking of
> Instant Runoff.

Yes, sorry, late night dyslexia.

> See...
>
> http://lumma.org/microwave/#2004.01.07
>
>> have the problem of being sophisticated. Yet it seems to me
>> that somehow making it into a bunch of businesses might resolve
>> some of this. No one is forced to participate in what they
>> don't want to participate in.
>
> Well, that's the whole idea behind anarcho-capitalism.

Have some people thought out how this would actually look, maybe in a
fictional context?

>> If this could be extended to constitutional articles, and like
>> some story I read (what was it?) people could chose to live in
>> areas where murder is legal, if that's what they wanted.
>
> We were talking about this the other night, but I don't
> remember a reference to a work of fiction.

Yes, I didn't remember it then, either. But I'm thinking now it might have
been a Frank Herbert book, one of the two Caleban books. I forget the
titles.

> The colonies of
> Australia and Georgia, to name two, were perhaps in this
> direction.
>
>> The downside is perhaps that people who make bad choices may
>> still be in the majority, and so the market will be dragged
>> down by that, with better offerings looking like bad business
>> to the savvy.
>
> If you don't want to impose any external metric, then anarchy
> is the only way. If you want to protect individual rights,
> you need a common-law layer or something. If you want to
> maximize market efficiency, you need a Keynesian layer, or
> similar. If you want to maximize civility, you need a socialist
> layer (heathcare for all, etc.).

Maybe AnarchyPlus(tm). Some other "layer" is needed, yet is seems
reasonable that participation in a layer must be by agreement. Therefore by
there must exist places that provide alternatives to the agreements imposed
by any layer. This almost implies the existance of multiple countries. But
it looks like we're stuck with multiple countries for a while anyway, at
least until doomsday or so.

Anyway the minimal layer I was thinking of is a layer that defines
groundrules for participation or non-participation in all other kinds of
layers.

>> Not that I feel totally thrilled about the idea of the
>> government being just a bunch of corporations. But it
>> *would* be more honest perhaps.
>
> It amazes me how many liberals are completely unfamiliar
> with libertarian ideas.

Smaller government is all I ever heard people talk about. But by and large
the people talking did not seem very smart to me at the time. That's why I
re-registered as Democrat after being Libertarian for several years. But
possibly I should re-evaluate now. Problem is I just don't get exposed.
Same problem most people have in this country. Mind you I'm not expecting
to become Libertarian next week, but you never know.

>> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love them and
>> take care of their best interests.
>
> How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy than
> the structure of government?

Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly (knowing that the exist
for profit) than *trust* government blindly, I think. That's what I was
trying to say--that a business-looking structure would make it more obvious
to people what they are actually dealing with in government. But maybe not.
People who haven't noticed yet probably think Avon and Exxon love them.

-Kurt

> > http://lumma.org/microwave/#2004.01.07
> >
> >> have the problem of being sophisticated. Yet it seems to
> >> me that somehow making it into a bunch of businesses might
> >> resolve some of this. No one is forced to participate in
> >> what they don't want to participate in.
> >
> > Well, that's the whole idea behind anarcho-capitalism.
>
> Have some people thought out how this would actually look,
> maybe in a fictional context?

Haven't you read Rand?

There's a ton of stuff on the web. Did you know they're
trying to take over ... is it, New Hampshire?

> >> If this could be extended to constitutional articles, and
> >> like some story I read (what was it?) people could chose
> >> to live in areas where murder is legal, if that's what
> >> they wanted.
> >
> > We were talking about this the other night, but I don't
> > remember a reference to a work of fiction.
>
> Yes, I didn't remember it then, either. But I'm thinking now
> it might have been a Frank Herbert book, one of the two Caleban
> books. I forget the titles.

Ah; haven't read those.

> >> The downside is perhaps that people who make bad choices may
> >> still be in the majority, and so the market will be dragged
> >> down by that, with better offerings looking like bad business
> >> to the savvy.
> >
> > If you don't want to impose any external metric, then anarchy
> > is the only way. If you want to protect individual rights,
> > you need a common-law layer or something. If you want to
> > maximize market efficiency, you need a Keynesian layer, or
> > similar. If you want to maximize civility, you need a
> > socialist layer (heathcare for all, etc.).
>
> Maybe AnarchyPlus(tm). Some other "layer" is needed, yet it
> seems reasonable that participation in a layer must be by
> agreement. Therefore by there must exist places that provide
> alternatives to the agreements imposed by any layer. This
> almost implies the existance of multiple countries.

I've suggested that sufficiently limber courts could do it all.

> Anyway the minimal layer I was thinking of is a layer that
> defines groundrules for participation or non-participation
> in all other kinds of layers.

Generally written language isn't sufficient -- you need an
interpretive body.

> >> Not that I feel totally thrilled about the idea of the
> >> government being just a bunch of corporations. But it
> >> *would* be more honest perhaps.
> >
> > It amazes me how many liberals are completely unfamiliar
> > with libertarian ideas.
>
> Smaller government is all I ever heard people talk about.

My friend Dan has written about the "unholy alliance between
fiscal conservatives (libertarian-leaning folks) and the
religious right" that make up today's Republican party.
A Frankenstein monster of a party. He suggests that alliance
is beginning to crack, but I'm not so sure.

Bush does have some of it, though. He suggestion to fix
social security is to return some of the responsibility to
the people.

> But by and large the people talking did not seem very smart
> to me at the time. That's why I re-registered as Democrat
> after being Libertarian for several years.

Yeah, the libertarians are too far out there. When I was
18, I registered lib, even though I had no intention of
voting. When I voted in the recall, I registered undecided.

> But possibly I should re-evaluate now.

Well, there are many different kinds of folks claiming to be
libertarian. The American libertarian party is but one flavor.
And they're pretty wacked, IMO. However, their website does
state (or used to) the fundamental principle of the discipline:
to reduce the use of force in human relationships.

> Problem is I just don't get exposed. Same problem most
> people have in this country.

That's what I was trying to say in this thread. The 'evil
corporations' stuff I hear bandied around Berkeley is really
ignorant, for example. Right up there with the "natural" vs.
synthetic myth. I recommend the Economist. It's $129 for
52 issues. Possibly the best magazine in print.

> >> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love them and
> >> take care of their best interests.
> >
> > How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy than
> > the structure of government?
>
> Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly (knowing
> that the exist for profit)

And what is profit?

> than *trust* government blindly, I think.

Both are just ways of organizing people. Publically-held
corporations have weaknesses, but I find them FAR more
trustworthy than any branch of our government. Our government
jails people for pocessing contraband plants. Our
government kills thousands in Iraq. Corporations make
weapons and drug tests, but they wouldn't do so if there
were no market for those goods.

> That's what I was trying to say--that a business-looking
> structure would make it more obvious to people what they
> are actually dealing with in government. But maybe not.

Possibly, yes.

-Carl

> > > http://lumma.org/microwave/#2004.01.07
> > >
> > >> have the problem of being sophisticated. Yet it seems to
> > >> me that somehow making it into a bunch of businesses might
> > >> resolve some of this. No one is forced to participate in
> > >> what they don't want to participate in.
> > >
> > > Well, that's the whole idea behind anarcho-capitalism.
> >
> > Have some people thought out how this would actually look,
> > maybe in a fictional context?
>
> Haven't you read Rand?

Not that Rand's stuff really explains the ideal by presenting
a fiction in which it is already realized (which is what you
want, I think). It more exaggerates what's wrong with
reality, and complains about it by having characters launch
into 60-page speeches about what's wrong. It's pedantic,
too long, and bit wacked. But some of the speeches are good,
and her work has had enough influence that I at least recommend
Atlas Shrugged.

I'm sure there are works of fiction which express the
libertarian ideal as realized. But I can't think of any
off hand.

> > >> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love
> > >> them and take care of their best interests.
> > >
> > > How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy
> > > than the structure of government?
> >
> > Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly
> > (knowing that the exist for profit)
>
> And what is profit?

I'll answer this awhile. In an ideal trade, both parties
come out ahead. Many liberarians will tell you that all
trades in a free society are ideal, otherwise they wouldn't
take place. But that's not true. There's the problem of
imperfect information. The classic example is the purchase
of a used car, which is like a black box -- its real value
is nearly impossible for a buyer to assess. Dealers, on the
other hand, are in a position to know a little bit more.
There are other problems caused by trade assymetries. If
I'm worried about what I'm going to eat, my ability to make
fair trades is likely to be compromised. Unfortunately,
these obvious exceptions have only been codified into formal
economics very recently, though I think Marx was trying his
best to say something cogent about them.

Anyway, in the ideal case, both sides do come out ahead,
and this improvement is represented as profit. So it's a
good thing, and seeking it is noble. At its most basic
level, it's a representation of the gains of collaboration.
Two people are more productive together then the sum of
their individual productivity.

What do companies do with profits? They pay their
employees, invest back into the activity that earned them,
and pay dividends to the investors who gambled on the
possibility of the activity in the first place. All good
things. And the result is fine-grained regulation of
each activity in the human sphere.

The only trouble comes from exploiting imperfect trades,
outright theft, etc. No human institution is free of
these things, or the threat of them. Many corporations
are publically-owned, which strangely doesn't seem to
satisfy Berkeley socialists.

etc.

-Carl

on 11/16/04 12:37 PM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>>> Well, that's the whole idea behind anarcho-capitalism.
>>
>> Have some people thought out how this would actually look,
>> maybe in a fictional context?
>
> Haven't you read Rand?

I was wondering if that was going to be it. Yes, 30 years ago I read
everything she wrote. I liked it at the time, but I hadn't had much life
experience then. A friend of mine remembers having read it when he was
younger and said something about catching on to what the book was doing to
him, manipulating him, and so he stopped reading it. Maybe I liked being
manipulated.

> There's a ton of stuff on the web. Did you know they're
> trying to take over ... is it, New Hampshire?

Sounds interesting, anyway.

>>>> If this could be extended to constitutional articles, and
>>>> like some story I read (what was it?) people could chose
>>>> to live in areas where murder is legal, if that's what
>>>> they wanted.
//
I think I remember the names of the two Frank Herbert books:

Whipping Star
The Dosadi Experiment

I'm almost sure of the first one. But I'm not 100% sure this is where the
idea came from now. :(

>> Maybe AnarchyPlus(tm). Some other "layer" is needed, yet it
>> seems reasonable that participation in a layer must be by
>> agreement. Therefore by there must exist places that provide
>> alternatives to the agreements imposed by any layer. This
>> almost implies the existance of multiple countries.
>
> I've suggested that sufficiently limber courts could do it all.

Maybe multiple courts with the right to wage on each other but not on the
people? ;)

There was something interesting from the Dosadi experiment wherein as I
recall the judicial system was relegated (outsourced) to a specific race,
and that race had particular moral values which made them well-suited to the
job. As I recall there was something like a death penalty for the lawyer
who lost the case. Immediately after the trial (in the courtroom) the
lawyer was killed by his colleagues. Something like that, I may have lost
an important detail, because when I read it it seemed to make sense, but
doesn't now.

>> Anyway the minimal layer I was thinking of is a layer that
>> defines groundrules for participation or non-participation
>> in all other kinds of layers.
>
> Generally written language isn't sufficient -- you need an
> interpretive body.

Yes, well thats a "layer" anyway. You need to have consensus to honor the
courts, etc. So to be fair in that kind of absolute minimalist scheme you
need a place for people to go and be outside of any system, if they wish.
And you also potentially need negotiable boundaries. Fixed boundaries
between politically independent factions will always eventually be
contested, leading to wars. To prevent that you would need something
ingrained to support a sustainable ultra-thin outer layer which requires
that on both sides of those boundaries, the rights of those on the other
side are upheld. But this rather contradicts the idea that there can be a
place where there are no inherent rights or responsibilities.

>> Smaller government is all I ever heard people talk about.
>
> My friend Dan has written about the "unholy alliance between
> fiscal conservatives (libertarian-leaning folks) and the
> religious right" that make up today's Republican party.
> A Frankenstein monster of a party. He suggests that alliance
> is beginning to crack, but I'm not so sure.
>
> Bush does have some of it, though. He suggestion to fix
> social security is to return some of the responsibility to
> the people.

That's fine but its also an excuse for dumping it into obvlivion without
seeming to do so. On the other hand the USPS is not an absolute failure.
Just looks pretty disappointing compared to what it used to be when it was
the US Mail.

>> Problem is I just don't get exposed. Same problem most
>> people have in this country.
>
> That's what I was trying to say in this thread. The 'evil
> corporations' stuff I hear bandied around Berkeley is really
> ignorant, for example. Right up there with the "natural" vs.
> synthetic myth.

It depends on what you mean. You don't mean to deny that value of nutrients
in their original context, e.g. cellular context, do you? I can take strong
chinese antibiotics and have no bad digestive side-effects, for example.
Well that may be a different but related point--that's because its a
designed formula, designed to be in balance. The other point is more that
nature has its own designed formulas: the fact that antidotes to most
sources of poison exist in close proximity to the poison throughout nature.
This is supposedly true of poison oak, IIRC, but I can't remember the
details.

> I recommend the Economist. It's $129 for
> 52 issues. Possibly the best magazine in print.

The problem is recycling all 52 issues!

>>>> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love them and
>>>> take care of their best interests.
>>>
>>> How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy than
>>> the structure of government?
>>
>> Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly (knowing
>> that the exist for profit)
>
> And what is profit?

I'm trying to describe something loosely here. I'm making a conjecture
about how "the masses" might see things. A precise definition of profit is
irrelevant to conjectures about the opinions/believes of the masses. Again
I"m not making an argument about what is better, just about how people might
tend to perceive it, that people *might* perceive corporations more
accurately than government. I'm not sure, but that was my conjecture.

>> than *trust* government blindly, I think.
>
> Both are just ways of organizing people. Publically-held
> corporations have weaknesses, but I find them FAR more
> trustworthy than any branch of our government. Our government
> jails people for pocessing contraband plants. Our
> government kills thousands in Iraq. Corporations make
> weapons and drug tests, but they wouldn't do so if there
> were no market for those goods.

The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the market for arms.
A corporation could also be contracted to handle national defense. And
international manipulation would just take care of itself eventually,
entirely based on farm-raised (farm-grown) soldiers.

>> That's what I was trying to say--that a business-looking
>> structure would make it more obvious to people what they
>> are actually dealing with in government. But maybe not.
>
> Possibly, yes.

Ok, so I guess you get the basic point anyway.

-Kurt

on 11/16/04 2:01 PM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

>> Haven't you read Rand?
>
> Not that Rand's stuff really explains the ideal by presenting
> a fiction in which it is already realized (which is what you
> want, I think).

Yes, that's what I was asking for. I remember that Rand was not that.

> It more exaggerates what's wrong with
> reality, and complains about it by having characters launch
> into 60-page speeches about what's wrong. It's pedantic,
> too long, and bit wacked. But some of the speeches are good,
> and her work has had enough influence that I at least recommend
> Atlas Shrugged.
>
> I'm sure there are works of fiction which express the
> libertarian ideal as realized. But I can't think of any
> off hand.
>
>>>>> Only the really stupid trust a corporation to love
>>>>> them and take care of their best interests.
>>>>
>>>> How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy
>>>> than the structure of government?
>>>
>>> Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly
>>> (knowing that the exist for profit)
>>
>> And what is profit?
>
> I'll answer this awhile. In an ideal trade, both parties
> come out ahead. Many liberarians will tell you that all
> trades in a free society are ideal, otherwise they wouldn't
> take place. But that's not true. There's the problem of
> imperfect information. The classic example is the purchase
> of a used car, which is like a black box -- its real value
> is nearly impossible for a buyer to assess. Dealers, on the
> other hand, are in a position to know a little bit more.
> There are other problems caused by trade assymetries. If
> I'm worried about what I'm going to eat, my ability to make
> fair trades is likely to be compromised. Unfortunately,
> these obvious exceptions have only been codified into formal
> economics very recently, though I think Marx was trying his
> best to say something cogent about them.
>
> Anyway, in the ideal case, both sides do come out ahead,
> and this improvement is represented as profit. So it's a
> good thing, and seeking it is noble. At its most basic
> level, it's a representation of the gains of collaboration.
> Two people are more productive together then the sum of
> their individual productivity.
>
> What do companies do with profits? They pay their
> employees, invest back into the activity that earned them,
> and pay dividends to the investors who gambled on the
> possibility of the activity in the first place. All good
> things. And the result is fine-grained regulation of
> each activity in the human sphere.
>
> The only trouble comes from exploiting imperfect trades,
> outright theft, etc. No human institution is free of
> these things, or the threat of them. Many corporations
> are publically-owned, which strangely doesn't seem to
> satisfy Berkeley socialists.

Well, yes, its interesting to realize what publicly-owned means nowadays.
Its not what publicly-owned probably meant 55 years ago. The public is more
restless, less trusting in the long-term outcome, ready to manipulate
without either:

seeking information about consequences

developing a self-felt sense of global consequences

And actually the latter should lead to the former.

-Kurt

> > There's a ton of stuff on the web. Did you know they're
> > trying to take over ... is it, New Hampshire?
>
> Sounds interesting, anyway.

http://www.freestateproject.org/

> >> Maybe AnarchyPlus(tm). Some other "layer" is needed, yet it
> >> seems reasonable that participation in a layer must be by
> >> agreement. Therefore by there must exist places that provide
> >> alternatives to the agreements imposed by any layer. This
> >> almost implies the existance of multiple countries.
> >
> > I've suggested that sufficiently limber courts could do it all.
>
> Maybe multiple courts with the right to wage on each other but
> not on the people? ;)

http://lumma.org/stuff/newlaw.txt

> There was something interesting from the Dosadi experiment
> wherein as I recall the judicial system was relegated
> (outsourced) to a specific race, and that race had particular
> moral values which made them well-suited to the job. As I
> recall there was something like a death penalty for the lawyer
> who lost the case. Immediately after the trial (in the
> courtroom) the lawyer was killed by his colleagues.

Who was it that suggested the best government is by
a total monarch who is shot at the end of his term?

> >> Anyway the minimal layer I was thinking of is a layer that
> >> defines groundrules for participation or non-participation
> >> in all other kinds of layers.
> >
> > Generally written language isn't sufficient -- you need an
> > interpretive body.
>
> Yes, well thats a "layer" anyway. You need to have consensus
> to honor the courts, etc. So to be fair in that kind of
> absolute minimalist scheme you need a place for people to go
> and be outside of any system, if they wish.

Anarcho-capitalists would agree. In their ideal, instead of
police (for example), you get to choose between competing
protection services. But monopoly has its place, and free
markets don't guarantee its abscence. Indeed, the present
reality may have evolved from one in which there were
competing protection agencies. AFAIK there is no general
consensus in the anarcho-capitalist school on how to deal
with such natural evolution.

> >> Smaller government is all I ever heard people talk about.
> >
> > My friend Dan has written about the "unholy alliance between
> > fiscal conservatives (libertarian-leaning folks) and the
> > religious right" that make up today's Republican party.
> > A Frankenstein monster of a party. He suggests that alliance
> > is beginning to crack, but I'm not so sure.
> >
> > Bush does have some of it, though. He suggestion to fix
> > social security is to return some of the responsibility to
> > the people.
>
> That's fine but its also an excuse for dumping it into obvlivion
> without seeming to do so. On the other hand the USPS is not an
> absolute failure.

I'm confused about the nature of the USPS. I've read that it
is a private corporation, but I assume it is subsidized by
taxpayers...

> Just looks pretty disappointing compared to
> what it used to be when it was the US Mail.

Maybe you can fill me in on the history here...

> >> Problem is I just don't get exposed. Same problem most
> >> people have in this country.
> >
> > That's what I was trying to say in this thread. The 'evil
> > corporations' stuff I hear bandied around Berkeley is really
> > ignorant, for example. Right up there with the "natural" vs.
> > synthetic myth.
>
> It depends on what you mean. You don't mean to deny that
> value of nutrients in their original context, e.g. cellular
> context, do you? I can take strong chinese antibiotics and
> have no bad digestive side-effects, for example. Well that
> may be a different but related point--that's because its a
> designed formula, designed to be in balance. The other point
> is more that nature has its own designed formulas: the fact
> that antidotes to most sources of poison exist in close
> proximity to the poison throughout nature.

Is that a fact?

> This is supposedly true of poison oak, IIRC, but I can't
> remember the details.

Sonuds like BS to me.

Ecosystems are complex and metastable. It shouldn't be a
surprise that there are many things about which are edible
and nutritious, or that it's hard to synthesize improvements
on this. Yes, most illnesses could be prevented with
lifestyle changes requiring only very basic technology.

But:

() Everything's "natural".
() There are plenty of plants, insects, molds, etc., that
will happily kill you if given the chance.
() There are more than a few synthetic materials around
that are quite nice to have.
() I was referring to the acceptance of anything that anyone
claims is "natural" as good, without further investigation.
I've observed this behavior from a dozen people in the last
year, and they should be taken 'round back and shot.

> > I recommend the Economist. It's $129 for
> > 52 issues. Possibly the best magazine in print.
>
> The problem is recycling all 52 issues!

You can get an online-only sub.

> >>> How is the structure of a corportation less trustworthy
> >>> than the structure of government?
> >>
> >> Not. But fewer people *trust* corporations blindly (knowing
> >> that the exist for profit)
> >
> > And what is profit?
>
> I'm trying to describe something loosely here. I'm making a
> conjecture about how "the masses" might see things. A precise
> definition of profit is irrelevant to conjectures about the
> opinions/believes of the masses. Again I'm not making an
> argument about what is better, just about how people might
> tend to perceive it, that people *might* perceive corporations
> more accurately than government. I'm not sure, but that was
> my conjecture.

Ah; misunderstood the voice of your comment.

> >> than *trust* government blindly, I think.
> >
> > Both are just ways of organizing people. Publically-held
> > corporations have weaknesses, but I find them FAR more
> > trustworthy than any branch of our government. Our government
> > jails people for pocessing contraband plants. Our
> > government kills thousands in Iraq. Corporations make
> > weapons and drug tests, but they wouldn't do so if there
> > were no market for those goods.
>
> The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the
> market for arms.

I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
any governance change of the kind we are discussing.

-Carl

> > The only trouble comes from exploiting imperfect trades,
> > outright theft, etc. No human institution is free of
> > these things, or the threat of them. Many corporations
> > are publically-owned, which strangely doesn't seem to
> > satisfy Berkeley socialists.
>
> Well, yes, its interesting to realize what publicly-owned
> means nowadays. Its not what publicly-owned probably meant
> 55 years ago. The public is more restless, less trusting
> in the long-term outcome, ready to manipulate without either:
>
> seeking information about consequences
> developing a self-felt sense of global consequences
>
> And actually the latter should lead to the former.

Yes, I have read that shareholder rights have been
substantially weakened in the past century. And shares are
increasingly traded on value speculation, rather than with
respect to dividends, which can lead to trouble.

-Carl

Hi there,

I'm not following thie thread really, but a quote
I heard from Wilson Churchill the other day springs to
mind: "Democracy is the worst form of government -
until you've seen the alternatives".

Actually also I think it is a matter of - size,
religion, culture etc. For instance it would
be utterly absurd for a small tribe of two
hundred Amazonian Indians to rule by democracy.
Or in climbing - a very small walking or
climbing group usually works using a spontaneously
selected leader - with the leader changing according
to the terrain they are most familiar with, or
whether they are tired or well or ill etc
- a bit like the leader changing in a flock
of geese. So you ahve a rotating leader.
In fact that has been tried has it not
by some socieities? I seem to remember
some society where the leader could be
any member of the society chosen by
random - or maybe that was sci fi?

Here in the UK of course we have the
queen who has no political power really
to speak of - but does have influence
- liek an extra special diplomat for the
world or somethign. Alsoo a figure of natural
respect. Despite all the failings of the
royal family under the harsh glare of
publicity, I think you will find it hard
to find anyone who really prefers
a pure democracy here rather than our
curret mixed deomcracy / very weak monarchy
- at least in England. Some loyalists in Scotland
may possibly feel that the king or queen
of the country should really be Scottish
or that Scotland should have its own
separate monarch as it used to originally.
I mean as a kind of wistful feeling
knowing that it isn't practically
likely to happen.

I remember another very funny sci fi
story about democracy - democracy
taken to its ultimate. They had
refined computer forecasting of polls
to such an extent that they were absolutely
accurate. There was no need for everyone
to elect the leader but the computer
did need some input. It needed one single
voter. Then it didn't matter at alll what
he or she did as it wasn't the vote as such
that mattered - in fact I think the voting
form was more a kind of questionaire asking
lots of crazy questions about unexpected things
like a market research form.

So then they chose a single person to be
the voter for the current election and it
was a great priviledge to be the voter
for that year - also it might reflect
badly on you (quite undeservedly) if it
went wrong. Hope I'm remembering this
correctly. I can't remember the end
of the story unfortunately. Maybe nothing
very spectacular as it was rather a short story
I think. Anyone here remember it?

Anyway surely democracy also takes many
forms. E.g. proportional representation.
Certainly your system in the US
is very particular and unique.

I think myself that for a very small
country with a good tradition of
leadership and with suitable checks and
balances in palce, a hereditary king or queen may
be quite appropriate. Even if they
are a weak or stupid king or queen
at some point, if the culture itself
is robust enough and the moral principles
and the ethical background of the culture
is good and the people are friendly and
tolerant and good natured, that is unlikely
to matter. But when you get to a country
as large as e.g. the UK for instance,
it is no wonder that proportionally
the monarchy gets made weaker and
when you get as large as the US
I can see it is probably just
unmanageable to have a hereditary
monarchy.

Or of course you have the system
of old Tibet where the nearest
to a ruler - spiritual ruler
of course - is the Dalai Lama
who is chosen by selection of
a small child who is recognised
because, amongst other things,
his ability to pick out tings
that belonged to him in his
previuos life. A system that
worked well enough simply because
of the universal respect for the
Dalai Lama amongst all Tibetans
- and for whatever reason the
Dalai Lama - well certainly the
present one is a most remarkable
individual I think almost anyone
can agree who has heard him speak.

I'm just saying to make the point
that one can speak for ones own
society but one can never really
speak definitively about the suuitable
form of government for another society
that one doesnt' understand intimately
and completely.

Robert

It was the Iroquois indians gov't that the US democracy is partly based :)

Robert Walker wrote:

>Actually also I think it is a matter of - size,
>religion, culture etc. For instance it would
>be utterly absurd for a small tribe of two
>hundred Amazonian Indians to rule by democracy.
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

on 11/16/04 4:42 PM, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:

> http://www.freestateproject.org/
> http://lumma.org/stuff/newlaw.txt

Yikes I don't know when I can read this stuff. Our hot water heater is
failing and I still haven't taken my car in for an estimate... etc. etc.
>
>> There was something interesting from the Dosadi experiment
>> wherein as I recall the judicial system was relegated
>> (outsourced) to a specific race, and that race had particular
>> moral values which made them well-suited to the job. As I
>> recall there was something like a death penalty for the lawyer
>> who lost the case. Immediately after the trial (in the
>> courtroom) the lawyer was killed by his colleagues.
>
> Who was it that suggested the best government is by
> a total monarch who is shot at the end of his term?

I can't remember. Sounds like a good plan maybe. ;) But in some cases
maybe it should happen earlier. Well, regardless, it would be the end of
his term. ;)

>>>> Anyway the minimal layer I was thinking of is a layer that
>>>> defines groundrules for participation or non-participation
>>>> in all other kinds of layers.
>>>
>>> Generally written language isn't sufficient -- you need an
>>> interpretive body.
>>
>> Yes, well thats a "layer" anyway. You need to have consensus
>> to honor the courts, etc. So to be fair in that kind of
>> absolute minimalist scheme you need a place for people to go
>> and be outside of any system, if they wish.
>
> Anarcho-capitalists would agree. In their ideal, instead of
> police (for example), you get to choose between competing
> protection services. But monopoly has its place, and free
> markets don't guarantee its abscence. Indeed, the present
> reality may have evolved from one in which there were
> competing protection agencies. AFAIK there is no general
> consensus in the anarcho-capitalist school on how to deal
> with such natural evolution.

Yes, the bottom line is that all levels of system must be subject to change.
Then the system is serving the participants and not vice-versa.

>>>> Smaller government is all I ever heard people talk about.
>>>
>>> My friend Dan has written about the "unholy alliance between
>>> fiscal conservatives (libertarian-leaning folks) and the
>>> religious right" that make up today's Republican party.
>>> A Frankenstein monster of a party. He suggests that alliance
>>> is beginning to crack, but I'm not so sure.
>>>
>>> Bush does have some of it, though. He suggestion to fix
>>> social security is to return some of the responsibility to
>>> the people.
>>
>> That's fine but its also an excuse for dumping it into obvlivion
>> without seeming to do so. On the other hand the USPS is not an
>> absolute failure.
>
> I'm confused about the nature of the USPS. I've read that it
> is a private corporation, but I assume it is subsidized by
> taxpayers...

Hmm, I guess I didn't know/remember that it was subsidized.

>> Just looks pretty disappointing compared to
>> what it used to be when it was the US Mail.
>
> Maybe you can fill me in on the history here...

Well the experience of the last 40 years has been a gradual decay in the
quality/competence of the mail. People used to depend on it in ways that
aren't possible anymore. Probably only competition keeps it from being
completely useless. On the other hand many other things have changed at the
same time, so you can't just blame the mail. For example the availability
of employees who are loyal and work hard for little money and for the sake
of pride, that's a vanishing phenomenon. And that also seems healthy in
some ways (because the old way is too tied to abuse of workers), but has its
consequences.

>>>> Problem is I just don't get exposed. Same problem most
>>>> people have in this country.
>>>
>>> That's what I was trying to say in this thread. The 'evil
>>> corporations' stuff I hear bandied around Berkeley is really
>>> ignorant, for example. Right up there with the "natural" vs.
>>> synthetic myth.
>>
>> It depends on what you mean. You don't mean to deny that
>> value of nutrients in their original context, e.g. cellular
>> context, do you? I can take strong chinese antibiotics and
>> have no bad digestive side-effects, for example. Well that
>> may be a different but related point--that's because its a
>> designed formula, designed to be in balance. The other point
>> is more that nature has its own designed formulas: the fact
>> that antidotes to most sources of poison exist in close
>> proximity to the poison throughout nature.
>
> Is that a fact?

Pretty well documented. Horticulturalists (at least some) know examples off
the top of their heads. I'll have to ask Marty. She's pointed out some of
these things when we've been on hikes.

>> This is supposedly true of poison oak, IIRC, but I can't
>> remember the details.
>
> Sonuds like BS to me.

In the poison oak case I don't think we are talking about an absolute cure,
which I guess is the usual connotation of antidote. Maybe I have my facts
crossed.

I'm pretty sure that stinging nettle tends to occur with something growing
near it which is its antidote. Maybe that's even blackberries. I remember
running into stinging nettle problems around blackberries. I'll try to find
out anyway.

But it makes total sense, is even obvious, with any thinking about yin/yang.
You have all these dimensions each of which has a yin side and a yang side
(but call it what you like). Plants near each other involve a local
polarization. If something is concentrated in one plant it is sparse in
another nearby. Or maybe clearer to spell it out more, tentatively: if a
given plant requires something concentrated in it, it will be removing that
from the soil. If something else grows well near it, it will not require
that thing, and better yet if it provides that thing in the soil. Apply
that to a large variety of dimensions simultaneously, and then look at the
specific situation of two plants that cohabit well: they are likely to be
opposite in many dimensions to cohabit well. Thus the antidoting. That's
nobody's theory but my own, but it seems kind of obvious, intuitive. Which
is the way yin/yang theory/thinking is supposed to be.

Here's some from Marty:

* arnica is near rocks, and it is good for bumps, etc. (that goes outside of
my model above)
* stinging nettle and plantain
* poison ok: nope, sorry

That's all for now. If we come up with more I'll try to remember to post
again.

> Ecosystems are complex and metastable. It shouldn't be a
> surprise that there are many things about which are edible
> and nutritious, or that it's hard to synthesize improvements
> on this. Yes, most illnesses could be prevented with
> lifestyle changes requiring only very basic technology.
>
> But:
>
> () Everything's "natural".
> () There are plenty of plants, insects, molds, etc., that
> will happily kill you if given the chance.
> () There are more than a few synthetic materials around
> that are quite nice to have.

In a sense synthetic is also confounded with other meanings, because of past
or present (and probably future) limits on what can be synthesized.
Synthesis is often seen as a counterpart to analysis. You analyze
something, then you know what is is, what its form is, and then you are
(perhaps) able to synthesize it. So what is sythetic is assosiated with
what can be analyzed, and analysis is related to refinement and extraction.
Things are broken into components. Individually analyzable components are
then analyzed, and then possibly can be synthesized.

To make a long story short, synthetic is therefore confounded with
"refined". Refinement can be done physically, as in refined sugar.
Something simpler is extracted from something more complex. So refinement
can happen without analysis/synthesis. But analysis/synthesis tends to
depend on refinement.

In various holistic healing perspectives that I have some cursory
familiarity with, refinement is seen as a potential problem, because
something is removed from its context. Thus refined sugar as potential
health risks that were unlikely to exist in people with only raw sugar cane
available to them. Part of the issue is perhaps therefore not just
refinement, but also concentration. Yet refinment tends to involve
concentration.

I guess I'm not drawing any other specific conclusions here, just presenting
a point of view.

> () I was referring to the acceptance of anything that anyone
> claims is "natural" as good, without further investigation.
> I've observed this behavior from a dozen people in the last
> year, and they should be taken 'round back and shot.
>
>>> I recommend the Economist. It's $129 for
>>> 52 issues. Possibly the best magazine in print.
>>
>> The problem is recycling all 52 issues!
>
> You can get an online-only sub.

Still costs $129, or can you subscribe per issue that you actually read?

>> The lack of government per-se would not mean an end to the
>> market for arms.
>
> I didn't say it would. But I believe the actions of the US
> government have increased the amount and severity of weapons
> in the world 100-fold beyond what was necessary, even without
> any governance change of the kind we are discussing.

Yes.

-Kurt

> > http://www.freestateproject.org/
> > http://lumma.org/stuff/newlaw.txt
>
> Yikes I don't know when I can read this stuff. Our hot water
> heater is failing and I still haven't taken my car in for an
> estimate... etc. etc.

My document is brief but dense. The free state project is a
"new strategy for achieving freedom in our lifetime". Back
in the mid nineties they drew up an agreement which asked
libertarian-minded folks to promise to move to a single state,
that would be selected by the signatories on the basis of the
possibility of swaying its government in a libertarian direction.
The selection took several years, but they've picked New
Hampshire. Interestingly, that selection was done, IIRC, with
a Condorcet vote. I signed the agreement, but I don't believe
they've reached the number of signatures required to activate
it. There have been rumors of the whole thing turning nasty --
fighting with the locals, infighting, etc. Don't know if that's
true.

> > Who was it that suggested the best government is by
> > a total monarch who is shot at the end of his term?
>
> I can't remember. Sounds like a good plan maybe. ;) But
> in some cases maybe it should happen earlier. Well,
> regardless, it would be the end of his term. ;)

:):)

> > I'm confused about the nature of the USPS. I've read that it
> > is a private corporation, but I assume it is subsidized by
> > taxpayers...
>
> Hmm, I guess I didn't know/remember that it was subsidized.

Maybe it isn't...

> >> Just looks pretty disappointing compared to
> >> what it used to be when it was the US Mail.
> >
> > Maybe you can fill me in on the history here...
>
> Well the experience of the last 40 years has been a gradual
> decay in the quality/competence of the mail. People used to
> depend on it in ways that aren't possible anymore. Probably
> only competition keeps it from being completely useless. On
> the other hand many other things have changed at the same
> time, so you can't just blame the mail. For example the
> availability of employees who are loyal and work hard for
> little money and for the sake of pride, that's a vanishing
> phenomenon. And that also seems healthy in some ways (because
> the old way is too tied to abuse of workers), but has its
> consequences.

Probably the amount of mail per capita per day has gone up
tremendously, also.

But my experience with the mail, in the time I've used it,
has been excellent. I've never had a problem with a lost
item, and I consider the rates reasonable and the delivery
prompt.

> >> It depends on what you mean. You don't mean to deny that
> >> value of nutrients in their original context, e.g. cellular
> >> context, do you? I can take strong chinese antibiotics and
> >> have no bad digestive side-effects, for example. Well that
> >> may be a different but related point--that's because its a
> >> designed formula, designed to be in balance. The other
> >> point is more that nature has its own designed formulas: the
> >> fact that antidotes to most sources of poison exist in close
> >> proximity to the poison throughout nature.
> >
> > Is that a fact?
>
> Pretty well documented. Horticulturalists (at least some) know
> examples off the top of their heads. I'll have to ask Marty.
> She's pointed out some of these things when we've been on hikes.

I'm trying to imagine what it would take to convince me of
this...

> >> This is supposedly true of poison oak, IIRC, but I can't
> >> remember the details.
> >
> > Sonuds like BS to me.
>
> In the poison oak case I don't think we are talking about an
> absolute cure, which I guess is the usual connotation of
> antidote. Maybe I have my facts crossed.

As someone who unwittingly wound up trapped for a night on a
mountainside in Big Sur in the middle of a Poison Oak monoculture,
I'm a bit skeptical. Unless a yellow jacket sting cures it --
'cause I got one climbing down the next morning. :(

In fact the cure *was* naturally ocurring nearby -- Technu
brand anti-urushiol soap at the convenience store a few miles
up the road. And a stream of fresh water flowing out of a
culvert just below the road.

> But it makes total sense, is even obvious, with any thinking
> about yin/yang. You have all these dimensions each of which
> has a yin side and a yang side (but call it what you like).
> Plants near each other involve a local polarization. If
> something is concentrated in one plant it is sparse in
> another nearby. Or maybe clearer to spell it out more,
> tentatively: if a given plant requires something concentrated
> in it, it will be removing that from the soil. If something
> else grows well near it, it will not require that thing, and
> better yet if it provides that thing in the soil. Apply
> that to a large variety of dimensions simultaneously, and
> then look at the specific situation of two plants that cohabit
> well: they are likely to be opposite in many dimensions to
> cohabit well. Thus the antidoting. That's nobody's theory
> but my own, but it seems kind of obvious, intuitive. Which
> is the way yin/yang theory/thinking is supposed to be.

I'm afraid it isn't intuitive or even meaningful to me.

> Here's some from Marty:
>
> * arnica is near rocks, and it is good for bumps, etc.
> (that goes outside of my model above)
> * stinging nettle and plantain
> * poison ok: nope, sorry

I'm sure there are many great examples, but it's an selection
issue. It's difficult to define failing cases, so it's
difficult to count them.

> > Ecosystems are complex and metastable. It shouldn't be a
> > surprise that there are many things about which are edible
> > and nutritious, or that it's hard to synthesize improvements
> > on this. Yes, most illnesses could be prevented with
> > lifestyle changes requiring only very basic technology.
> >
> > But:
> >
> > () Everything's "natural".
> > () There are plenty of plants, insects, molds, etc., that
> > will happily kill you if given the chance.
> > () There are more than a few synthetic materials around
> > that are quite nice to have.
//
> To make a long story short, synthetic is therefore confounded
> with "refined". Refinement can be done physically, as in
> refined sugar. Something simpler is extracted from something
> more complex. So refinement can happen without
> analysis/synthesis. But analysis/synthesis tends to depend on
> refinement.

Nonsense. Teflon, for example, is simply the product of
human imagination turned loose on the laws of chemistry,
which the universe has been found to obey.

> In various holistic healing perspectives that I have some
> cursory familiarity with, refinement is seen as a potential
> problem, because something is removed from its context. Thus
> refined sugar as potential health risks that were unlikely
> to exist in people with only raw sugar cane available to them.

Yes, that makes sense. It also happens to be true. Refined
sugar has a high glycemic index, and tends to fascilitate
confections with high glycemic indices. Early and steady
exposure to such foods causes type-II diabetes, which is now
at epidemic proportions in the US. Also, metabolism is
generally expensive -- one should not bother to burn calories
unless they are accompanied by nutrition.

But the general principle here involves evolutionary adaptation
of organisms to their environments, and not necessarily a
universal law of "contexts".

> > () I was referring to the acceptance of anything that anyone
> > claims is "natural" as good, without further investigation.
> > I've observed this behavior from a dozen people in the last
> > year, and they should be taken 'round back and shot.
> >
> >>> I recommend the Economist. It's $129 for
> >>> 52 issues. Possibly the best magazine in print.
> >>
> >> The problem is recycling all 52 issues!
> >
> > You can get an online-only sub.
>
> Still costs $129, or can you subscribe per issue that you
> actually read?

Dunno. I think the former.

-Carl