Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 9:13:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

> >>exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

> >>pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making

> this

> >>association.

> >

> >Gene,

> >

> >Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use

> >grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers

> I

> >know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so

> >often.

> >

>

> How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most

> farms use grain?

You don't acknowledge it within your post-- no inference is necessary;

however, I assume you know this fact and I wasn't purporting to educate you on

it.

It was simply a prelude to the last sentence in the following paragraph:

>

> >Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm

> >they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling,

> which

> >the

> >consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is

> largely

> >consistent between corporate and smaller farms.

....That is, the above sentence, which was a response to your opinion that

there is " nothing wrong with making this association, " where " this association "

refers to the association of corporate factory farms with grain-feeding.

> Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization

> of

> 'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't

> that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about

> the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here.

No, because in the context I mentioned it in, we were referring to the

supposed innate tendencies of increases in scale towards methods that diminish

nutritional value. I recognize that this isn't entirely clear, since I didn't

quote what I was responding to, and, in fact, probably should have posted that

half of the message in the " food from large corporations " thread.

> Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations,

> isn't it?

I don't think so. I agree that that's true in many other cases, but from the

reading I've done on the shift to grain-feeding in the 19th century, I didn't

get the impression anyone recognized at the time that pasture feeding had

unique nutritional benefits. So, I don't think it's something that's been

buried

(though other things have) as something that just has never been recognized.

> Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if

> winning the argument is all you care about.

I'm not sure what argument you're talking about... the point that I made

didn't draw any argumentative conclusions from the facts I stated at all.

's

post stated that it failed to address the argument, but I think if you look

back at my post you'll see I wasn't really making an argument at all. It was

just an afterthought to a previous discussion.

>

> >Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it

> >for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually

> >the

> >ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly

> >raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can

> make

> >more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway.

> >

> >Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with

> >corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that

> values

> >pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it.

> >

> >Chris

>

> You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms

> wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the

> 1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything

> here that addresses what I said.

These paragraphs were meant to address your sentence about corporate

grain-feeding making it difficult for pasture farms to survive. I don't think

pasture

farms are competing with corporate factory farms, but are servicing a niche

market, and, they might even have a higher profit margin than corporate farms.

The reason I don't see reason for the association is because I think

corporate and small farms use grain-feeding pretty consistently. So I suppose

you

could say grain-feeding could be " associated " with each.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

I'll respond to this post more fully later, but just to respond quickly to

two things:

> And again, I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It

> documents what I'm talking about in abundant detail.

I took _Trust Us, We're Experts_ out of the library today along with _Blank

Slate_. If I can manage to do so before spring semester begins, I'll read

them. I plan on finishing the novel I'm reading tonight, so will start reading

one tomorrow.

> What I think you're saying, in sum, is that if someone (a) isn't exposed to

>

> credible, persuasive information indicating that mainstream wisdom is

> incorrect, and/or ( doesn't spend an appreciable portion of his life

> digging through lies, that the full responsibility for mistaken choices is

> his. IOW, the concept of fraud is bogus and should be stricken from our

> vocabulary (or at least from our laws) because in a fraudulent transaction,

> the only party which bears any responsibility is the victim. You accuse me

> of taking an irrational position, but if you really intend to stand by that

> conclusion...

No, I don't believe that the full responsiblity lies on that person. I

didn't mention other responsiblities because I wasn't addressing my entire world

view or my entire view on government, but rather one aspect of the former: that

humans have a moral responsibility to use reason, rationality, and to maximize

their hapiness, honesty, and productive value. (I consider this a moral and

_not_ a legal responsibility)

That said, the honesty applies to both workers, consumers, businessmen, and

property owners of all types, be they sole proprietors, corporations,

cooperatives, or whathaveyou, and in commerce I believe honesty not only to a

moral

responsibility but a legal responsibility as well. One of the primary purposes

of government is to enforce contracts, and dishonesty in a contract is the same

as violation thereof. False advertising, if it could be documented, could

reasonably be interpreted as violation of an " implied " contract.

So, if someone fails to " discover " the truth amidst lies of a business, while

I believe they failed their own moral responsibility if they failed to *look*

for the truth (but not if they looked unsuccessfully), I believe the *legal*

responsibility would lie, entirely, with the business.

What I do oppose, however, is using legislative government to sanction

truths. Congress is not meant to adjudicate contracts, under which honesty and

dis

honesty fall. Congress is meant to legislate. The design of Congress is meant

specifically for that, as are the courts for their purpose, and one doing the

other leads to trouble. For one, courts aren't elected (I know this is,

stupidly, not true in some places). Furthermore, Congress is a great

environment

for cronyism, for the creation of special positions, new committees, etc,

whereas the court structure stays the same and is more immune to favoratism.

Dealing with scientific truths about, say, nutrition, in Congress, is subject

to political whims, secrecy, and control by the incompetent. The court

system is not perfect either, but it is more ideal a place for the enforcement

of

contracts, and the sorting out of truths.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/14/04 11:58:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> I give up - I just don't have the time to go around in circles with you

> right now.

It may be that I'm just stupid and cannot understand what you're saying, but

for what it's worth, I'm honestly not trying to make circular arguments.

I was just sharing something that suddenly occurred to me, that I'd had the

chance to read about when I worked at Old Sturbridge Village, since they had

prepared numerous papers on 19th century dairying that I figure a lot of folks

might not have had the opportunity to learn about.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:35:04 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/14/04 9:30:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

>> exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

>> pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making this

>> association.

>

> Gene,

>

> Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use

> grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers I

> know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so

> often.

>

How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most

farms use grain?

> Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm

> they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling, which

> the

> consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is largely

> consistent between corporate and smaller farms.

>

Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization of

'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't

that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about

the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here.

Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations,

isn't it?

Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if

winning the argument is all you care about.

> Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it

> for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually

> the

> ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly

> raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can make

> more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway.

>

> Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with

> corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that values

> pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it.

>

> Chris

You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms

wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the

1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything

here that addresses what I said.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>However, while influence

>could be considered a type of " power, " it is a qualitatively different

>type of

>power than *force*. I personally would designate it as " influence " rather

>than

>power for the sake of clarity.

Influence is power. You're distinguishing between what you call power,

which is 100% irresistible power, and power that's less than absolute,

which you call influence. And yet even what you call power, which if I

understand correctly you ascribe solely to the state and violent entities,

is not absolute either. Some people choose to break the law, to dare the

consequences (or to defy the mugger or the ruthless tyrant regardless of

the potential consequences) so even that power is merely influence -- just

a more widely persuasive form.

If I buy up and influence substantial elements of the information

infrastructure and thus influence millions of people to act as I want them

to, against their best interests but in line with mine, I've acquired and

exercised power, period. The fact that my power doesn't successfully alter

the behavior of 100% of my targets as I want doesn't mean I'm impotent, it

just means I'm not god.

>The fact is that it is up to me, up to my free will, that is a product of my

>own volition within my own consciousness, to determine to what degree I

>subject myself to peer pressure or choose to " go against the grain. "

On what do you base this assumption? Your experiential conception of

will? Or hard science? Science contradicts you. It doesn't say you're

100% free to ignore peer pressure or anything else. If you were, there'd

_be_ no pressure, no influence -- no power. But even if you were to ignore

the science of human nature, consideration of everyday observations should

make it clear that you're wrong. Your perception of the way choices are

framed, and of what choices actually exist, is shaped -- influenced -- by

others. There's no escaping that. Complete freedom would require the

complete absence of emotion, of deception and self-deception, of

requirements, and it would require the capacity for and exercise of perfect

analysis, and perfect analysis is a theoretical and physical impossibility.

>Eliminating

>government's role in exercising this influence does not eliminate lies or

>influence,

>but does level the playing field.

It would certainly alter the playing fields, and it would probably result

in a net reduction of tilt in some fields, but there's no fundamental

property of government that inherently worsens tilt. In fact, a

fundamental property of open, democratic government (something we,

admittedly, don't really have) actually tends to improve tilt: records are

available for public scrutiny, and the free and _open_ competition of

interests can put a stop to a wide range of lies. A business or an

individual doesn't have that kind of oversight.

There's another point you're missing, though. You're assuming that the

government is the only party with sufficient power and appearance of

objectivity for its influence to be important, and that if we just removed

government we'd be left with a fair fight between multiple points of view,

but in fact interested parties corrupt and subvert and hoodwink key opinion

leaders (KOL is an actual industry acronym) all the time, and because it

helps them even further (often a lot further than KOLs alone) they set up

phony institutions to create the impression but not the reality of

third-party objectivity while peddling their propaganda.

The key feature distinguishing government from those other types of

shenanigans is that ordinary citizens can have a voice in government

whereas they're shut out almost entirely from the KOL/institution game. To

be sure, said citizens have less and less of an actual voice nowadays, but

we live in times of apathy and relentless anti-government propaganda which

influences a lot of people to conclude that the only tool they could

actually use is bad for them and should be destroyed, certainly not used

well and fought for with dedication. A very clever trick, that.

And again, I strongly urge you to read _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It

documents what I'm talking about in abundant detail.

>, if someone fails to exercise a rational choice in selecting from the

>millions of sources of information at their disposal, they've failed their

>own

>responsibility to use that choice.

What I think you're saying, in sum, is that if someone (a) isn't exposed to

credible, persuasive information indicating that mainstream wisdom is

incorrect, and/or ( doesn't spend an appreciable portion of his life

digging through lies, that the full responsibility for mistaken choices is

his. IOW, the concept of fraud is bogus and should be stricken from our

vocabulary (or at least from our laws) because in a fraudulent transaction,

the only party which bears any responsibility is the victim. You accuse me

of taking an irrational position, but if you really intend to stand by that

conclusion...

-

[Guest guest]

I give up - I just don't have the time to go around in circles with you

right now.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:41:04 EST

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/14/04 9:13:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >>It seems to me that if in TODAY's society, big corporate farms without

> >>exception use grain-feeding of cows, and make it harder for for smaller

> >>pasture-feeding farms to exist, then there is nothing wrong with making

> this

> >>association.

> >

> >Gene,

> >

> >Most farms, even many who recognize the importance of pasture feeding, use

> >grain. Even some farmers on this list use grain. For some of the farmers

> I

> >know personally, they do their best not to use grain, but struggle to do so

> >often.

> >

>

> How exactly do you infer from my post that I don't acknowledge that most

> farms use grain?

You don't acknowledge it within your post-- no inference is necessary;

however, I assume you know this fact and I wasn't purporting to educate you

on it.

It was simply a prelude to the last sentence in the following paragraph:

>

> >Most beef cattle, to my understanding, are pastured no matter what farm

> >they're on. They are grain finished, but that is to provide marbling,

> which

> >the

> >consumer values. So, the practice of grain-feeding versus pasture is

> largely

> >consistent between corporate and smaller farms.

....That is, the above sentence, which was a response to your opinion that

there is " nothing wrong with making this association, " where " this

association "

refers to the association of corporate factory farms with grain-feeding.

> Huh? Isn't there some acknowledgement here that an HONEST categorization

> of

> 'pasture fed' means precisely that the animals are NOT grain finished. Isn't

> that what we're talking about? What most consumers, who are uneducated about

> the benefits of real pasture fed beef, may want isn't really relevant here.

No, because in the context I mentioned it in, we were referring to the

supposed innate tendencies of increases in scale towards methods that

diminish

nutritional value. I recognize that this isn't entirely clear, since I

didn't

quote what I was responding to, and, in fact, probably should have posted

that

half of the message in the " food from large corporations " thread.

> Part of the reason they are so uneducated is due to large corporations,

> isn't it?

I don't think so. I agree that that's true in many other cases, but from

the

reading I've done on the shift to grain-feeding in the 19th century, I

didn't

get the impression anyone recognized at the time that pasture feeding had

unique nutritional benefits. So, I don't think it's something that's been

buried

(though other things have) as something that just has never been recognized.

> Every time I discuss an issue with you, I feel the ground shifting, as if

> winning the argument is all you care about.

I'm not sure what argument you're talking about... the point that I made

didn't draw any argumentative conclusions from the facts I stated at all.

's

post stated that it failed to address the argument, but I think if you look

back at my post you'll see I wasn't really making an argument at all. It

was

just an afterthought to a previous discussion.

>

> >Farming doesn't bring much of an income, period. I think most farmers do it

> >for the lifestyle, and many quit not because they are outcompeted (actually

> >the

> >ability to form contracts with a corporate distributor almost undoubtedly

> >raises their income or at least economic stability), but because they can

> make

> >more money doing most other things. That's my impression anyway.

> >

> >Pasture-feeders who actually value pasturing aren't even competing with

> >corporate farms. They are aiming their products at a niche market that

> values

> >pasturing, and are getting, often, big premiums for it.

> >

> >Chris

>

> You said that the association of grain feeding with large corporate farms

> wasn't correct because of the history of grain farming dating back into the

> 1800's. I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, and I don't see anything

> here that addresses what I said.

These paragraphs were meant to address your sentence about corporate

grain-feeding making it difficult for pasture farms to survive. I don't

think pasture

farms are competing with corporate factory farms, but are servicing a niche

market, and, they might even have a higher profit margin than corporate

farms.

The reason I don't see reason for the association is because I think

corporate and small farms use grain-feeding pretty consistently. So I

suppose you

could say grain-feeding could be " associated " with each.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>What is it liberals like to say, " you can't legislate morality " ? My view of

>what a government should do is not a mirror image of my own morality. I don't

>think the government should be able to punish me for telling my mother she's

>worthless, for example, but that doesn't mean I would ever say that, think

>that, or consider it a moral thing to do. A minister can advocate separation

of

>church and state. Does that mean he's not religious, because he doesn't want

>the state to be religious? Does he believe that, since the state shouldn't

>worship God, that he shouldn't worship God? Of course not.

>

>The purpose of a government is to protect peoples rights and to enforce

>contracts. How is that narcissism?

I was referring to the concept of " every man gets the best deal he can "

concept that goes through this whole thread.

But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal -- believed

that

the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence

the railroads and later superhighways). Government also creates

a certain sense of direction (leadership?) that moves society in

one direction or another, for better or worse.

I can't say for " liberals " (I don't consider myself part of a philisophical

group, I'm mainly trying to figure out " what is true " ) say, but for my

part I don't think " morality " exists any more than " rights " do. Most

of what we call " moral " is the fulfillment (or otherwise) of contracts

(written and otherwise) between individuals, which in computer

science are called Rules. Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated

as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule.

But also in CompSci -- some level of control in ANY system has

to be centralized, and some decentralized. The human body

is a great case in point ... it IS centralized, in the brain, but the

brain is rather compartmentalized itself. The " government "

in most countries roughly corresponds to the nervous system

and the blood stream to the infrastructure (transportation). But

in any computer system, the SAME analogy exists.

So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if

it is Moral or has the correct Rights. If the system WORKS

everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance,

have good health, have local control over their lives,

and are doing the job they are designed for

(Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness).

>Sure, and I have a professional article on how Hamilton was

>involved in an attempted Fascist coup. Granted, the evidence was weak and

Fascism

>didn't exist at the time, but it's published and you can get it at a library.

>Just because PBS runs a documentary doesn't mean the opinion in it has any

>merit, and if it has merit, it isn't necessarily correct.

>

>If you can dig up any information on it, please send it along. I don't think

>railroads have the " right " to destroy anyone's business, small or large. So,

>I'm not disagreeing that that would be wrong, I just very much doubt that it

>actually occurred.

Well, THAT part of the story seems to be agreed on by

a lot of parties, which is why they were called " Robber Barons " .

There is no source in history though, that is foolproof (though PBS

does tend to be pretty accurate in general, as is the History channel).

But I'm not a historian.

I do notice that you ask for a lot more evidence than you GIVE however.

>>History is FULL of examples of big corporations ruining the

>>environment, harming workers, etc. If you don't believe the

>>that history,

>

>History is full of all sorts of people harming all sorts of people and

>things, including corporations. Do you think I think a corporation has the

right to

>hurt someone, while a private individual does not? Do you think I think a

>corporation has the right to dump toxic waste in my back yard or yours?

>

>History is also full of examples of workers hurting businessmen. I don't

>think either businessmen OR workers should have the right to hurt the other.

>What I object to is the double standard, where you believe a worker has some

>right that a businessman does not.

Absolutely not. This came about because of the insinuation that

" government " has no right to intervene. Government intervenes in the

rights of workers all the time. And, fortunately, in the business

of big corporations. You are correct -- people hurt each other

all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ...

so you need a " rulekeeper " which happens to be the gov't. And it

needs taxes to run.

>Do you consider it moral that Reagan stopped the air traffic controller

>strike? Most liberals and labor-minded folks consider it awful. Reagan

claimed it

>was for national security, and the public good.

>

>Do you agree with me that a worker has the right to use her own body as a

>bargaining tool, and to choose whether or not to go to work?

>

>If so, why do you apply a double standard to an electric company? Because

>electricity is something " the people " " need " ? Isn't that exactly what Reagan

>claimed as his justification for breaking the strike?

Actually, the air traffic controller strike IS one situation I didn't object

to (not that I'm a fan of Reagan). But again, I don't grok " moral " .

I'd tend to agree the planes need to fly though.

As a computer scientist, I can say that the Air Traffic situation is HORRID --

the machines are (or, at least were) years out of date and they were

working under conditions that guaranteed problems. Shoot, about the

only building in Seattle that was damaged in the last earthquake was the

air control tower ... because it was SOOOO outdated.

So, if I was Reagan I would've looked at the situation and said " guys,

you have a point. This system sucks. Let's plan a better one -- a

really world-class one. That includes you guys getting rest breaks " .

The strike could've been negotiated away quickly AND we'd have

a better traffic system. People stuck to their ideological guns though,

with horrid results. Which is one reason I don't like to fly.

Now, if an electric company shuts down a reactor and then

claims a " shortage " of electricity, that is a simpler situation.

It is outright lying, no matter how you define that term. There

is no broken system, no overworked workers. So if I were Bush,

I'd be on the phone " so get the idiot reactor back online or

your **** will be in a sling! " .

> In one example, businesses are using force via the government to hurt

>workers, and in another, consumers are using force via the government to hurt

>businesses.

>

>I oppose both. Why do you apply a double standard?

???? First, who says I apply a double standard.

Second, ALL

entities in a system apply force of once sort or another.

From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch

of forces all pushing against each other.

However, my current soapbox probably has more to

do with workers because of KIDS. Kids grow into our

future adults, and right now they are being farmed out

from babyhood into daycares, because of WORK. I'm not

claiming this is immoral, just that it doesn't work. The kids

don't bond correctly. I'd rather see a society based on

more Paleo rules, with the Mom caring for Kid, for some

number of years, and the Mom being part of a caring group

so her needs are met too.

> > or you believe they have that right,

>

>I don't believe that corporations have the right to

>-- use government force against workers or consumers

>-- use government force for an unfair advantage against their competitors

>-- dump their own waste on someone else's property without that person's

>permission

>-- use government definitions of fictional entities to avoid responsibility

>for their actions (i.e. the liability of the people who found a corporation

>should not be limited to the assets of the corporation for damages for which

they

>are at fault)

>

>I do believe that people have the right to:

>-- own property, and retain it, barring some very significant burden of proof

>-- own property collectively; e.g., form a corporation (without the limited

>liability as per above)

>-- use their property in any way they see fit, that does not simultaneously

>violate any of the above principles

>

>> or that they

>>only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation,

>

>That's a rather absurd characterization of my position.

Yeah, it is an exaggeration. But most of your " don't have a right to " above

involve the gov't. Why? Can't a corporation be a putz WITHOUT

using the gov't? The only exception you give is " dumping waste "

which of course I'd agree with. But I can think of a lot of ways

to brutalize folks without using the gov't as leverage, if I had

enough money. So is that ok, under Libertariansim? I can use

my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you,

IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't?

Why is the gov't such a special case? In my life, the gov't

has very little influence, day to day. Many other forces

rule!

> I've explained some

>of the mechanisms by which government intervention in the economy primarily

>benefits businesses and turns an economic system from capitalism into cronyism

>in my post to . chose not to respond. You could have jumped in, but

>did not. If you disagree, please dispute what I said on a point-by-point

>basis. If you don't want to have the discussion, that's fine. But don't

>blatantly mischaracterize my position with one only a fool would take, please.

Sorry it comes across that way. That IS the way it sounds, listening

to your lists.

>If corporations dump toxins in streams, in all liklihood they are damage

>someone's person or property, which violates the principles I bulleted above.

But

>why not stick to the subject at hand? You didn't mention anything about

>robber barons dumping toxins, you mentioned robber barons engaging in

monopolistic

>practices. I responded to *that*, and you respond about toxins, which never

>came up?

I don't recall any specific response, to monopolistic practices, except that

you didn't believe the PBC particularily.

>Do you have a response to the historical, economic, or moral points I raised

>in my previous post?

If it is the one to , he answered it nicely. Actually I enjoy reading his

posts more than I do writing mine.

>> then it's an impossible argument.

>

>It would be less impossible if you'd be willing to follow the subject in a

>step-by-step manner, rather than having me spend a half hour typing up a fairly

>detailed response about a very specific point, and changing the subject to one

>completely different when you respond, avoiding the initial issue completely.

I do try to respond, but, as said above and many other times, I don't agree

with the basics of " morality " and " rights " , for starters. So how can I argue

that a thing is " moral " if I don't believe in " morality " as a standalone thing?

for

me the question is: " Does It Work " , which, in this context, means " do humans

really work that way? " .

>I hope that after this post, after reading the principles I outlined above,

>you might understand my position more clearly, and perhaps that can form a

>basis for a discussion that will prove more fruitful, since we seem to be

>miscommunicating.

Maybe miscommunicating, but I've learned a lot, to be sure.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/04 3:27:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I was referring to the concept of " every man gets the best deal he can "

> concept that goes through this whole thread.

How is that narcissitic? Is there something narcissistic about doing a good

job? About maximizing your potential? About using the brain you were lucky

enough to have been given?

From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the

value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value.

The alternative is a " from each according to his ability, to each according

to his need " philosophy. It sounds nice and looks nice on paper, but it is a

fundamentally pathological thought. It's led to disaster every time it's been

tried-- just look at how economic productivity was destroyed in Soviet Russia,

how people sank into alcoholism and lethargy. It's a fundamental

contradiction of human nature, and can only work when people have very strong

revolutionary or religious committments (monastaries were the only economically

productive collective in USSR).

What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others

who also do a good job?

> But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal --

> believed that

> the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence

> the railroads and later superhighways).

He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it.

Government also creates

> a certain sense of direction (leadership?) that moves society in

> one direction or another, for better or worse.

Your qualification, " for better or worse, " is important here.

The idea that government is needed for a sense of direction (Rockefeller was

able to provide a sense of direction to the chatoic oil industry) is false.

And, in fact, humans working for their own interests, freely exchanging with

others, leads not to chaos and crass competition, but to order and cooperation.

See this fantastic essay from the perspective of a pencil (yes, a pencil :-)

):

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

>

> I can't say for " liberals " (I don't consider myself part of a philisophical

> group, I'm mainly trying to figure out " what is true " ) say, but for my

> part I don't think " morality " exists any more than " rights " do. Most

> of what we call " moral " is the fulfillment (or otherwise) of contracts

> (written and otherwise) between individuals, which in computer

> science are called Rules.

You seem to be arguing that a society's Rules are self-justifying. There is

no morality and no rights, no objective standard by which to judge.

By your theory, then, a society where the Rules require a woman to be stoned

to death who commits adultery is in no way inferior to a society where the

Rules do not. A society where the Rules require Jews to wear identification

badges is justified by itself. A society where the Rules allow humans of

certain

ancestry to be owned as slaves is in no way inferior to one in which all

humans are considered free by *right*.

If people throughout history held your view, we would never have abolished

slavery, as there would be no argument for the *right* of the slave to be a free

woman or man.

Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society, is

moot.

________

Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated

> as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule.

This is a total tangent, but that's an awful translation. The word in the

Lord's Prayer often, unfortunately, translated as " trespasses " is " debts, " which

has a very different meaning. The word translated as " sin " actually means

" to miss the mark, " as if one is playing darts and misses the bullseye. So

" sin " is NOT breaking a rule, and is not remotely corresponding to " crime " as is

usually thought, which has to be repaid with punitive justice.

_______

> But also in CompSci -- some level of control in ANY system has

> to be centralized, and some decentralized. The human body

> is a great case in point ... it IS centralized, in the brain, but the

> brain is rather compartmentalized itself.

Actually, the fact that a brain represents some sort of centralization is

proof of the ego, of the existence of the individual. It is proof that humans

are not a random collection of elements, and there is a distinct definition to

the self.

Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid,

because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides in the

brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments represent

majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness.

The " government "

> in most countries roughly corresponds to the nervous system

> and the blood stream to the infrastructure (transportation). But

> in any computer system, the SAME analogy exists.

I wonder if Tom Cowan has a written version of his lecture " The Heart is Not

a Pump " that we could post and discuss. Tom Cowan's view is that the driving

force of the blood stream is not actually the heart, but pressure exerted at

the ends of capillaries, or something like that, and the heart's function is to

stop the flow momentarily.

In any case, the analogy falls apart when you examine the roll of the brain

in directing the body. Motor impulses originate in the frontal lobe (aside

from reflexes), and are directed to the muscles. It takes many, many muscle

contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a single

nerve impulse.

If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute

disasters. Not only do they fail to function economically, but they are morally

pathological, rampant with corruption, apathy, and abuse. Case in point, all

the Communist countries. As proof of their moral collapse, countries that

have people living who had lived with markets have actually managed to recover,

like Poland, whereas countries like Russia, where the oldest generations have

never seen markets can not survive in a market, because their culture has been

so destroyed by Communism.

On the other hand, societies where the primary impulses are generated by the

individual sarcomere (contractile unit of a muscle) acting NOT to move the

muscle, or even the individual myofibril, but acting solely to move its own

self,

flourish both economically and morally. Again, see the essay I linked above,

" I, Pencil. "

>

> So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if

> it is Moral or has the correct Rights.

The slave, the Jew in the gas chamber, the Slav sacrificed for leibenstraum,

the Soviet farmer wasting away in famine, the scientist on trial for heresy,

all care if it is Moral and has the correct Rights.

If the system WORKS

> everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance,have good

> health, have local control over their lives,

> and are doing the job they are designed for

> (Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness).

As you pointed out before, that's what the Communists thought. Sounds lovely

in email. Pretty nasty in life.

> >If you can dig up any information on it, please send it along. I don't

> think

> >railroads have the " right " to destroy anyone's business, small or large.

> So,

> >I'm not disagreeing that that would be wrong, I just very much doubt that

> it

> >actually occurred.

>

> Well, THAT part of the story seems to be agreed on by

> a lot of parties, which is why they were called " Robber Barons " .

No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity during

the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the

time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that railroads

conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one a

" robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English

language.

> There is no source in history though, that is foolproof (though PBS

> does tend to be pretty accurate in general, as is the History channel).

> But I'm not a historian.

I fully agree. I have a B.A. in History, which is somewhat worthless, though

I suppose I could call myself an " amateur historian. " There actually *was* a

plot to create the Federal Government by force, and some of Hamilton's

writings *seem* to indicate he *may* have agreed with it morally, but there's no

evidence whatsoever he was involved with it, and it was hardly " Fascist. " That

said, the Constitutional Convention was neither democratic nor ratified

democratically, and the honest Founders there, like Washington and Madison, but

especially Washington, were there because they were duped by the power-hungry

folks

who foisted the Massachusetts Consitution on its population by force and

fraud into thinking Shay's Rebellion was an attack on private property (the

opposite of the truth), so I don't know if it makes a difference in the end

result

whether the Constitution was adopted by force or fraud.

> I do notice that you ask for a lot more evidence than you GIVE however.

In what way? All you have to do is say the word, and I'll try to produce

evidence or admit I can't find any. I provided documentation about the railroad

policy, and extrapolated logically from it.

But I'm not going to write a book or a formal paper. You need to ask me for

evidence on specific points if you want me to provide it.

> >History is also full of examples of workers hurting businessmen. I don't

> >think either businessmen OR workers should have the right to hurt the

> other.

> >What I object to is the double standard, where you believe a worker has

> some

> >right that a businessman does not.

>

> Absolutely not. This came about because of the insinuation that

> " government " has no right to intervene. Government intervenes in the

> rights of workers all the time. And, fortunately, in the business

> of big corporations.

Again, the double standard. If government has the right to use force against

businesses in favor of workers, why does it not have the right to do the same

for businesses against workers?

What I am suggesting is that both workers and businesses have exclusive

rights over their own property and persons. A government should enforce the

rights

of both equally. That includes the right of a union to strike, but does not

include the privilege of a union to physically prevent other workers from

working, for example.

And I thought you believed workers didn't have " rights " ?

You are correct -- people hurt each other

> all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ...

I would argue that the two constants are

-- ingenuity

-- envy

And that the latter reults in people hurting each other.

> so you need a " rulekeeper " which happens to be the gov't. And it

> needs taxes to run.

I agree. If our resident anarcho-capitalist happens to jump in he might

provide reasoning to the contrary, but so far I agree with you, not him (though

I'm willing to consider his position).

The " rulekeeper " should function to

a) protect the rights of persons and property

enforce contracts.

All I'm suggesting is a government that obeys its own laws, not the abolition

of government. Beyond that, I don't believe the government should be

engaging in murder, theft, or counterfeiting, which you might call, foreign

policy,

taxes, and monetary policy.

There is a fundamental difference between taking the minimal amount of money

allowed in return to obeying its fulfillment of its social contract in order

to perform said functions in that contract, then to taking money for the

purpose of violating that contract.

> Actually, the air traffic controller strike IS one situation I didn't

> object

> to (not that I'm a fan of Reagan). But again, I don't grok " moral " .

> I'd tend to agree the planes need to fly though.

The airplanes DO need to fly, and the coal mines need to dig coal (or we'd

have no electricity) and the railroads need to operate (food couldn't get from

place to place), etc, etc. Do you support government intervention to break

strikers in all these domains?

Doesn't it bother you that air traffic controllers have one of the worst,

stressful, mind-deranging jobs in the entire country, and don't get paid enough

for it? You don't sympathise with their plight of being exploited by their

employers?

The fact that the airplanes " need " to run (so rich and middle class people

can go on their luxury vacations?) is the whole point: it is the ability of the

workers to show their value to their employer.

With any consistency, you'd have to oppose the right of a union to strike at

all.

And you say you're on the side of the worker and I'm not???

> So, if I was Reagan I would've looked at the situation and said " guys,

> you have a point. This system sucks. Let's plan a better one -- a

> really world-class one. That includes you guys getting rest breaks " .

> The strike could've been negotiated away quickly AND we'd have

> a better traffic system. People stuck to their ideological guns though,

> with horrid results. Which is one reason I don't like to fly.

They simply stuck to their right to control their own person. It's somewhat

subjective as to whether a system " sucks " or not. Some folks think abortion

" sucks. " To others, it's a necessity, or a right, or a necessary evil. Some

folks think raw milk " sucks. " So they ban it, and throw you in jail for

selling it (in Canada, e.g.) Or, they forbid its crossing of state lines

(Reagan).

Furthermore, the air traffic controllers would get no recognition. Reagan's

unilateral decision that a given thing or another sucks, avoids the entire

point of the strike-- to prove their value. To say, " Look, this is how

necessary

we are. This is what happens to *you* when you don't value *us*. "

> Now, if an electric company shuts down a reactor and then

> claims a " shortage " of electricity, that is a simpler situation.

> It is outright lying, no matter how you define that term. There

> is no broken system, no overworked workers. So if I were Bush,

> I'd be on the phone " so get the idiot reactor back online or

> your **** will be in a sling! " .

There are overworked workers. There are people who worked to invest in the

electric company, who are being paid less than the market value of their

product because the government is forcing them to do so. Those people had to

work

to save the money to invest in the capital-- they are being gypped on that

work.

But, if you do actually oppose the right of unions to strike in all

situations and do actually believe that no one has any " rights, " then, I

disagree, but

you would, I suppose, be consistent.

> >In one example, businesses are using force via the government to hurt

> >workers, and in another, consumers are using force via the government to

> hurt

> >businesses.

> >

> >I oppose both. Why do you apply a double standard?

>

> ???? First, who says I apply a double standard.

You don't, since you oppose a workers' right to strike. I hadn't realized

that, given all the rhetoric about supporting workers and unions.

> Second, ALL

> entities in a system apply force of once sort or another.

> From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch

> of forces all pushing against each other.

But the laws of physics are consistent laws. I want to apply the rule of

law-- the law I choose is that every person has a moral right to control their

own person and property, and the government protects that right against those

who wish to control others' person and property. What you advocate is the

government using force according to its whims (Reagan " deciding " that " this

system

sucks, so I'll get rid of it . " ), rather than to enforce laws.

>

> However, my current soapbox probably has more to

> do with workers because of KIDS. Kids grow into our

> future adults, and right now they are being farmed out

> from babyhood into daycares, because of WORK. I'm not

> claiming this is immoral, just that it doesn't work. The kids

> don't bond correctly. I'd rather see a society based on

> more Paleo rules, with the Mom caring for Kid, for some

> number of years, and the Mom being part of a caring group

> so her needs are met too.

Me too.

> >>or that they

> >>only dump toxins in streams because of gov't regulation,

> >

> >That's a rather absurd characterization of my position.

>

> Yeah, it is an exaggeration. But most of your " don't have a right to " above

> involve the gov't. Why? Can't a corporation be a putz WITHOUT

> using the gov't?

Sure. And everyone has a right to be their own putz if they aren't hurting

other people's person or property. I explicitly put specific limitations on

individuals, not simply government.

The only exception you give is " dumping waste "

> which of course I'd agree with.

That's not true, I specifically said they are liable for all their actions.

So, I didn't say it explicitly, but implicit in that is that a corporation or

individual must fulfill his contracts and must not harm someone else's person

or property.

But I can think of a lot of ways

> to brutalize folks without using the gov't as leverage, if I had

> enough money. So is that ok, under Libertariansim?

I have no idea, because I know neither your definition of " brutalize " nor the

examples you had in mind. If you are speaking in a language other the

Newspeak, and you actually mean to harm someone else's person or property, no,

that

is simply not allowed in a Libertarian society.

If by " brutalize " you mean I make some fantastic invention that makes my life

easier and I don't give it away to my neighbor or I sell it at a price at

which I profit, then, yes, that is allowed.

I can use

> my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you,

> IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't?

No, you couldn't, say, take my things, hire thugs to beat me up, dig up holes

in my lawn, or steal my oil if I happened to have some on my property, for

example. I can't possibly list everything that amounts to violating someone

else's rights, but it can essentially be summed up in the harm of someone else's

person or property, or the fradulent use or unfulfillment of a contract.

What, specifically, DOESN'T fall under those definitions that you consider

" brutlaizing " ?

> Why is the gov't such a special case? In my life, the gov't

> has very little influence, day to day. Many other forces

> rule!

It isn't. The gov't is simply held to the same standards anyone else is. It

can't take people's lives because they have a *right* to live. It can't

initiate force against someone who did not initiate force themselves because

they

have a *right* to live in peace. It can't counterfeit money. It can't steal.

Corporations or individuals can't do any of that either. So why do you claim

I have a double standard?

Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property (such

as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or Pinkertons

to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard?

> >If corporations dump toxins in streams, in all liklihood they are damage

> >someone's person or property, which violates the principles I bulleted

> above. But

> >why not stick to the subject at hand? You didn't mention anything about

> >robber barons dumping toxins, you mentioned robber barons engaging in

> monopolistic

> >practices. I responded to *that*, and you respond about toxins, which

> never

> >came up?

>

> I don't recall any specific response, to monopolistic practices, except that

>

> you didn't believe the PBC particularily.

I laid out the moral justification for the practices of the railroads, as

well as the social benefits.

You claim that monopolies have never benefited consumers, but you are

flat-out wrong. Case in point, Rockefeller benefited consumers. I think

Carnegie

was a monopoly too. While I wouldn't want to live in a Company Town, they

largely functioned to the benefit of the people living in them. Ford had a

monopoly on mass-produced cars, and benefited both consumers and his workers

tremendously.

It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did anything

positive for consumers.

> Maybe miscommunicating, but I've learned a lot, to be sure.

While we disagree a lot, I have a lot of respect for you, and the way you

debate. Not many people can get so deeply into arguments without taking them

personally.

Chris

[Guest guest]

buying or not buying a product would not be only way of modifying a producers

behavior. There is also litigation or suing because a promise was not

fulfilled. An individual would also likely need to have insurance for the

product to minimize risk of catastrophic loss, which would mean the insurance

company would have standards to meet, and potentially an inspector. Granted ,

you would not need to have insurance if one was wealthy enough to self

insure,,but then one would thik a wealthy person would be more likely to hire an

inspector to be sure the investment was sound.

Libertarians sometimes get all worked up in semantics of things...like

" government " etc., not wanting to admit that these things have evolved into

place for good reasons. Granted, sometimes when too many layers of " government "

are created, the usefulness may deminish...but thats a problem of details, not

the system itself.

RE: Re: money and health

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

>>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major

earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a

world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still

be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business

because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor

folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building

codes...)

and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent libertarian

refutation of that point..? <g>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/04 3:05:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Actually, this too sounds and looks nice on paper but is a literal

> impossibility. All societies (even small tribal ones) are too large and

> complex for there to be a 1:1 ratio between an individual's input and his

> output.

That's still where the incentives lie. I didn't claim a 1:1 ratio.

>

> >It takes many, many muscle

> >contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a

> >single

> >nerve impulse.

> >

> >If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute

> >disasters.

>

> You're being very selective in that assumption, since you condemn

> governments which are centrally directed and endorse mega-corporations

> which are even more centrally directed.

No I'm not. A corporation centrally directs its internal economy, and

pursues its self-interest. A centrally planned economy has a central authority

that

directs individual interests to cooperate in some fashion. In capitalism, a

computer manufacturer might have thousands of employees under a single

leadership, and a software developer might similarly have hundreds of employees

under

a central leadership. The leadership might be central within the

corporation, but the software developer's sole purpose is to sell software and

the

computer manufacturer's sole purpose is to sell computers. Neither pursues the

interest of the other, nor the interest of their customers (except insofar as it

coincides with their own interest). Neither exerts planning control over the

other.

By contrast, in a centrally planned economy there is one agent that produces

a plan both for those with an interest in selling computers and those with an

interest in selling software.

In one case, each interested agent (which might consist of more than one

person) is pursuing its own interest; in the other, one supposedly disinterested

agent is doing the planning for all interested parties.

The two are fundamentally different.

And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests, you get

economic growth and, within reason, a moral culture, whereas in the centrally

planned economy you get economic and moral disaster.

Furthermore, an intelligent executive would introduce competition into the

framework of the corporation by offering bonuses to development teams for

ingenuity, thereby harnessing both cooperation and competition, and would be

more

productive.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> Influence is power. You're distinguishing between what you call power,

> which is 100% irresistible power, and power that's less than absolute,

> which you call influence. And yet even what you call power, which if I

> understand correctly you ascribe solely to the state and violent entities,

> is not absolute either. Some people choose to break the law, to dare the

> consequences (or to defy the mugger or the ruthless tyrant regardless of

> the potential consequences) so even that power is merely influence -- just

> a more widely persuasive form.

I agree, and said, that influence is a form of power. But it is a

qualitatively different form than power:

-- A person is subjected to a multiplicity of influences, whereas only one

mugger can exercise force against someone at a given time

-- A person can exercise choice between influences, believe in a combination

thereof, or choose to ignore influences, without suffering physical

consequences for any option, while a mugging victim has only the choice of

surrender or

physical harm

-- A person must make an initial choice to read a book, turn the tv on, read

an article, or engage in discussion, whereas a person exercises no choice in

encountering a mugger

-- Influence can have both positive and negative effects and can be wielded

with both good intentions and malice, whereas a mugger's only purpose is crime

-- It is possible to abstain from violence, while it is impossible to abstain

from influence, regardless of intent.

All these qualitative differences form the basis for legal and moral

differentiation betwen the two forms of power. There is nothing inherently

immoral

about persuasion, whereas any reasonable morality finds the initiation of

violence inherently immoral (whether based on a concept of " rights " or social

usefulness). With influence, the ultimate affect on the person resides in his

mind,

whereas with force, the ultimate effect on the victim is decided in the mind

of the user of force. It would be not only impratical but impossible to ban

the use of influence, (and doing such would ban both the bad and the good)

while it is perfectly practical to ban violence.

>

> If I buy up and influence substantial elements of the information

> infrastructure and thus influence millions of people to act as I want them

> to, against their best interests but in line with mine, I've acquired and

> exercised power, period.

That's true, it is a form of power. However, the power you are exerting is

subject to the evaluation and judgment of the individual you are exerting it

on, wheras the power a force-wielder exerts is subject only to the competence

with which he wields it. Furthermore, competing sources of influence prevent

any given source of influence from having a decisive effect.

The fact that my power doesn't successfully alter

> the behavior of 100% of my targets as I want doesn't mean I'm impotent, it

> just means I'm not god.

But, as I've described above, the probability of success is not the only

differentiating factor. That mere quantitative value is rather unimportant

compared to the qualitative value of exercising an influence that competes for

the

favorable judgment of the target, rather than a force that can modify the

behavior well being of the target without regard to the judgment of said target.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>If it is the one to , he answered it nicely. Actually I enjoy reading his

>posts more than I do writing mine.

LOL and thanks! I wish I enjoyed writing them, but while these kinds of

discussions always start out enjoyable enough, they seem to inevitably

become more and more and more and more and more and more and more frustrating.

>So how can I argue

>that a thing is " moral " if I don't believe in " morality " as a standalone

>thing? for

>me the question is: " Does It Work " , which, in this context, means " do humans

>really work that way? " .

I don't agree with your position exactly -- I do believe that the concept

of morality is useful and not pure invention -- but in the sense that it

must have a foundation to be defensible, and that foundation must

incorporate and account for real human nature, I agree completely. It used

to work fairly well (at least in some times and places) to say this is

moral and that's immoral " because God said so " , but we have to go beyond

that now, and saying " just because " simply isn't going to work. All

elements of an argument, including its foundations, must be defensible and

explainable.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the

>value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value.

Actually, this too sounds and looks nice on paper but is a literal

impossibility. All societies (even small tribal ones) are too large and

complex for there to be a 1:1 ratio between an individual's input and his

output.

>It takes many, many muscle

>contractions to make a single movement, and they are all originated in a

>single

>nerve impulse.

>

>If you look at human societies, the ones organized like this are absolute

>disasters.

You're being very selective in that assumption, since you condemn

governments which are centrally directed and endorse mega-corporations

which are even more centrally directed.

-

[Guest guest]

As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is verycomplicated

and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-(

Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high,

medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations.

This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher

charges.

For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of

doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to

artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the

masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever)

sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the people

united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their bidding,,,and

those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out what he bottom

line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the greatest amount...

Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that out...at times it

might even seem that doing the greater good might be going against what may

appear to be the greatest good at the moment.

Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the

desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so

imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for the

better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people really

want.

Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or countries.

But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what we know.

Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives to do the

right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of our

lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they know we

just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the details...allow us

maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our consumerism depends on

cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide sneakers, computer chips, etc.

Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it is

what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint gonna

change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it.

:-(

RE: Re: money and health

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real

estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety

regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because

even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance

costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate

businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced

are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much,

much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

>>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major

earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in

a

world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely

still

be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of

business

because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only

poor

folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite*

building

codes...)

and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent

libertarian

refutation of that point..? <g>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our

times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

review the stats...

the people were sent home...death doesnt happen instantly.

3rd cause of death in USA is doctors...haha.

Granted the AMA style health care in the USA needs a bunch...but then again

people dont want whats common sense,,,they want a quick fix...hence the health

care as it is... whats the name of this list again? nutrition?

;-)

RE: Re: money and health

If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of

the court costs.

And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college

golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students

decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and seriously

messed up for the rest of his life.

In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news

story I read said that the courts threw his case out.

And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by canceling

the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that got

him hit by lightening.

But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

huge sums.

Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the

death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times. The

doctors did only emergency surgeries.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is

verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-(

Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high,

medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations.

This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher

charges.

For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of

doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to

artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the

masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever)

sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the

people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their

bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out

what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the

greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that

out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be going

against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment.

Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the

desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so

imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for

the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people

really want.

Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or

countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what

we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives

to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of

our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they

know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the

details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our

consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide

sneakers, computer chips, etc.

Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it

is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint

gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it.

:-(

[Guest guest]

Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to cover

cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the more

people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not getting

complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but doent think of

telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater chance of mistakes and

wrongful procedures to the detriment of the patient... which creates

dissatisfaction and law suits...which means higher doctor costs which means more

patients need to be seen...agghhh! There is no ending the cycle once it

starts...

:-(

So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with all

the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club etc....but

it works for some people...

:-)

RE: Re: money and health

If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of

the court costs.

And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college

golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students

decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and

seriously

messed up for the rest of his life.

In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news

story I read said that the courts threw his case out.

And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by

canceling

the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that

got

him hit by lightening.

But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

huge sums.

Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the

death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times.

The

doctors did only emergency surgeries.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is

verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-(

Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too

high,

medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations.

This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher

charges.

For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of

doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to

artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the

masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever)

sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the

people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their

bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure

out

what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the

greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure

that

out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be

going

against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment.

Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from

the

desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so

imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change

for

the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people

really want.

Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or

countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its

what

we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the

representatives

to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of

our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they

know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the

details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though

our

consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide

sneakers, computer chips, etc.

Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that

it

is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it

aint

gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it.

:-(

[Guest guest]

yea... but how many bright people will be willing to take on all that medical

school debt, the extra years, the residency crap and be satisfied to get a

chicken for dinner

? and still have some crackpot with a lawyer try and exploit an honest mistake?

ya gotta start over... eating right, which of course is totally against the

food industry, the work ethic, etc etc

sigh

:-(

ya gotta trash the whole thin as a bad evolutionary outcome and star

different...but howmany would be willing to give up the status quo for that?

RE: Re: money and health

You forgot all the return visits required by the bad effects of the

prescribed drugs.

Patch Adam would probably be great for most of us.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to cover

cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the

more people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not

getting complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but

doent think of telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater

chance of mistakes and wrongful procedures to the detriment of the

patient... which creates dissatisfaction and law suits...which means higher

doctor costs which means more patients need to be seen...agghhh! There is

no ending the cycle once it starts...

:-(

So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with

all the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club

etc....but it works for some people...

:-)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/04 10:22:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

But to conclude that a

> concept that is truly humanitarian, whether workable or not, now or ever,

> is

> PATHOLOGICAL, is ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so

> vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back).

Perhaps I should have said pathogenic. Where it's introduced, it produces

disaster.

The views I'm expressing in this thread ARE ideological. So no, if I were

you, or another reader, I wouldn't take them at face value.

> >What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with

> others

> >who also do a good job?

>

> I don't think that was what you were saying above. What you are saying here

> does not contradict 'to each according..' etc, does it?

It is, because in a free exchange, what you get is not what you " need, " it's

what others are willing to give you.

Like I said, " from each according to ability, to each according to need " DOES

look good on paper. What's pathological is the way it works in society. The

incentives the system creates is for everyone to be the least able, so they

don't have to produce as much, or out of fear that they will be required to do

more work to service others' " needs, " and to engage in nasty debates about who

needs what. If it's top-down, it's tyrannical, and still gives the incentive

to be the least able, rather than the most able.

So no, it isn't a fundamentally evil thought, but in practice, it has

pathological results-- it's pathogenic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> concept that goes through this whole thread.

>

>How is that narcissitic? Is there something narcissistic about doing a good

>job? About maximizing your potential? About using the brain you were lucky

>enough to have been given?

Seeing things primarily through " how it benefits me " is the

definition of narcissism. Seeing things in terms of " how it benefits

everyone " is rare in this country, but it is the more common view

in, say, an African tribe. I TRY to view things like " doing a good job "

in terms of how it benefits everyone ... which usually it does. " charging

the most money for a product " does NOT necessarily benefit everyone.

>>From a social perspective, i.e., that of the " group, " a society in which the

>value you get is the value you offer causes everyone to offer more value.

>

>The alternative is a " from each according to his ability, to each according

>to his need " philosophy. It sounds nice and looks nice on paper, but it is a

>fundamentally pathological thought.

Yes, it is pathological. Because it deals with the individuals again, instead

of the whole society as a group and the effect of that philosophy

on the group, and how it interacts with how human brains are made.

Which is the problem I have with MOST economic theories. Too limited

in perspective.

What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others

>who also do a good job?

Because it is a limited viewpoint, and as you stated it there,

it is ONLY talking about economic exchange, which is about 1/10

of what really goes on in an exchange. And it is only talking

about it in terms of ME (two MEs, in this case) which is, again

by definition, narcissistic.

>> But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal --

>> believed that

>> the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence

>> the railroads and later superhighways).

>

>He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it.

Ack. You always ask for proof but rarely provide it. The

whole era of the Robber Barons was about creating

an infrastructure of railroads, for the good of the nation.

And making a fortune off it, for some folks.

> The idea that government is needed for a sense of direction (Rockefeller was

>able to provide a sense of direction to the chatoic oil industry) is false.

>And, in fact, humans working for their own interests, freely exchanging with

>others, leads not to chaos and crass competition, but to order and cooperation.

All systems require organization and structure. Sure,

industry can provide it. And with honest folk like

Fastow in charge I'm sure it will benefit all of us.

He was highly competitive, but did it lead to order and cooperation?

If the feds hadn't prosecuted him, wouldn't he have just retired nicely

with hundreds of millions in the bank?

>See this fantastic essay from the perspective of a pencil (yes, a pencil :-)

>):

>

><http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html>http://www.econlib.org/libr\

ary/Essays/rdPncl1.html

>

>>

>

>You seem to be arguing that a society's Rules are self-justifying. There is

>no morality and no rights, no objective standard by which to judge.

No, I'm saying you can't use IDEOLOGICAL standards. The only

standards that are really reliable are " what works " -- i.e. you need

objective standards, not ones that make good sound bytes. The

concept of " morality " as it is generally used, us purely ideological

or religious, ditto with " rights " . They are disconnected from reality

in the same way " to each according to his need " is. Society, and

all systems, ARE run by rules. Some rules work, some don't. You

optimize the system by optimizing the rules.

>By your theory, then, a society where the Rules require a woman to be stoned

>to death who commits adultery is in no way inferior to a society where the

>Rules do not. A society where the Rules require Jews to wear identification

>badges is justified by itself. A society where the Rules allow humans of

certain

>ancestry to be owned as slaves is in no way inferior to one in which all

>humans are considered free by *right*.

Well, all those examples are examples of societies that

didn't run very well. If you need a standard by which to judge

whether the rules work well, I like mine: a society where you maximize

the amount of choices and health and good life for the maximum

number of people. Most oppressive societies are ones that tweak

the rules to maximize power for a small number of people.

Those societies are generally unstable also, and eventually

crash and burn (the slaves rebel) and are less productive. So

you could use several different objective measures to the

" success " of a given society.

> Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to

>Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society, is

>moot.

Which is, IMO, not a bad rule to start out with.

> ________

>Even in the Bible " sin " is often translated

>> as " trespasses " -- i.e. you crossed the boundaries of a rule.

>

>This is a total tangent, but that's an awful translation. The word in the

>Lord's Prayer often, unfortunately, translated as " trespasses " is " debts, "

which

>has a very different meaning. The word translated as " sin " actually means

> " to miss the mark, " as if one is playing darts and misses the bullseye. So

> " sin " is NOT breaking a rule, and is not remotely corresponding to " crime " as

is

>usually thought, which has to be repaid with punitive justice.

Not punitive? Then why all the bit about atoning for sin? In the OT

there is definitely the idea that if you do X you have to pay Y to

make up for it.

> Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid,

>because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides in

the

>brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments represent

>majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness.

Ummm ... I'm talking about *systems* -- most systems have no consciousness,

and many are on computers. There IS feedback and communication

and there are rules. The body does have local nervous control over

things ... pain, for one ... the pain signal only has to get as far as your

spinal cord to cause a " jerk " reaction.

Most people who study the brain do NOT think it is a fused,

single consciousness. Oliver Sax has good writings on that

subject. The brain is full of subsystems, just like a computer.

You THINK you are one consciousness, but that is a kind

of illusion. Most of what you do you don't think about at all.

But I'm not trying to make an exact analogy ... systems

analysis works on ANY system even though all sytems are

very different, the same rules apply. Kind of like math

and chemistry -- universal principles.

> On the other hand, societies where the primary impulses are generated by the

>individual sarcomere (contractile unit of a muscle) acting NOT to move the

>muscle, or even the individual myofibril, but acting solely to move its own

self,

>flourish both economically and morally. Again, see the essay I linked above,

> " I, Pencil. "

That is my point though ... all systems are a combination of local

vs. central control vs. individual control. For each system there

is an ideal mix of the three. Each system can be objectively

analyzed to figure out the ideal mix, without ideology.

> > So the goal is ... create a system that WORKS. Who cares if

>> it is Moral or has the correct Rights.

>

>The slave, the Jew in the gas chamber, the Slav sacrificed for leibenstraum,

>the Soviet farmer wasting away in famine, the scientist on trial for heresy,

>all care if it is Moral and has the correct Rights.

Again, those systems didn't WORK, for any length of time. They

collapsed. Neal son has a great take on this

in Cryptonomicon -- societies that are free and open

generally have the greatest technological gain.

>If the system WORKS

>> everyone will be happy because they are getting sustenance,have good

>> health, have local control over their lives,

>> and are doing the job they are designed for

>> (Heidi's 3 requisites for happiness).

>

>As you pointed out before, that's what the Communists thought. Sounds lovely

>in email. Pretty nasty in life.

No, they are *measurements* to see IF the system is working.

If people are enslaved, gassed, rioting in the streets ...

that is a sign the system doesn't work. If the people

are happy, healthy, productive ... that is a sign too.

The Communist state was totalitarian and by any

standard wasn't working -- people were starving. And

it eventually collapsed.

>

>No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity during

>the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the

>time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that railroads

>conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one a

> " robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English

language.

Seriously? That seems rather revisionist. I'll try to find something

you might consider " proof " then -- I take it you found something

wrong with the previous links.

>Again, the double standard. If government has the right to use force against

>businesses in favor of workers, why does it not have the right to do the same

>for businesses against workers?

>

>What I am suggesting is that both workers and businesses have exclusive

>rights over their own property and persons. A government should enforce the

rights

>of both equally. That includes the right of a union to strike, but does not

>include the privilege of a union to physically prevent other workers from

>working, for example.

>

>And I thought you believed workers didn't have " rights " ?

I said I don't believe in " rights " as some kind of a universal

standard ... they don't *exist* in an objective sense. That

isn't the same as saying rules don't exist ... there are

all kinds of generally accepted rules of " fair play "

and some rules work, some don't. Unhappy, unhealthy

workers don't *work* (pun intendended). I didn't mention

the word " rights " -- you keep using it, as in " the right to force "

and I can't argue it because I don't believe in the existence

of " rights " in the way you do.

As for control ... local control in most things is generally

desirable. But not exclusively desirable ... for workers or

for companies. NO ONE has total control over themselves

or their property, it can't happen, if we are living as a society

and not individuals out in the woods.

>You are correct -- people hurt each other

>> all the time, that is THE one universal constant of human relations ...

>

>I would argue that the two constants are

>-- ingenuity

>-- envy

>

>And that the latter reults in people hurting each other.

Hmm. So do you think that it is right that Fastow is

going to jail? Was his damage to investors " violence " ?

>

>The " rulekeeper " should function to

>a) protect the rights of persons and property

> enforce contracts.

See, there are those " Rights " again. Rights aren't

objective. I'd say the Rulekeeper should

enforce the rules, and someone should also be

monitoring that the rules work.

> The airplanes DO need to fly, and the coal mines need to dig coal (or we'd

>have no electricity) and the railroads need to operate (food couldn't get from

>place to place), etc, etc. Do you support government intervention to break

>strikers in all these domains?

Haven't I been saying all along that I don't think there are quick fixes

or simple policy solutions? A GOOD answer is not usually a simple

one of " I support " or " I am against " .

>Doesn't it bother you that air traffic controllers have one of the worst,

>stressful, mind-deranging jobs in the entire country, and don't get paid enough

>for it? You don't sympathise with their plight of being exploited by their

>employers?

Sure it bothers me. Esp. when I'm on a plane. But the whole system

of " working " bothers me -- it doesn't fit how humans are made.

How to fix the problem? Does anyone know? The system is always

evolving, I don't think there is a quick fix.

>

>The fact that the airplanes " need " to run (so rich and middle class people

>can go on their luxury vacations?) is the whole point: it is the ability of the

>workers to show their value to their employer.

>

>With any consistency, you'd have to oppose the right of a union to strike at

>all.

>

>And you say you're on the side of the worker and I'm not???

I don't recall talking about " sides " . Some solutions work, and some

don't. Some of your solutions I don't think would work.

The solution I gave to the airtraffic controllers would have WORKED

if the situation was truly as it was portrayed -- negotiation, upgrading

the air traffic control system, and it would have benefitted the

workers and the airlines.

>

>They simply stuck to their right to control their own person. It's somewhat

>subjective as to whether a system " sucks " or not.

It wasn't just " their person " they were striking for. They were trying

to improve the air traffic system. That isn't really " subjective " --

you can measure how many near misses there are per day and

how old the equipment is. And for raw milk, we are always trying

for OBJECTIVE data. And Air Traffic does NOT just affect the controllers,

it effects everyone, so I can't see how you can say it has to do

with " their right to control their own person " .

> But, if you do actually oppose the right of unions to strike in all

>situations and do actually believe that no one has any " rights, " then, I

disagree, but

>you would, I suppose, be consistent.

I don't unilaterally oppose anything, that is the point. I guess you could

say I unilaterally oppose decisions based on ideology rather than

measurable objective results and logical thinking. I also support

cooperation and negotiation over force. I support rules

that make sense, supported by a group that is " public "

and not " private " .

> Second, ALL

>> entities in a system apply force of once sort or another.

>> From physics to politics to your body, the " system " is a bunch

>> of forces all pushing against each other.

>

>But the laws of physics are consistent laws. I want to apply the rule of

>law-- the law I choose is that every person has a moral right to control their

>own person and property, and the government protects that right against those

>who wish to control others' person and property. What you advocate is the

>government using force according to its whims (Reagan " deciding " that " this

system

>sucks, so I'll get rid of it . " ), rather than to enforce laws.

Ummm .. no, what I advocate is open and rational decision

making, which by it's nature has to be flexible. Flexible

doesn't mean " whim based " . In most companies nowadays

there are all kinds of " performance measurements " in place

so the company can decide if a given policy or mechanism

is working.

The issue with air traffic controls is very objective

as these things go. Reagan didn't want to spend money,

also objective. He didn't like unions, which is a power

struggle -- he wanted to give power to corporations,

the unions wanted power for the workers.

>Sure. And everyone has a right to be their own putz if they aren't hurting

>other people's person or property. I explicitly put specific limitations on

>individuals, not simply government.

But in a connected system it is not always clear that a

person is " only hurting themselves " . THAT is

why there is so much argument about things

like abortion ... the central issue is ... when is the kid

a KID and not an extension of the parent? If me

not doing my job right disrupts the economy, does

it become eveyone's business? If workers can't get health

care and there is a tuburculosis outbreak, whose

problem is it? It is the interconnectivity issue -- and

the issue of infrastructure and how the future

generations will grow up -- that make all these issues

so difficult. Not as simple as " my property " .

I can use

>> my money to do whatever I want to take advantage of you,

>> IF I don't dump toxins or use the gov't?

>

>No, you couldn't, say, take my things, hire thugs to beat me up, dig up holes

>in my lawn, or steal my oil if I happened to have some on my property, for

>example. I can't possibly list everything that amounts to violating someone

>else's rights, but it can essentially be summed up in the harm of someone

else's

>person or property, or the fradulent use or unfulfillment of a contract.

>

>What, specifically, DOESN'T fall under those definitions that you consider

> " brutlaizing " ?

I think I was quoting you for the word " brutalizing " -- but whatever word

you use, there are lots of shades of grey. Esp. when it comes to

basic services (sewage, garbage, transportation, water, and food)

and raising your kids. Refusing to provide a service, or jacking

up the price, or playing favorites to give unfair advantage to some

industries, are demonstrably bad for society.

>It isn't. The gov't is simply held to the same standards anyone else is. It

>can't take people's lives because they have a *right* to live. It can't

>initiate force against someone who did not initiate force themselves because

they

>have a *right* to live in peace. It can't counterfeit money. It can't steal.

>

>Corporations or individuals can't do any of that either. So why do you claim

>I have a double standard?

In general I'd agree the gov't shouldn't commit crimes or break it's

own laws. But in our society, the Nation core does have a unique

place, as do the courts. Someone has to be the " police " and manage

the units of transaction, and deal with other Nations. Unless we

all go back to being city-states and having *local* wars like we

used to.

>Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property (such

>as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or Pinkertons

>to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard?

You seem to get down on the gov't more than others ... maybe

I am misunderstanding. However, if the gov't didn't

stop the Pinkertons, who would?

>It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did anything

>positive for consumers.

No, and in some cases a well-run open monopoly works a lot better.

The " open " part is the issue. If there is public oversight, a monopoly

can be very efficient. Case in point being Enron ... public utilities are

monopolies, and often run very well. But if you privatize the

utility so make is supposedly non-monopolistic, then a putz

takes it over, now you have a non-controlled monopoly that

can wreck havoc and was demonstrably BAD for consumers.

I get hurt every other month when I pay my electric bill.

Which is where the gov't has to step in and play policeman.

Ditto for stock fraud. A " benign dictator " is a very nice workable

system ... if you can make sure that the dictator is always

benign. Carnegie might have been, but were his successors?

Gates does some good things, but he also has givent his

country the buggiest mess of computers we've ever seen, largely

by using monopolistic and illegal practices.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>What is so narcisstic about doing a good job, and exchanging it with others

>who also do a good job?

Because it is a limited viewpoint, and as you stated it there,

it is ONLY talking about economic exchange, which is about 1/10

of what really goes on in an exchange. And it is only talking

about it in terms of ME (two MEs, in this case) which is, again

by definition, narcissistic.

Economics deals with all human behavior. Microeconomics includes the

decision not to work as well as the decision to work. More broadly praxeology

looks

at all human behavior, which is essentially economics. The desire for

leisure, for example, is used in micro to demonstrate opportunity costs. The

time

people work is settled by an equilibria between their deisre for leisure curve

and their desire for money curve.

> >>But folks like Rockefeller -- not exactly a lily-livered liberal --

> >>believed that

> >>the government's job was ALSO to provide " infrastructure " (hence

> >>the railroads and later superhighways).

> >

> >He did? Please cite something; I wasn't aware of it.

>

> Ack. You always ask for proof but rarely provide it.

Again, if you want evidence, ask for it.

The > whole era of the Robber Barons was about creating

> an infrastructure of railroads, for the good of the nation.

> And making a fortune off it, for some folks.

But you said Rockefeller wanted the GOVERNMENT to do it. I find that hard to

believe. Had you said, : " Rockefeller thought there should be a railroad, " I

wouldn't have questioned you.

> Those societies are generally unstable also, and eventually

> crash and burn (the slaves rebel) and are less productive. So

> you could use several different objective measures to the

> " success " of a given society.

Well, the institution of slavery has existed from ancient times until very

recently. Now it's gone in places where there is a concept of the rights and

dignity of the individual, whereas the pockets where it is still practiced do

not carry that ideology.

> >Besides, since OUR " Rules " explicitly allow for *Rights*, such as those to

>

> >Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question,for our society,

> is

> >moot.

>

> Which is, IMO, not a bad rule to start out with.

Thus validating the concept of rights, then?

> Not punitive? Then why all the bit about atoning for sin? In the OT

> there is definitely the idea that if you do X you have to pay Y to

> make up for it.

I honestly don't have the time for this right now. The ancient Christian

tradition and the one the East maintains conceptualizes it in a fundamentally

different way, and to remain true to the linguistics of the original Greek, you

have to maintain those concepts. But it would be an awful big can of worms to

open in a tangent on a tangential post!

>

> >Your comparison of cells to people and governments to brains is invalid,

> >because the crossways that results in an individual consciousness resides

> in the

> >brain, whereas individual cells have no consciousness and governments

> represent

> >majority opinions, not a fused, single consciousness.

>

> Ummm ... I'm talking about *systems* -- most systems have no consciousness,

> and many are on computers. There IS feedback and communication

> and there are rules. The body does have local nervous control over

> things ... pain, for one ... the pain signal only has to get as far as your

> spinal cord to cause a " jerk " reaction.

But you were comparing these systems to social systems. Social systems work

fundamentally different, in part because they are made up of conscious beings

who have their own values and interests. When humans act in self-interest,

order and the product of ingenuity arises. But if a sarcomere acted in its own

" interest " instead of listening to the nerve impulse your body wouldn't work,

and would collapse in chaos. It's not really a valid comaprison.

> Most people who study the brain do NOT think it is a fused,

> single consciousness. Oliver Sax has good writings on that

> subject. The brain is full of subsystems, just like a computer.

> You THINK you are one consciousness, but that is a kind

> of illusion. Most of what you do you don't think about at all.

If I think I am one consciousness, I am one consciousness. That's too

apparent to argue about.

Granted, if the brain is damaged in some way, you can have different parts of

the brain acting indepently of one another. But that hardly disproves the

obvious-- which is that the ultimate result is a consciousness, and an ego.

> But I'm not trying to make an exact analogy ... systems

> analysis works on ANY system even though all sytems are

> very different, the same rules apply. Kind of like math

> and chemistry -- universal principles.

But you are applying principles by which systems of unconscious elements

interact to systems in which conscious elements act, each with their own

interest.

It's fundamentally to give an order and expect obedience from a person who

is interested in disobeying the order than to give a muscle fiber a nerve

impulse.

>

> Again, those systems didn't WORK, for any length of time. They

> collapsed. Neal son has a great take on this

> in Cryptonomicon -- societies that are free and open

> generally have the greatest technological gain.

>

Some of them didn't. But there are hunter-gatherer societies who maintained

somewhat vicious rules, such as giving death to adulterers or those engaging

in pre-marital sex, who have survived for thousands of years. Are they

justified based on their survival?

> No, they are *measurements* to see IF the system is working.

> If people are enslaved, gassed, rioting in the streets ...

> that is a sign the system doesn't work. If the people

> are happy, healthy, productive ... that is a sign too.

> The Communist state was totalitarian and by any

> standard wasn't working -- people were starving. And

> it eventually collapsed.

So what about the Church-State alliance that brutally punished dissenters,

and survived for over a millenium? Again, what about ancient societies that

engaged in ritualistic human sacrifice or pratice(d) cannibalism and DID

survive.

Are they justified merely by their survival? If everyone's happy except the

few sacrificial victims?

> >No, it isn't. The term arose in the 1870s, but gained its popularity

> during

> >the Depression because people were fond of anti-business sentiment at the

> >time. I am continuing to question the validity of your claim that

> railroads

> >conspired to destroy family farms. I continue to maintain that calling one

> a

> > " robber " for creating wealth is an absurd bastardization of the English

> language.

>

> Seriously? That seems rather revisionist. I'll try to find something

> you might consider " proof " then -- I take it you found something

> wrong with the previous links.

What do you mean revisionist? The term Robber Baron was around from the time

of the Robber Barons (1870s would be around that time), but it didn't become

very popular, according to a source I just read, until the Depression.

Revisionists in the 50s painted them as " industrial statesmen " instead.

> Hmm. So do you think that it is right that Fastow is

> going to jail? Was his damage to investors " violence " ?

You'll have to familiarize me with who this Fastow fellow is :-P

> Haven't I been saying all along that I don't think there are quick fixes

> or simple policy solutions? A GOOD answer is not usually a simple

> one of " I support " or " I am against " .

So the ability to choose to go to work or not, or to drink raw milk, should

be subject to the random whims of whoever is in office? If the rules change

and bend according to whatever the President thinks, say, then they aren't

really " rules " per se. Theres just a ruleER.

> It wasn't just " their person " they were striking for. They were trying

> to improve the air traffic system. That isn't really " subjective " --

> you can measure how many near misses there are per day and

> how old the equipment is. And for raw milk, we are always trying

> for OBJECTIVE data. And Air Traffic does NOT just affect the controllers,

> it effects everyone, so I can't see how you can say it has to do

> with " their right to control their own person " .

Whether they go on strike or not is a matter of what they can do with their

own person. The government shouldn't be able to break strikes, and unions

shouldn't be able to physically prevent " scabs " from taking their place-- you

should have some sort of right to choose whether to work or not and to choose

what

you do with your own person.

> The issue with air traffic controls is very objective

> as these things go. Reagan didn't want to spend money,

> also objective. He didn't like unions, which is a power

> struggle -- he wanted to give power to corporations,

> the unions wanted power for the workers.

Since we don't share any premises, I realize we can't get far, but it

shouldn't be up to Reagan to give power to corporations or to workers.

Corporations

shouldn't have any power beyond to dispose with their property as they wish,

and to hire and fire who they want. Unions should have every right to engage

in voluntary association, to make collective decisions, to pool their money how

they want, or to strike or work as they wish, but shouldn't have the right to

demand involuntary participation or prevent other people from working. It

shouldn't be Reagan's decision as to whether they can effectively bargain or

not.

> If me

> not doing my job right disrupts the economy, does

> it become eveyone's business?

Not unless you are slave labor. If you don't do a job right, your employer

can deal with it.

If workers can't get health

> care and there is a tuburculosis outbreak, whose

> problem is it? It is the interconnectivity issue -- and

> the issue of infrastructure and how the future

> generations will grow up -- that make all these issues

> so difficult. Not as simple as " my property " .

I *do* want people to have good health care. However, I believe the way to

good health care, and propserity in general, is freedom, and sense, rather than

excess. A system based on profit allows greater technology, and allows

doctors to compete by providing the best care to their patients. A system based

on

insurance for maintenance care is a bureacratic mess, and a government system

severely limits choices and the potential for progress.

> I think I was quoting you for the word " brutalizing " -- but whatever word

> you use, there are lots of shades of grey. Esp. when it comes to

> basic services (sewage, garbage, transportation, water, and food)

> and raising your kids. Refusing to provide a service, or jacking

> up the price, or playing favorites to give unfair advantage to some

> industries, are demonstrably bad for society.

No, it isn't. My farmer just jacked up the price of lard. Why? Because

she's the only person around selling pasture-raised organic lard, and people are

buying it from all over the place. And, because she can. She raised the

price from $6 to $8.50. Buy doing that, she's doing us all a service. Because

the higher the price goes, the more incentive for someone else to get in on the

action. So, by pursuing her own self-interest, she's unconsciously sending a

signal to society-- that demand for lard is higher than supply. That induces

supply to increase, until we reach and equilibrium.

Had she not been self-interested and had she considered my right to cheaper

lard over her interest of more money, we would be forever stuck with too high a

demand for good lard, and too little supply.

Same thing with electricity, or housing, or anything else. If there is a

shortage of supply, the last thing you need is cheap prices! That will

encourage

overconsumption, and lead to shortages. What you need is for the supplier to

jack up the price whenever he can get away with it-- if there's plenty of

supply, he CAN'T get away with it. If there isn't enough supply, he CAN. If

you

put price caps, you get shortages. One of the Roman Emperors, Dometian

Diocletian, I forget which one, put price caps on food and wound up with massive

famine.

It's not just a matter of rights; it IS what WORKS. No one person trying to

decide what's " fair " can possibly tabulate all the information necessary to

set the right prices to induce people to conserve during shortages, to consume

during excess, and to induce suppliers to supply more in shortages. In the

Soviet Union they realized that after a while and tried to use K-Mart catalogues

to set prices, but that didn't really work, since supply and demand in USSR

don't necessarily correspond to US.

If a supplier tried to be selfless and keep costs low, it would destroy the

price system and send all the wrong signals and incentives to the rest of

society.

> In general I'd agree the gov't shouldn't commit crimes or break it's

> own laws. But in our society, the Nation core does have a unique

> place, as do the courts. Someone has to be the " police " and manage

> the units of transaction, and deal with other Nations. Unless we

> all go back to being city-states and having *local* wars like we

> used to.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I agree with you.

> >Just as corporations can't use the government to take people's property

> (such

> >as taxing and subsidizing), they just the same can't hire thugs or

> Pinkertons

> >to take someone else's property. Where's the double standard?

>

> You seem to get down on the gov't more than others ... maybe

> I am misunderstanding. However, if the gov't didn't

> stop the Pinkertons, who would?

The government should stop the Pinkertons, if the Pinkertons are stealing

other people's proeprty. However, I'm not aware of Pinkertons ever doing that.

I think Pinkertons were used to *protect* private property.

> >It just simply defies reality to say that monopolies have never did

> anything

> >positive for consumers.

>

> No, and in some cases a well-run open monopoly works a lot better.

> The " open " part is the issue. If there is public oversight, a monopoly

> can be very efficient. Case in point being Enron ... public utilities are

> monopolies, and often run very well. But if you privatize the

> utility so make is supposedly non-monopolistic, then a putz

> takes it over, now you have a non-controlled monopoly that

> can wreck havoc and was demonstrably BAD for consumers.

> I get hurt every other month when I pay my electric bill.

Here in MA they had a " deregulation bill " that was anything but. It was a

massive bailout for the electric companies and I think some nuclear company, and

six-year price caps. But deregulation is good. Now we have an

enrvironmentalist-run cooperative, which was an option we wouldn't have had

before

deregulation.

Rockefeller and Carnegie didn't have gov't oversight or regulation, nor did

Ford, but they benefited consumers and workers.

> Which is where the gov't has to step in and play policeman.

> Ditto for stock fraud. A " benign dictator " is a very nice workable

> system ... if you can make sure that the dictator is always

> benign. Carnegie might have been, but were his successors?

> Gates does some good things, but he also has givent his

> country the buggiest mess of computers we've ever seen, largely

> by using monopolistic and illegal practices.

I'm not up on it much myself. Personally I *liked* DOS! But there's no

question in my mind that the present computer population was mostly computer

illiterate 10 or 15 years ago, and that most people who use computers today NEED

Windows, for better or worse.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/04 9:33:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mfjewett@... writes:

> Somehow I can't equate " every man for himself " as moral. Pretty sure I

> can't call it ethical either.

I DON'T believe in " every man for himself. " I DO believe in community. I DO

believe in cooperation. I DO believe in generosity.

ative institutions arise voluntarily, and are superior to government

bureacracies.

Economically, people flourish when they pursue their own interest. Here's

the catch: It's in your own interest to offer value to other people! If you run

a business, but you don't offer anything to your customer, the customer

doesn't buy anything from you.

If everyone's interest was opposed to everyone else's, then the pursuit of

self-interest would be a disaster. But it isn't. People are interconnected and

mutually benefit each other.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I don't agree with your position exactly -- I do believe that the concept

>of morality is useful and not pure invention -- but in the sense that it

>must have a foundation to be defensible, and that foundation must

>incorporate and account for real human nature, I agree completely. It used

>to work fairly well (at least in some times and places) to say this is

>moral and that's immoral " because God said so " , but we have to go beyond

>that now, and saying " just because " simply isn't going to work. All

>elements of an argument, including its foundations, must be defensible and

>explainable.

:

I think of " morality " as a kind of shorthand for " what seems to work "

or " what the rules are " -- and your description of everything being

defensible and explainable is a good way to explain it.

Usually when people talk about " immoral " , for instance, they

mean " breaking the sexual mores " -- which at various times has

included wearing red dresses, showing your ankles, wearing makeup.

Usually includes adultery, but can include various types of

other sexual or semi-sexual activities. It is much clearer

(to me anyway) to say " in our society, this is socially acceptable

behavior " -- or even " in our religion, the rules are " (like the Torah).

I actually like the Torah a lot, because it SAYS it is a set of rules,

and it is very explicit.

My Mom used to call rich, sugary foods " sin foods " which got

me thinking about the whole issue. Is eating food a moral

issue? For the Puritans it was, I think, and it is in some

religions.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/15/04 11:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while

> >admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of

> >an ideological fixation than the converse.

>

> Really? How exactly does that work?

When the US wanted to obliterate Kosovo for fun, or " credibility " or

whatever, and all the pundits were clamoring " We can't just stand idly by and do

nothing! " , morally indignant at the supposed crimes of the Serbs, cool-headed

fellows like Chomsky pointed out that one should observe Hippocrates' rule

" First,

do no harm. "

Of course it's moral to desire the welfare of all. But if your method is not

practical, and leads to disaster despite your intentions, it is fundamentally

imoral and pathological to continue to deny that reality and pursue the

impractical cause. Just like the humanitarian pretext of saving refugees and

all

the moral indignation in the world won't change the fact that the bombing

caused increased retribution, rather than solving the problem.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I may be sorry for this, but ...

At 06:47 PM 1/15/04 EST, wrote:

> And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests ...

That sounds a lot like " every man for himself " (or woman, dog, whale)

>... you get economic growth ....

Certainly.

>... and, within reason, a moral culture

Somehow I can't equate " every man for himself " as moral. Pretty sure I

can't call it ethical either. And what do you mean " within reason " ?

MFJ

Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 12:24:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Your analysis only holds for single-product and/or single-service

> corporations.

>

> When a corporate conglomerate owns, say, a pharmaceutical company and a

> media company, the exact same conflict emerges, and that's just a

> particularly dramatic example.

I agree that that is a potential problem, but it doesn't comapre to a central

economy. I'd raised the issue of a central economy, and you responded by

saying I had a double standard in my opposition to centralization. So all

that's

relevant here is comparing the dynamic to centrally planned economy, and ther

e is no comparison.

>

> >And, the point is, that where people pursue their own interests, you get

> >economic growth and, within reason, a moral culture, whereas in the

> centrally

> >planned economy you get economic and moral disaster.

>

> The entire matter of a centrally-planned economy is a straw man you've just

> introduced into the argument.

From what I recall, it was a direct response to Heidi's metaphor about

computer programs and nervous systems. Since the particular email wasn't

addressed

to you, how can I be said to be introducing a straw man, with the apparent

basis that you don't advocate a centrally planned economy?

I know that neither you nor Heidi agree with central planning. But it isn't

a straw man at all; it was a demonstrative device, to show why the dynamics

between a nervous system and a society are entirely different and why it was not

a valid analogy.

Chris