jdd@sri-unix (12/07/82)
I would like to hear from anyone out there who has a 3Com 3C400 Multibus
Ethernet Controller board in operation. My laboratory has a few here but I
can't seem to make them work quite right (i.e., at all): the symptoms are
strange so possibly I'm just doing something stupid.
Hasta la pasta,
John ("Oh no, not hardware!") DeTreville
Bell ("Yes, hardware!") Labs, Murray ("Uh-oh!") Hilljdd (12/07/82)
I would like to hear from anyone out there who has a 3Com 3C400 Multibus
Ethernet Controller board in operation. My laboratory has a few here but I
can't seem to make them work quite right (i.e., at all): the symptoms are
strange so possibly I'm just doing something stupid.
Hasta la pasta,
John ("Oh no, not hardware!") DeTreville
Bell ("Yes, hardware!") Labs, Murray ("Uh-oh!") Hill
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!varian!david
Newsgroups: net.wanted,net.unix-wizards,net.periphs
Title: Info wanted on VMZ/32 or other mpx's
Article-I.D.: varian.127
Posted: Mon Feb 28 13:40:31 1983
Received: Thu Mar 3 01:12:28 1983
Has anyone had experience with the Able VMZ/32 multiplexor under 4.1BSD?
>From the data sheet from Able, it appears to me (but is not clearly
stated) that it uses the DMF-32 driver. Is that correct? How reliable
is the DMF-32 driver in 4.1BSD? We received our 4.1BSD recently
(last November) and the version of dmf.c is 4.3 (5/27/82). Is this
the latest and greatest version? There are quite a few items in the
list of things to do in the comment at the beginning of the driver,
but I don't think any of them were crucial.
The reason that I am asking is that we are trying to decide what type
of multiplexor to buy next to expand our VAX 11/780: we are considering
a DEC DZ11 (its main selling point is that it is eligible for DEC maintenance
plus I know the driver works because that is what we have now), a
non-DEC DH-compatible (Able DH/DM or Emulex CS11 or CS21), and the new
Able VMZ/32, which Able claims "outperforms both DZ and DH products".
I suppose I should also consider the DEC DMF-32, but it seems to rather
expensive per line, it takes up 2 slots for 16 lines (like the DZ11),
and I don't know what I would do with the printer and synchronous ports.
I know that there was a discussion on the net a while back on DH vs. DZ,
but I would appreciate hearing any and all comments about what people
think is the best multiplexor (our load is primarily 9600 baud CRT terminals
doing things like vi and vsh, plus one or two high-speed uucp links to
our PDP11, plus several micro-processor developement stations to which
we primarily download, but upload on occasion.) If you mail me your
comments, I'll put together a summary which I'll either mail to anyone
interested or post to the net if there is enough interest.
Thanks in advance
David Brown
Varian Instruments
2700 Mitchell Dr.
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598
(415) 939-2400
...!decvax!sytek!zehntel!varian!david
...!{ucbvax,decvax}!tektronix!zehntel!varian!david
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ihuxp!tfilm (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.religion,net.philosophy
Title: Death's Appropriateness
Article-I.D.: ihuxp.368
Posted: Wed Feb 16 13:50:34 1983
Received: Wed Feb 16 20:38:09 1983
Reply-To: tfilm@ihuxp.UUCP (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
RE: From 'On the Nature of Suicide'
In his prologue to 'On the Nature of Suicide', Schneidman (1)
quotes Weisemann and Hackett (2)
"What makes one death appropriate and another death tragic?.....
Part of an answer to this is to be found in the aversion among
doctors to confront themselves with tha fact of their own death and
to wonder if death can ever be appropriate for them. Despair wears
many masks; a hard shell of materialism may cover a tenderness that
shuns exposure. The dedication to forestall death is an indication
that the medical profession believes that death is never
appropriate."
I have often wondered why it is that the medical profession goes to
such extent to preserve 'life' in a body which should have 'died'
long ago. It appears that W & H have presented a somewhat obverse
possibility, that is, 'the medical profession believes that *death*
is not appropriate' (my emphasis). What does the medical
profession believe is appropriate? What is their belief based
upon? They (W & H) go on to discuss the four principal
requirements af an appropriate death, and I suppose, may somewhere
discuss at length how the medical profession
Any thoughts?
1. E. S. Schneidman (Ph.D., chief, Center for Studies of Suicide
Prevention, National Institute of Mental Health; clinical professor
of psychiatry (suicidology), George Washington University School of
Medicine; lecturer in psychiatry, The Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine)
2. Weismann and Hackett, "Predilection to Death: Death and Dying as
a Psychiatric Problem", Psychosomatic Medicine, 23, 1961, 232-256.
MEL ihuxp!tfilm
MEL 830216
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!hocda!spanky!ka (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy net.news.group
Title: New group net.philosophy
Article-I.D.: spanky.198
Posted: Wed Feb 9 17:46:40 1983
Received: Thu Feb 10 00:55:26 1983
The vote for net.philosophy is now 16 for and 2 against, which is
not much out of 8000 netnews readers, but it seems like enough to
justify giving the group a chance. The vote on the name is tied
2 for net.philsosphy and 2 for net.philos, and it seems easier to
remain with net.philosophy.
This group is for the discussion of philosophical issues: both
moral questions and speculations on life, the universe, and
everything. It is *not* intended to replace net.flame. Ideally,
articles in this group should encourage people to think about the
subject, and flames generate more heat than light. This implies
that a reasonable amount of thought should go into articles writ-
ten for this group. The name "net.philosophy" is not designed to
scare people off; only to encourage them to organise their
thoughts before posting. From Emily Post for Usenet: "Be sure
you have something new to say. Frequently a discussion starts
with one or two carefully prepared "position papers" and then de-
generates into repetitive claims. Before reacting to an item
read all the followups that have reached your machine."
Religious topics should be discussed in net.religion rather than
net.philosophy, but can be moved here if net.religion is deleted.
The discussion on the morality of abortion should be moved here
if there is anything left to be said on that topic. Discussion
of whether abortion should be legal really belongs in
net.politics, but it is probably better to discuss this in
net.philosophy than to split the abortion discussion between two
newgroups.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!wivax!linus!genradbo!mitccc!rgvdh (Robert van der Heide)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: fear of death
Article-I.D.: mitccc.381
Posted: Tue Feb 22 17:54:12 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 18:09:36 1983
It is perfectly reasonable for someone who 1) enjoys life and
2) does not believe in an afterlife to wish to delay death as long as
possible. I don't understand why people who claim to believe in an
afterlife are.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!duke!mcnc!jcw
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Title: Re: Answer to question about what's wrong with socialism
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1549
Posted: Sat Feb 19 09:15:45 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:17:40 1983
References: brunix.1591
He must be serious. He obviously understands the definition and
implications of socialism.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!harpo!decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!tim (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: The Observability of "Psychic Phenomena"
Article-I.D.: unc.4699
Posted: Wed Feb 23 01:34:36 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:39:34 1983
There is a fairly discredited school of research known as
parapsychology. It is discredited because its main pro-
ponent and researcher admitted falsifying most of his data.
Every week, the National Enquirer and its ilk publish
vast numbers of alleged "prophecies" and "clairvoyant dis-
coveries" that are obvious nonsense to any even slightly
intelligent reader. Every month, books like "The
Bermuda Triangle", "Chariots of the Gods", etc., are
published, and every day most newspapers print an
either vague or blatantly false "horoscope". Uri Geller
is still making money with his stage magic show; so
are faith healers, card readers, and the like.
The obvious charlatanry of virtually all purveyors of
"psychic phenomena", "the occult", and such is taken as
evidence for the nonexistence of such phenomena. In fact,
this is only evidence for a skeptical attitude. It can
in no rational way be considered evidence for the
nonexistence of a class of phenomena.
Consider these things in the abstract. If psychic
phenomena (for want of a better name) did exist, what
laws would govern their behavior? It is neccessary to
formulate a hypothesis of this sort before experimentation
in any field.
One law usually laid down is scientific provability.
This means that the phenomena can be observed in a controlled
fashion. In order to impose controls on an experiment,
one must know what factors in the environment of the
experiment will cause changes in the subject (whether
the subject is a person or a cluster of subatomic
particles), and one must be able to control these factors.
(I'm sorry, because this is already well known to virtually
all of you, but I want to make sure we agree on definitions.)
What would be the relevant factors affecting observations
of psychic phenomena? The answer is simple: no one knows.
This is a whole new ball park. The weather could possibly
be vital: it certainly alters people's moods,
which might or might not be related to observability
of psychic phenomena. There might be some obscure but critical
factor in the chemical composition of the central nervous system.
Also, if psychic phenomena exist they imply a whole new
medium of information transfer. We have no way of knowing
how to control the environment imposed by this medium.
This is most emphatically not a defense of psychic research
in its current form. It is overly mechanistic and not at all
psychological, in an attempt to not seem like witchcraft.
It's hard to see how such an approach could ever hope to
isolate the variables involved.
I am also not saying that scientific psi research is currently
possible. If your sole criterion for worthiness of a topic
is that it is scientifically testable using current methods,
then you should certainly discard this topic, as well as
most topics of every day life, and particularly any belief
in the existence of emotion.
I should also add that I myself am not convinced that such
phenomena exist, nor that they do not.
Tim Maroney
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!duke!mcnc!ncsu!jcz
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: Re: Immortality and fear.
Article-I.D.: ncsu.1104
Posted: Sun Feb 20 14:45:07 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:46:15 1983
References: sdccsu3.312
It is not only hard to conceptualize ones non-existance, I would say
it's impossible! That is to actaully concieve of the world from
a first-person point of view without the first-person being there.
Sort of rings like the Epidemes Paradox.
--jcz
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!harpo!decvax!genradbo!lloyd (Rick Lloyd)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Title: Re: What IS wrong with socialism
Article-I.D.: genradbo.1548
Posted: Fri Feb 25 16:41:42 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:18:12 1983
References: mitccc.349
I have a basic problem with this "discussion" of socialism;
it appears to consist primarily of opinions formed from stories
about the ism, rather than actual experience. In this sense
the articles provide as much new information as Reader's Digest.
so flamed
I talk quite often with a woman from China (yes, she is in this
country for advanced education; no, I do not accept the current
superiority of some of this countries institutions as any statement
about all of same).
I also have friends from Iran, Israel, Greece, Italy, etc...., and
based on their experiences can honestly say that the system of
government used is less important to the commoner (as I count myself)
than the purpose to which that government is directed.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: Re: The Observability of "Psychic Phenomena"
Article-I.D.: dciem.199
Posted: Sat Feb 26 22:55:50 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 01:53:41 1983
References: unc.4699
Scientific method is often misunderstood to mean that the phenomenon
is reproducible. Unfortunately, the entire circumstances of a
single event can never be reproduced, so we have to make do with less
than complete reproducability. If we understand a phenomenon well enough,
we can set up circumstances in which key components of the phenomenon
will PROBABLY occur, but there are always an infinity (I mean that)
of variables that could interfere, and about which we did not know.
Usually, the study of a field begins with an observation, and the
discoverer may not know what happened and how to reproduce it.
Today, we can make X-rays to order, but Dr Roentgen took a while to
discover what had magically exposed his film in a dark drawer. It was
not reproducible until he found out what had been causing the effect.
There are lots of phenomena that we suspect we should be able to
predict or control (how about sunspot cycles on climate over a 200-year
time scale?), but for which we don't know all the circumstantial
variables. It may be that ESP is one such area. It isn't "unscientific"
just because it is at present not reproducible. There may indeed be
psychological or situational variables that affect it. One of those
could be the testing situation itself. Who knows? It is a little
arrogant to think that 20th century science has all the methods and/or
knowledge. 19th century physicists thought there was no need to train
more physicists because it was all known except for details. Since then,
we have discovered 2 new fundamental forces of nature.
Science is exciting! And it is probably never going to be finished.
Martin Taylor
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!presby!burdvax!floyd (Floyd Miller)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: time
Article-I.D.: burdvax.602
Posted: Sun Feb 27 19:24:52 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 02:13:47 1983
"Unless hours were cups of sack, and minutes capons, and
clocks the tongues of bawds, and dials the signs of leaping
houses, and the blessed sun himself a fair, hot wench in
flame-colored taffeta, I see no reason why thou shouldst be
so superfluous to demand the time of the day."
"I wasted time and now doth time waste me."
- William Shakespeare
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!hutch
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Title: Souls part three
Article-I.D.: dadla-b.359
Posted: Fri Feb 25 13:43:17 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 02:34:05 1983
Thanks to all of you out there who let me know that I do exist.
Or at least that I think I sometimes like to imagine that I am reading
mail that might have been sent by something that could be another
person, out in the far reaches of networkland, and it is sometimes
interesting to imagine that this means I exist . . .
Anyway:
This is the middle of an ongoing essay. If you missed the first two
parts, send me a note and I will try to mail you a copy.
Physical senses might provide some analogy to the "senses of self"
that I want to identify. Physical senses are mediated by the nervous
system, in humans and the more complex animals. Since I cannot make
meaningful dialogue with a plant, I cannot ask it what physical senses it
might have. They don't seem to be mediated by nerves, but instead by
local growth-hormone and mechanically triggered systems, anyway.
There is no direct equivalent to a nervous system for the postulated
awareness of a human. Some people will say that there are energy nodes,
also called chakras, but that all falls under the heading of mysticism
and can not be proven from the philosophical argument I am trying to develop.
In order to identify this awareness, and to determine if it is mediated
physically, or if it is abstracted from the physical, we need to decide
what it includes at the very least.
I had attempted to show that some awareness is required to explain
certain aspects of the activities of living things. What this basically
means to me is that there is some decision system which is at least
psuedorandom at the most basic level and which determines the actions
that an organism takes. Some are mechanical, but some which seem to have
no direct origin in the environment of the organism, I have defined as
the probable result of an awareness of motivation. (This is one
of the weak points of this essay. Please feel free to disillusion me, if
you are able to point out any major flaws in the formation of this idea.)
Since we have isolated the awareness of motivation, we can classify the
motivations. These are usually rather simple in the less complex creatures.
They seem to become more complex in more complex creatures. The awareness
of beauty is clearly more complex than the drive to survival, although it may
incorporate some of the simpler motivations.
Hmm. I may have come upon something here. Awarenesses are used to determine
whether or not a motivation is being satisfied. I know this is sounding
rather too Freudian, but please bear with me while I look for terminology.
It looks like awarenesses and motivations are tied rather closely to the
physical processes of the organism. The process of determining which of the
motivations to satisfy, when that number is limited, is based on the value
that satisfying the motivation has to the organism. The choices seem to be
based on a function which weighs these values and applies the pseudorandom
principle to force decisions. When we get a creature as complex as a human
then many motivations and awarenesses, while they depend on the physical
senses, are still rather far removed from the primary motivations that
engender them.
So far there is nothing that REQUIRES the presence of a soul or spirit.
Neither is there anything which prevents such a presence. It would tend
to facilitate certain parts of the decision process.
However, if you want to identify the system of processes which is used
to make the decision as being the spirit. . .
I will make an analogy here which you can shoot full of holes if you
want to.
There are several operating systems out there. (OH NO NOT THAT ANALOGY)
These systems give life to the computers they run on. We cannot and
know better than to say that it is any part of the hardware of the
machine. However, it is there. The behaviour of the machine changes
very remarkably if we change its operating system. I assert that there
are strong similarities between the spirit of a living thing and the
operating system of a machine.
These ideas lead to some very disturbing conclusions, and I am going to
stop writing so I can consider some of them.
I now return to my gopher hole, now awaiting the descent of many great
mallets from the sky that will squash all this pretentious discussion.
Steve Hutchison
... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!genradbo!mitccc!rgvdh (Robert van der Heide)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics
Title: What's wrong with socialism/and libertarianism
Article-I.D.: mitccc.387
Posted: Wed Feb 23 16:51:37 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 21:25:22 1983
Yes, some versions of socialist theory (and practice) are interested
in what the individual owes society, but not at all in the rights
of the individual. On the other hand, quite a few (though certainly
not all) of the people who call themselves libertarians (notably the
people who publish Ergo at M.I.T.) spend all their time worrying about
the rights of the individual and deny that the individual has any
responsibility to society as a whole. While I have no philosophical
basis for this assertion, just a gut feeling, I believe that people have
a responsibility to put as much useful work into society as was put
into their education and raising. On the other hand, it is not at all
obvious that the government should get to define "useful" (all too
frequently in a manner convenient to private interests). And I am
not convinced that human nature is such that fear of punishment
or unemployment is required to make people do this work (though it
would take a culture rather different from ours).
I consider both "socialism", defined as a demand that people
contribute to society, and that those incapable of taking care of
themselves be provided for, and "libertarianism", defined as the
demand that people be allowed to do what they want to do, to be
principles that are both useful to keep in mind when thinking
about specific issues, but which are bound to lead to disaster if
followed to extremes. Absolutes don't work well in the real world.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ittvax!neiman (Dan Neiman )
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.physics
Title: Re: Camus never believed in Robots.
Article-I.D.: ittvax.625
Posted: Mon Feb 14 15:21:43 1983
Received: Mon Feb 14 23:48:56 1983
References: eisx.497
Let me ramble for a moment---
Global statements like "It is impossible to define conciousness"
bother me. "It is currently impossible to describe a conciousness exactly"
would be more accurate.
"It is impossible to define conciousness because it is non-linguistic and
non-mathematical." So...do what any other scientists do when they are
dealing with a concept too hairy to be defined explictly; create a model
with enough simplifying assumptions so that it can be represented.
A concious machine need not be aware in all the ways that a human being
is aware in order to be concious. I would define conciousness ( were I not
afraid to boldly go, etc) as the ability to examine one's own motivations
and internal states. I am hungry, I am depressed, I am performing this
action to obtain this result.
Current computer systems do not have this capability; their
instruction set/program is not available for examination and/or modification.
A rule-based or script-driven AI program can examine its state and is
therefore "more" concious then its predecessors.
A Gedanken experiment:
Suppose it were possible to take a human mind and copy it atom for atom
so that you have two identical pieces of wetware.
Would you have created another conciousness? Probably not, what you
would have is one mind, and one fairly useless pile of organic matter.
The difference would be analogous to the difference between a running
VAX and a VAX taken down for maintenaince (their normal state).
Suppose you were to repeat the experiment a little more carefully storing
potentials also so that the state of the created object is *exactly*
the same as that of the original. Is this concious? Is it an artficial
intelligence?
a. Don't say that this is impossible. Brains are being created all the
time. I suspect that a (fearfully advanced) fabrication device
could do the job as well as any genetic mechanism.
b. A better argument might be that the construction was done without any
real understanding. Well, yes, but once we've proved that conciousness
can be achieved by a duplication of state, then the device which
records that state is immaterial.
One more random thought...
Evolution took three billion years of fumbling in the dark to make something
intelligent enough to be cocky about it. Computers have been around for
about thirty years of directed evolution and have already gotten to a point
where the hairless apes are getting nervous. My guess is that anyone who
turns off a model-year 2083 IBM/DEC/XXX will probably get thirty years to life.
dann
(who, like cognitive scientists,
ought to know better)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!harpo!floyd!rjs (Robert Snyder)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: Millikan oil drops
Article-I.D.: floyd.1212
Posted: Thu Feb 24 15:18:04 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:18:35 1983
I just overheard a very brief conversation in which it was claimed
that Millikan found a few oil drops which contained integer multiples of
1/3 the currently accepted charge on an electron, but which did not contain
an integer multiple of the electron charge. It was also claimed that
he suppressed these findings as experimental errors of some sort.
Has anyone else heard of this? Has anyone heard of recent discoveries
of free particles with 1/3 the electron charge? Would/Do these findings
have any significant effect on particle theories or are they already
predicted?
Robert Snyder
floyd!rjs
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!yale-com!leichter (Jerry Leichter)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: Re: Millikan oil drops
Article-I.D.: yale-com.965
Posted: Fri Feb 25 00:39:05 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 21:24:50 1983
References: floyd.1212
Millikan found some oil drops that didn't give reasonable values, so he
threw them out. He was pretty careful about justifying which ones he threw
out, I think. What you may have heard being discussed was more recent attempts
to look for 1/3-charge particles, using a much more sensitive version of the
Millikan experiment. (Instead of oil drops, the exprimenters use tiny niobium
spheres, cooled to super-conductivity and floated in a magnetic field. They
have much tighter control over what's going on and can use a single ball for
hours (days?) on end, adding and removing charge, or letting cosmic rays do
their stuff.) I seem to recall that someone looked back at Millikan's original
data and found some cases that were consistent with a 1/3 charge; however, it's
only if you are looking for this pattern that you'd notice these against the
other "noisy" data.
The current trend in particle physics is to believe that quarks really are
bound permanently inside leptons and baryons. There is now some good reason
to believe the theories that exist require this. If anyone actually found a
particle of charge 1/3, either quark theory would need rethinking, or it would
be of a whole new class, or both.
-- Jerry
decvax!yale-comix!leichter
PS - just to make it clear: What I said about Millikan's 1/3 charge (and other
"inconsistent" results) is based on vague memory; if anyone can find a
reference & prove me wrong, I won't be too shocked.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!mcvax!vub!edgard (edgard)
Newsgroups: net.math,net.physics
Title: Request solutn.Poisson problem-Neumann bound.cond.-cil.coord.
Article-I.D.: vub.109
Posted: Mon Feb 21 10:51:11 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:28:34 1983
We are in search for the solution of the following problem:
What is the potential distribution on the surface of a homogeneous
and isotropic conducting cylinder containing one point current
source and one point current sink (both of the same time in-
variant magnitude)?
The cylinder is surrounded by an insulating medium.
We have formulated this problem in cylindrical coordinates (r,fi,z).
In its simplest form (sink at the origin/source on the symmetry axis
/infinite cylinder), the mathematical expression becomes:
-Basic differential equation:
LAPLACIAN(p)=constant*(delta(x'-1'z*a)-delta(x')) (Poisson problem)
(x' and 1'z are vector quantities; 1'z=unit vector in z-direction;
delta is a Dirac function)
delta(x') can be written as (delta(r)*delta(z))/(pi*r) and
delta(x'-1'z*a) = (delta(r)*delta(z-a))/(pi*r).
(no delta(fi)-factor because of axial symmetry)
-Boundary conditions:
p=0 at infinity and dp |
-- | = 0 (Neumann type boundary condition)
dr |
|r=R
d
(R=radius of cylinder; -- = partial derivative )
dr
All attempts to compute a plausible solution for our problem failed.
(Our method was based on "Classical Electrodynamics" of J.D.Jackson
-the most complete work we know for do-it-yourself potential problem
solving.
We think that the weak point in our strategy was the decomposition
of delta(r)/r into a Fourier-Bessel series since this function is
very badly behaved for r=0)
In the literature one can almost only find solutions to problems
in spherical coordinates or with Dirichlet boundary conditions
(p=p(r,fi,z) implied at the boundaries).
Did someone resolve a similar problem yet?
Does anyone know any literature, describing the solution of this
problem or describing a solution strategy for this class of problems?
Please mail solutions and/or references to:
..!philabs!mcvax!vub!edgard or:
Edgard NYSSEN
Brussels Free University (VUB)
Fac. of Medicine - unit HART
Laarbeeklaan 103
1090 Brussel
BELGIUM
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: report of dice experiment
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.345
Posted: Sat Feb 26 14:32:50 1983
Received: Sun Feb 27 19:01:16 1983
Reply-To: lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
The following was inspired by Jan Wolter's request for information
about irregularly shaped dice.
I carried out some probability experiments using loaded dice. These were
standard dice, modified by drilling and loading. I have labelled the
three dice involved as "light", "heavy" and "hole". The light die was
a die with the "one" side drilled out. The heavy die was the same die
with the hole filled in with lead shot and epoxy. The results of the
trials using these dice suggested to me that the inertia tensor was
important to the probability distribution, so I tried drilling a hole
straight through another die. The idea was that the CM should still be
in the center but the inertia tensor would break the cubic symmetry.
The results with this die corroborate my hypothsesis based on the first
two, namely that a prolate inertia tensor will "prefer" to orient
vertically, and an oblate inertia tensor will "prefer" to orient
horizontally.
I fitted the data for each die to what I call the static model.
This model predicts the probability of falling on each face to be
proportional to the area of the face projected onto the unit sphere
with the CM at the center. This gives a 3-parameter fit to data
with five degrees of freedom, leaving two degrees of freedom for the
chi-squared fit. I will not go into the justification for using
the chi-squared fit in this experiment, but I am prepared to defend it.
The three parameters are the CM coordinates. The geometric center
of each die is (.5,.5,.5)
John Aspinall suggested this "static model". I proposed a "kinematic
model" which is based on the same unit sphere. The results from the
"light" die suggested to me that my kinematic model might give a better
fit, but the results from the "heavy" die deviated in the opposite
direction from what I qualitatively expect from the kinematic model.
I expect the kinematic model to favor the heavy side at the expense
of the four "neutral" sides. As a result, I didn't evaluate the
kinematic model but developed my inertia tensor idea. The third,or
"hole" die does support this idea, but still with an 8.2% probability
of rejecting the null hypothesis (correctness of the static model.)
I could go on at great length about various aspects of the theory and
experiment but I will just present the data without further ado,
except to point out that the "1" and "6" faces are fitted low in the
case of the light and hole dice (prolate inertia tensor), and fitted
high in the case of the heavy die (oblate inertia tensor.)
light heavy hole
CM .369 .508 .520 .691 .463 .468 .493 .490 .501
chi2 17.88 5.27 4.97
Prej0 .0001 .071 .082
trials 10094 2945 5707
face fit obs fit obs fit obs
1 2261.0 2330 327.8 294 965.8 1005
6 1271.5 1381 756.0 740 936.5 976
2 1610.4 1590 503.1 512 972.4 950
5 1667.9 1647 428.2 438 930.4 905
3 1569.6 1496 497.3 512 948.9 933
4 1713.6 1650 432.6 449 953.1 938
NOT INSANE! Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!atd!avsdS:nelson
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: Millikan, quarks
Article-I.D.: avsdS.382
Posted: Sun Feb 27 11:57:25 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 20:35:51 1983
Regarding Jerry's (yale-comix!leihter) note on Millikan and the 1/3
charge of quarks, a minor correction: quarks are the building blocks
of baryons, but not of leptons. Leptons (electrons, neutrinos) are
basic particles themselves.
Glenn Nelson, Ampex, Redwood City
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!cbosgd!npois!npoiv!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!Marshall.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: Summer Science/Computer camp for kids
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.504
Posted: Fri Feb 25 14:45:00 1983
Received: Wed Mar 2 01:01:40 1983
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 alpha 2/22/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
Message-ID: <504@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Friday, 25-Feb-83 14:45:00 EST
Date-Received: Sunday, 27-Feb-83 21:34:32 EST
Does anyone know of a good computer/science camp
suitable for sending a scientifically inclined 10-year-old
boy for the summer? I live in Rochester, N.Y. so am
naturally interested in camps near or in New York
state. I will collect any replies and distribute them
to anyone interested.
Reply to Marshall.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Sidney Marshall
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!duke!mcnc!dfh
Newsgroups: net.physics
Title: cable TV signal leakage
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1566
Posted: Wed Mar 2 13:20:29 1983
Received: Wed Mar 2 20:02:27 1983
This is an applied physics question, so no flames please.
My appartment complex recently rewired their cable TV, so that each
appartment has a seperate line, instead of a tap on a common line.
Naturally, the complex has stopped providing the previously 'free'
service. I have not subscribed to cable. My question is this: I
have noticed substantial leakage from the surrounding cable, such that
I can see 1 or 2 'cable' channels faintly via my TV antenna. Is there
any way to boost this leakage signal so that I can 'receive' cable
channels off of my neighbors' leakage?
David Hinnant
N.C. Educational Computing Service
(919) 549-0671
ucbvax!decvax!duke!mcnc!tucc!ecs!dfh
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!kcwin!we53!we13!lime!houti!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixlpc!mhauck
Newsgroups: net.poems
Title: Now
Article-I.D.: ixlpc.248
Posted: Fri Feb 25 10:51:57 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:01:27 1983
Reply-To: mhauck@ixlpc.UUCP (M.J.Hauck)
Now
The day is new and I live
I see a friend far away
And yet I still know this friend
We have touched in a different time
As friends, not lovers.
We opened each others hearts
Freed the spirit to grow
And what was said was said
For each to know the other cared
But not lovers.
Why not walk with a friend?
I see him ahead what looks far
Yet he is next to me also
I remember the days long ago
We were never lovers.
Do I regret this? No.
We were to truthfull
Knew to much of each other
And this was what we wanted
Not to be lovers.
2/25/83
To Tom, a friend who made my wedding fun.
Mary Hauck
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!kcwin!we53!we13!lime!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!duke!phs!martha
Newsgroups: net.poems
Title: Darius Green
Article-I.D.: phs.1200
Posted: Fri Feb 25 17:07:31 1983
Received: Sun Feb 27 19:05:57 1983
Am trying to find a copy of "Darius Green and His Flying Machine"
my greatgrandmother used to recite it so I expect it's in
some out of print collection of American poems.
The first line (I think) is:
"A ?? young man was D. Green"
I'm trying to come up with a title for an Art Exhibit and think
there may be something I can use from it. I'll send an invitation
to anyone who can help (the show will be in DC).
Thanks,
Martha
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!nmtvax!224cool
Newsgroups: net.poems
Title: On Death being a state of mind.
Article-I.D.: nmtvax.213
Posted: Mon Feb 28 11:50:05 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 04:12:00 1983
Found on a notepad by the bedside of a recently passed-away
member of the human race(ha). Along with such scrawling as :
'I'm Dead therefore I am', and 'Death after life - the only alternative'.
Death after Life
A silver strand of wire is spun,
the demons vengefull ire is sprung.
Darkness running the grounds of time,
shatter the crypt and bonds half-blind.
Unearthed the tomb of mind arise, and
gaze beyond without your eyes. From
ashes a-rose the freedom found, red
blood rushing above the ground.
Divide the path of Cosmic whim and
follow a cloud - to live again.
The mirth - from gray to white to
blue, spinning a tapestry full of hue.
Defy the earth and stand up-right,
boulders shudder and fall from sight.
A brilliant beam of blue-white light,
zigzags upward towards out of sight.
Climb aboard and walk away, explode a
sun - a brand new day. Create a world,
summon a man, defy entropy and form a
plan. Turn loose the wire from out of
hand, forget the ire of death so grand.
Exhale the fire and walk the land, the
flow of blood - to live again.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!hou5b!hou5c!hou5e!hou5a!hou5d!houxz!ihnp4!ih1ap!pat (Patrick A. Fargo)
Newsgroups: net.poems
Title: LOSS
Article-I.D.: ih1ap.129
Posted: Tue Mar 1 12:34:04 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 22:04:11 1983
Reply-To: pat@ih1ap.UUCP (Patrick A. Fargo)
LOSS
The eyes of the old man were watery
As he stared, motionlessly ahead
Staring and yet not seeing
Inward looking toward the mind instead.
The room was drab and cold
An empty shell was all remained
Except for the visions of the old man
Everything would stay the same
The old man's memories lingered
As visions of days past were recalled
The joys and sorrows of a lifetime
In intimate detail he saw.
Slowly his eyes were lowered
And a gasp for one last breath
The old man's life had ended
And his memories were lost to death.
P. Fargo BTL IH
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!hou5b!hou5c!hou5e!hou5a!hou5d!houxz!ihnp4!ixlpc!mhauck (M.J.Hauck)
Newsgroups: net.poems
Title: Fantasy Flight
Article-I.D.: ixlpc.250
Posted: Tue Mar 1 12:47:24 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 22:05:09 1983
Reply-To: mhauck@ixlpc.UUCP (M.J.Hauck)
Fantasy Flight
A day passed in peace
The dove and eagle fly high
Mountain ranges loom ahead.
I am the dove.
Merlin, my friend, thank you
The coulds call to me
sweeping me higher into the blue sky.
Free! Free to go farther then my earth bound body has gone
High above the ground the world is a patchwork of color
I glide effortlessly above the jagged mountains
Never needing to stop, nor wanting to stop.
My friend the eagle flys beside me
We two, how we make such a strange pair.
Are happy with what we do and are.
What Merlin? Home? As you say
Sadly we spiral to the earth
To land and return to being humans
And yet the memory will always remain.
Of our flight high above this crowed world.
Merlin, my friend, when will you return?
Soon? Good my man and I await out next trip.
2/28/83 2:45pm
Have you ever read 'The Once and Future King' by T.H.White. Oh, how
I would have loved to have changed places with Arthur.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!u1100s!rick (Rick B. Thomas)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.poems
Title: Pittsburgh Rhyme
Article-I.D.: u1100s.161
Posted: Fri Dec 17 15:05:58 1982
Received: Fri Dec 17 22:29:44 1982
The following rhyme is alleged to only rhyme in Pittsburgh (that is,
when read with a Pittsburgh accent, whatever that may be.)
Tomorrow I'll
Collect my towel
And dry my owl
Beside the Nile
And then my cow
If I know how.
From "Say it My Way" by Willard Espy
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!u1100s!rick (Rick B. Thomas)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.poems
Title: Re: Pittsburgh Rhyme
Article-I.D.: u1100s.162
Posted: Fri Dec 17 15:21:26 1982
Received: Fri Dec 17 23:39:10 1982
References: u1100s.161
I should have said that, in Pittsburgh, every line of that poem
rhymes with every other line.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!otuxa!we13!lime!orion!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hplabsb!soreff
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.cse
Title: degrees to be part of divorce settlements?
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1361
Posted: Sun Feb 13 18:49:30 1983
Received: Wed Feb 16 01:17:54 1983
The following is a selection of excerpts from "A Drive to Make
Graduate Degree part of Divorce Settlement" by William Johnson, from
the Peninsula Times Tribune 2/12/83. These excerpts are followed by
my personal opinion and some quotes on the economic effects of
education.
"A bill making the future earning capacity of a husband
and wife community property, based on the value of education
acquired during the marriage was introduced Tuesday by Assemblyman
Alister McAlister, D-Fremont.
The bill would allow one divorcing spouse to claim
compensation from the other if the latter had acquired 'enhanced
earning capacity' with graduate degrees during the marriage.
McAlister is concerned about what more often happens to
women who divorce after putting their husbands through medical or
law school. The assemblyman wants the so-called enhanced earning
capacity to be considered as a tangible marital asset with a
determinable value, like a house that is bought during a marriage.
McAllister thinks that spouses, typically women, are entitled to
the future payoffs of their spouses' education."
"...But lawyers specializing in family law are divided
about whether giving monetary value to the future benefits of
education acquired during a marriage would make divorce
settlements more equitable. Some family lawyers say it would
result in an administrative nightmare.
Carol Bruch, professor of law at the Universities of
California at Davis and at Berkeley, has served as a consultant to
McAlister during the development of his bill, AB 525."
"...'When a couple decides to invest in human capital,
education, instead of putting money into stocks, they are
investing in a potential future that will bring back an
enhanced income. The problem comes when you have an
investment in a marriage that does not last,' Bruch said."
"...Former chairman of the State Bar Association
section on family law, Spencer Brandeis, said Thursday that
giving community property status to potential earning capacity
is a 'hot potato.'"
"...The issues[sic] raises many ponderous questions,
Brandeis said.
'What happens to the educated spouse who gets his MD
degree at a state school rather than an expensive private school?
Is his enhanced earning capacity different?
What happens to a doctor who gets his degree but is unable
to use it or chooses not to? What is his wife entitled to?'"
There are some serious questions as to whether education should be
considered to be form of capital investment, directly supplying work
skills, or whether it should be considered a form of certification of
suitability for training, making the educated spouse appear more suitable
to a potential employer. In Public Interest (Spring 1972), Lester C.
Thurow wrote an article entitled "Education and Economic Equality" from
which the following quotes are drawn:
"... a large body of evidence indicates that the American
labor market is characterized less by wage competition than by JOB
COMPETITION. That is to say, instead of people looking for jobs,
there are jobs looking for people-for 'suitable' people. In a
labor market based on job competition, the function of education
is not to confer skill and therefore increased productivity and
higher wages on the worker; it is rather to certify his
'trainability' and to confer upon him a certain status by virtue
of his cetification. Jobs and higher incomes are then distributed
on the basis of this certified status."
"...Government education and training policies have not
had the predicted impact because they have ignored the 'job
competition' elements in the labor market. In a labor market
based on job competition, an individual's income is determined by
(a) his relative position in the labor queue and (b) the
distribution of job opportunities in the economy. Wages are based
on the characteristics of the job, and workers are distributed
across job opportunities on the basis of their relative position
in the labor queue. The most preferred workers get the best
(highest-income) jobs. According to this model, labor skills do
not exist in the labor market; on the contrary, most actual job
skills are acquired informally AFTER a worker finds an entry job
and a position on the associated promotional ladder.
As a matter of fact, such a training process is clearly
observable in the American economy. A survey of how American
workers acquired their actual job skills found that only 40 per
cent were using skills they had acquired in formal training
programs or in specialized education-and, of these, most reported
that some of the skills that they were currently using had been
acquired through informal on-the-job training. The remaining 60
per cent acquired all of their job skills through such informal
on-the-job training. More than two thirds of the college
graduates reported that they had acquired job skills through such
informal processes. When asked to list the form of training that
had been most helpful, only 12 per cent listed formal training and
specialized education."
This implies that, if anything should be considered indicative
of investment in human capital, it should be the increase in income of
a spouse occurring while the spouse is working, NOT the increase
resulting from education. One can regard a degree as a safe conduct
past the barriers to entry into a field. This may be due to personnel
policies in industry or due to legislative fiat (licensing and other
restrictions). Thus it appears that education (although costly)
should not be considered an investment and should not be treated as
community property. Does anyone out there have comments on this?
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!otuxa!we13!lime!orion!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hplabsb!soreff
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.cse
Title: degrees to be part of divorce settlements?
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1361
Posted: Sun Feb 13 18:49:30 1983
Received: Wed Feb 16 01:19:07 1983
The following is a selection of excerpts from "A Drive to Make
Graduate Degree part of Divorce Settlement" by William Johnson, from
the Peninsula Times Tribune 2/12/83. These excerpts are followed by
my personal opinion and some quotes on the economic effects of
education.
"A bill making the future earning capacity of a husband
and wife community property, based on the value of education
acquired during the marriage was introduced Tuesday by Assemblyman
Alister McAlister, D-Fremont.
The bill would allow one divorcing spouse to claim
compensation from the other if the latter had acquired 'enhanced
earning capacity' with graduate degrees during the marriage.
McAlister is concerned about what more often happens to
women who divorce after putting their husbands through medical or
law school. The assemblyman wants the so-called enhanced earning
capacity to be considered as a tangible marital asset with a
determinable value, like a house that is bought during a marriage.
McAllister thinks that spouses, typically women, are entitled to
the future payoffs of their spouses' education."
"...But lawyers specializing in family law are divided
about whether giving monetary value to the future benefits of
education acquired during a marriage would make divorce
settlements more equitable. Some family lawyers say it would
result in an administrative nightmare.
Carol Bruch, professor of law at the Universities of
California at Davis and at Berkeley, has served as a consultant to
McAlister during the development of his bill, AB 525."
"...'When a couple decides to invest in human capital,
education, instead of putting money into stocks, they are
investing in a potential future that will bring back an
enhanced income. The problem comes when you have an
investment in a marriage that does not last,' Bruch said."
"...Former chairman of the State Bar Association
section on family law, Spencer Brandeis, said Thursday that
giving community property status to potential earning capacity
is a 'hot potato.'"
"...The issues[sic] raises many ponderous questions,
Brandeis said.
'What happens to the educated spouse who gets his MD
degree at a state school rather than an expensive private school?
Is his enhanced earning capacity different?
What happens to a doctor who gets his degree but is unable
to use it or chooses not to? What is his wife entitled to?'"
There are some serious questions as to whether education should be
considered to be form of capital investment, directly supplying work
skills, or whether it should be considered a form of certification of
suitability for training, making the educated spouse appear more suitable
to a potential employer. In Public Interest (Spring 1972), Lester C.
Thurow wrote an article entitled "Education and Economic Equality" from
which the following quotes are drawn:
"... a large body of evidence indicates that the American
labor market is characterized less by wage competition than by JOB
COMPETITION. That is to say, instead of people looking for jobs,
there are jobs looking for people-for 'suitable' people. In a
labor market based on job competition, the function of education
is not to confer skill and therefore increased productivity and
higher wages on the worker; it is rather to certify his
'trainability' and to confer upon him a certain status by virtue
of his cetification. Jobs and higher incomes are then distributed
on the basis of this certified status."
"...Government education and training policies have not
had the predicted impact because they have ignored the 'job
competition' elements in the labor market. In a labor market
based on job competition, an individual's income is determined by
(a) his relative position in the labor queue and (b) the
distribution of job opportunities in the economy. Wages are based
on the characteristics of the job, and workers are distributed
across job opportunities on the basis of their relative position
in the labor queue. The most preferred workers get the best
(highest-income) jobs. According to this model, labor skills do
not exist in the labor market; on the contrary, most actual job
skills are acquired informally AFTER a worker finds an entry job
and a position on the associated promotional ladder.
As a matter of fact, such a training process is clearly
observable in the American economy. A survey of how American
workers acquired their actual job skills found that only 40 per
cent were using skills they had acquired in formal training
programs or in specialized education-and, of these, most reported
that some of the skills that they were currently using had been
acquired through informal on-the-job training. The remaining 60
per cent acquired all of their job skills through such informal
on-the-job training. More than two thirds of the college
graduates reported that they had acquired job skills through such
informal processes. When asked to list the form of training that
had been most helpful, only 12 per cent listed formal training and
specialized education."
This implies that, if anything should be considered indicative
of investment in human capital, it should be the increase in income of
a spouse occurring while the spouse is working, NOT the increase
resulting from education. One can regard a degree as a safe conduct
past the barriers to entry into a field. This may be due to personnel
policies in industry or due to legislative fiat (licensing and other
restrictions). Thus it appears that education (although costly)
should not be considered an investment and should not be treated as
community property. Does anyone out there have comments on this?
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!yale-com!brunix!dkw
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.cse
Title: Re: degrees to be part of divorce settlements?
Article-I.D.: brunix.1554
Posted: Tue Feb 15 12:42:18 1983
Received: Wed Feb 16 01:30:58 1983
References: hplabsb.1361
Whether a degree is an investment in human capital, or simply a method of
certification is irrelevant to the argument over its value in a divorce case.
While to an employer the degree may simply be certification, to the employee
it is a capital investment in the sense that it increases his salary. The
fact that it has nothing to do with productivity (if true) is irrelevant to
the employee.
Therefore, whatever its real advantage to society, one should consider
education to be a capital expenditure as far as divorce settlements.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!utah-cs!utah-gr!thomas (Spencer W. Thomas)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.cse
Title: Re: degrees to be part of divorce settlements?
Article-I.D.: utah-gr.704
Posted: Wed Feb 16 09:42:43 1983
Received: Wed Feb 16 20:19:23 1983
References: brunix.1554
For what it's worth dept:
The IRS considers the money you pay for your (college) education to be
an investment in future income, so you can't deduct it as an expense.
=Spencer
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jfw (John Woods)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.cse
Title: Re: degrees to be part of divorce settlements?
Article-I.D.: mitccc.338
Posted: Wed Feb 16 19:51:58 1983
Received: Thu Feb 17 19:36:30 1983
References: hplabsb.1361
My own thoughts on making degrees part of divorce settlements:
Placing a cash value on such an intangible seems to be logically foolish
(which, of course, has *nothing* to do with law). My own degree in CS
(and those of many others on the net) seems to hold the promise of
greatly lucrative payoffs from now until my fingers fall off -- but what
if someone develops the Ideal Programmer's Apprentice that takes a rough
English sketch of what a program should do, translates it into optimal
assembly code and even writes the MAN(1) page for you? A lot of
``highly paid'' programmers are going to be out cleaning disk packs...
Or suppose that I decide one day that I would rather be an avant-garde
painter [or for a concrete example--a music teacher here at MIT who
gave up a CS job for a music teaching job at U of somewhere for .50 as
much money].
Don't ask me what the right solution is, I have long felt that most
people are terminally broken to start with...were they not, there would
be far fewer divorce cases, and no cases where each party is out to do
metaphysical violence in one form or another to the other.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan (A Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: NO STRIKES IN THE WORKER'S PARADISE
Article-I.D.: inuxd.263
Posted: Tue Feb 22 23:41:59 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 16:55:40 1983
Gosh! Those REDS must really have worked out a perfect labor system.
There have been no strikes in the USSR in its existence. Wow!
And 99.99994% vote forthe Party candidate each election.
If you accept these statements on faith, have I got a Democrat fro you...
arlan andrews/indy
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan (A Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: hey
Article-I.D.: inuxd.262
Posted: Tue Feb 22 23:25:51 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 16:58:22 1983
References: mhuxt.1125
Nothing is wrong with socialism if you are a termite !
For human beings to submit themselves to the dictates of a group
of economic planners [an oxymoron, for morons]
is to invite disaster. Socialism destroys incentive and promotes
mediocracy.
These are not theoretical situations: in the living laboratory of the planet
look at the great successes of socialism--repression, torture, and genocide.
Most of the self-proclaimed socialist countries are ruled by hoodlums
who destroy individual freedoms and offer nothing in return.
Most socialists are not free to travel out of their countries; most dare not print
material without government approval,
and such a net as this can never exist in such totalitarian states.
As Pournell pointed out recently in Analog, a poor Czech got 5 years
at hard labor for possessing an unauthorized mimeo machine!
If you cn defend the excesses, the Soviet empire, the destruction of human values,
then by all means be a socialist. You will have millions on your
side. Just don't upset the boys at the top.
For a more 'moderate' against the 'enllightened' socialism you must have
in mind ["moderate arugment", that is: dropped a word], consider
this--no socialist country can feed itself.
Without the capitalist states, the world would starve in vast famines.
Without a more nearly free economy, Silicon Valley, these computers,
and this Net would not have existed. Note that the socialist buy
their computers from the West, not the other way around.
In a socialist system, there can be no Steven Jobs, no Apple,
no TRS-80, no Osbourne, no Sinclairs...
Now, take your pick of what's wrong with socialism.
My question: is there anything RIGHT about that old sick wornout
socialist philosophy?
--arlan andrews/libertarian/indy
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!kcwin!we53!we13!lime!orion!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!harpo!decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: What IS wrong with socialism
Article-I.D.: dciem.189
Posted: Mon Feb 21 21:46:10 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 18:13:26 1983
References: hou5e.234
Mark (The Capitalist) Terrible's idea about what capitalism should
be (worker-shareholders) is actually what SOCIALIST Sweden does.
(And other West European countries with good economic records and frequent
Socialist Governments).
Socialism isn't mind control; it isn't Communism; it doesn't prevent
you being an entrepreneur if you want. At least in Canada, the Socialist
party seems to be the one best in tune with both the economic and
the social needs of the country most of the time. The German
Wirtschaftwunder occurred under both Christian Democrat (Right-wing)
and Social Democrat (Left wing) governments, and both of those parties
would be considered radical socialists by many Republicans. People don't
seem repressed in most of Western Europe; some of them are rich,
but few are starving. Lots of them go to the Riviera or Spain for
holidays (try driving in France in August).
It might be better to look at what Socialism does rather than
flame at theoretical hobgoblins. (I don't think of myself as a Socialist,
because I disagree with lots of what they want, but I don't think
of them as devils either. They are just the best of what we have on
offer. Perhaps I am a Libertarian Socialist at heart.)
Martin Taylor
P.S. Taxes that are too high on the rich can be devastating, as in Sweden,
but that's not a function of Socialism alone. Incidentally, it is in part
because of attitudes like those of Mark Terrible that Europeans get so
thoroughly browned off with the US from time to time.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhb5c!mhb5b!smb
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism
Article-I.D.: mhb5b.136
Posted: Thu Feb 24 01:49:54 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:13:15 1983
References: mhuxt.1125 <262@inuxd.UUCP>
Relay-Version: B 2.9+ 1/11/83 mhb5b.UUCP
Posting-Version: B 2.9+ 1/11/83 mhb5b.UUCP
Message-ID: <136@mhb5b.UUCP>
Date: Thursday, 24-Feb-83 01:49:54 EST
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to Arlan's flame -- it's so far
wrong, it's really not worth rebutting point by point. Instead, let me
give a simple justification for socialism.
Definition: "socialism" is where the *major means of production* are
owned/controlled by the government. I specifically exclude total government
control of all commerce -- which means I'm specifically excluding the USSR,
China, Eastern Europe, etc. I am specifically including most of Western
Europe. Rebuttals based on current Soviet practices will be consigned to the
bit bucket, without further ado.
My reasoning is simple: any time any person or organization has sufficient
economic power to materially affect the economy of the country (or any
significant section thereof), of its own accord -- then that organization
is capable of materially affecting my life, without my having any say
whatsoever.
That is -- if a small business or 3 decides to maximize its own profits,
without regard to anyone else, I'm probably safe -- the free market does
work at that level, at least moderately well. If an Exxon or a General
Motors makes such a decision, I have far less choice -- probably none,
since oligopolistic structures exist in the oil and automobile industries.
This is particularly true if the decision they make has profound indirect
effects -- say, increasing air pollution. Although I'm under no illusions
about the omnipotent benificence of government agencies, they are at least
capable of making decisions on a broader perspective -- such as whether or
not I'll be able to breathe in 50 years. A corporation operates in a
single metric: maximizing profit. (Note that even wrong decisions by a
large company (such as maximizing short-term profit at the expense of
long-term survival) can have profound effects. At the time of the
Chrysler bailout, it was estimated that letting the company go under would
have cost the government far more, in lost tax revenues, increased welfare
and unemployment payments, etc. And of course, there are serious
non-economic effects, such as a possible increase in the crime rate in the
affected areas.)
Laissez-faire capitalism operates under the fundamental assumption that
'n' individuals, each seeking their own good, will in effect act to
maximize the good of the entire society. Neglecting items like economic
coercion (I, and others, argued that one at great length last year in the
Great Libertarian Debate on fa.poli-sci -- and I for one have no desire to
replay it), for that assumption to work we must assume that (a) the system
will reach a steady state, rather than oscillate wildly; (b) regardless of
whether or not it does stabilize eventually, the magnitude of the
intermediate oscillations is not of itself harmful (I have in mind the
boom/bust cycle of the U.S. economy in the 19th century); and (c) that any
steady state reached is not characterized by gross disparities in means,
and thus survival ability. All of these are unproven, and -- in my
opinion -- not supported by the historical data.
One last point: the claim has been made (by Arlan, to whom I am nominally
responding, among others) that in a socialist society, one would be
deprived of the innovations by the likes of Intel, Apple, etc. Wrong! As
I stated quite explicitly at the start of this overly-long note, I'm only
interested in regulating the *large* economic powers. Anyone is free to
compete, even with a state monopoly -- until they reached a certain
critical size.
--Steve Bellovin
{rabbit,mhb5b}!smb
smb.unc@udel-relay
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!duke!mcnc!jcw
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Title: Re: Answer to question about what's wrong with socialism
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1549
Posted: Sat Feb 19 09:15:45 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:17:40 1983
References: brunix.1591
He must be serious. He obviously understands the definition and
implications of socialism.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!tektronix!teklabs!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Portland Light Bulbs
Article-I.D.: cdi.155
Posted: Mon Feb 21 10:14:51 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:23:36 1983
Stolen from CBBSNW (Community Bulletin Board Northwest)
Msg 10154 is 07 line(s) on 02/20/83 from MAUREEN HACKLEY
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb???
only one, but it takes a long time, and the light bulb has to really
want to change.....
Msg 10155 is 08 line(s) on 02/20/83 from MAUREEN HACKLEY
How many Oregonians does it take to change a light bulb???
Six,
one to change the light bulb and five to file an environmental
impact statement....
Msg 10174 is 07 line(s) on 02/21/83 from FRANK WEISSIG
*
*
* How many Portlanders does it take to change a light bulb?
*
*
*
* Only one... but 500 applied for the job anyway...
*
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!ajc (Allan Cooper X-1)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Socialism and the phone company
Article-I.D.: lanl-a.229
Posted: Wed Feb 23 21:55:36 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 20:35:10 1983
References: houti.214
It seems that no good debate pitting Socialism and Capitalism can
ever proceed without reference to the *phone* company! The pro-capitalists
are obligated to say, "without Capitalism we wouldn't have the *greatest*
phone system in the world", and the pro-socialists in turn are obliged to
point out that in (god-forbid) *Cuba* phone calls are free.
Well, fellow netters, is the phone company efficent? *Is* it better than
the phone companies in other countries? And most important of all, is the
American phone company at bottom representative of Capitalism (because it
is "owned" by its investors) *or* is it representative of Socialism (because
it has been a government regulated industry)? Well??
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: The Roots of Socialism are rotted
Article-I.D.: rocheste.776
Posted: Wed Feb 23 16:43:59 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 21:02:03 1983
From: David.Sher
I feel that there seems to be a semantic flaw in the argument as stated
against socialism which you ascribe to Ayn Rand. This is the section I
refer to:
Do humans have a right to possess non-human things?
Yes - because those things help achieve values, and so enhance ones'
life. (Living but non-rational things are an interesting case,
but do not void my answer.)
What does it mean to possess something?
To have the right to make choices about that thing in order to
achieve one's own values. This MUST include the right to not
allow others to make choices with regard to that thing.
Is it possible for more than one person to TOTALLY (ie not in shares)
possess something?
No - for different individuals have different values, which will
lead to different choices for that thing. Since both choices
cannot be taken, the individuals will not both have full choice
with regard to the thing.
<End - Quote>
Note that in the statement that people need to posses things you can
substitute any word for posses (say rape) and make the same statement.
Of course you can say that people do not have the right to do things
that interfere with other peoples ability to acheive values but then
you have to contend with the fact that any action can be found to
interfare somehow with someone's ability to acheive their desires.
Why must people have the right of exclusive access to anything? I can
acheive most of my desires through sharing things (such as my apartment
which I rent or access to this net). It would seem that married
couples would not be able to acheive any of their desires according to
the above argument since they do not have the right to exclude each
other from access to their stuff (of course this is an
oversimplification). Since this is one of the foundations to your
argument I find the whole argument is open to question.
-David sher (oftimes AI project)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!harkins
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: socialism
Article-I.D.: cires.1993
Posted: Wed Feb 23 10:55:03 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 21:47:45 1983
i claim that the problem with socialism, within whichever other *ism context,
has a problem because it wants to change that fundamental part of humanity:
self-interest; if there is no incentive to innovate, or excel, in a situation
where all such "good results" are absorbed by a state pool, then people tend
to become apathetic; from the other side, if one knows that one will be taken
care of regardless of their own industry, diligence,etc., then, again a lack
of interest in "work" and its results will follow; i would then claim that
that becomes a doubly negative vicious circle, and that is, in short, why
socialism tends to be unproductive: no incentive for anybody
ernie harkins
ps: glad to see a new topic
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: what IS wrong with socialism - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.692
Posted: Wed Feb 23 17:43:16 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 21:49:24 1983
#N:ucbesvax:7100002:000:7634
ucbesvax!turner Feb 21 17:05:00 1983
Oh, Ziggy, here you go again:
The best argument for this position [anti-socialist] skips over
the never ending theoretical debates on political systems and
looks at the fact of the matter in the world today: Socialist
countries are the least free, the most oppressive, and the most
imperialistic in the world today.
I can make an argument against socialism that doesn't make reference
to this "fact of the matter," but I'll save it for later. I'd rather
get into this so-called fact. Here, taken from your note, is a hierarchy
of evil as measured in terms of human rights abuses.
worst: certain "unaligned" socialist countries
2nd worst: Comecon countries
best: "capitalist" or mixed-economy OECD - which are
"paradises of civil liberties and economic
opportunities."
Of course, there are a few trifling ommisions from this attempt
at a comprehensive list: South Korea, South Africa, Indonesia, the
Philipines, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Haiti, among others.
Now compare these with those in your "worst" list. Using the
best available figures (and I think Amnesty International does a good
job on all counts, including ther Commmunist countries), we find that,
perhaps Kampuchea and Vietnam compare with some of the worst, but
by and large, the situation in "unaligned" socialist countries (say,
Cuba or Yugoslavia) is not one where people are being randomly murdered
and whole villages being wiped out.
Now look at the economic systems in these countries. By and large,
you might have some state-owned sectors (Oil, for example), but for
the most part, they are "capitalist". So it would seem that there
isn't much relation between basic freedoms and economic systems.
(Obviously, I hold the right to live regardless of one's beliefs to be
more basic than any economic rights. You, Ziggy, may object, saying in
your dogmatic way that when we lose THOSE rights, we automatically lose
the right to life. But look again at that list.)
Well, what IS the most common factor in THIS list of human-rights
violators? Barring some obvious cases (Iran, for example, which is
as bad or worse than before), the common element is that they all
have as a central economic policy the encouragement of investment on
the part of the capitalist "paradise" countries. Another common element
is the presence of U.S. aid to police and armed forces, except where
the disgust of U.S. congress (or its constituencies) has barred this
sort of aid.
How is this aid used? Quite frequently, to prevent people from
exercising an economic right which even you, Ziggy, would have to
grudgingly admit is inalienable: the right of workers to collectively
and freely bargain with their employers over issues of pay and control.
That is, the right to sell one's own labor under the best possible
conditions one can obtain. Yes, even as Alexander Haig wept crocodile
tears over the military crackdown on Solidarity and the detainment of
Lech Walesa, he was renegotiating aid to Turkey and Brazil, where labor
leaders of Walesa's prominence are shot in the streets without
judgement or trial. Note that Lech Walesa is now back on the streets,
without a job, but getting his full electrician's pay. Not to argue
for the Polish generals, but they do seem to know how to handle the
population better than some of the dictators propped up in the U.S.
sphere of influence!
And how does the suppression of this economic right to organize
a workplace serve American interests to the extent of the aid given?
Or does it, ultimately? In the short run, of course, people in the
U.S. and other "capitalist paradises" win out: they can buy commodities
which were "fabricated" in the <blank-out> countries at much lower
prices. Labor that would cost 5$/hour here might cost $5/day over there.
But this discount is gained at the real expense of the life and liberty,
of the people who work in <blank-out> countries. But then Marxist
revolutionary comes around and says: it doesn't have to be this way.
And what do they do? Ziggy, what would YOU do? With your younger
children not eating, your older children in jail, getting paid less
each year in real income?
How else is this clout used? In many of the <blank-out> countries,
we find the left-overs of feudalism of the former colonizers. The
economy is largely agrarian and impoverished, with some very wealthy
people at the top who have inherited their positions. (Or, at least,
were the local mafia until the client state - France, Britain, the U.S. -
decided that the old feudal lords were too soft and installed these
crooks. This is what happened in VietNam. Read "The Politics of Heroin
in South-East Asia.") Large foreign agribusiness concerns come into these
countries and help erect farming systems which squeeze the marginal
peasant populations off their land. The governments are basically their
paid gun-men. The large-scale graft networks of United Fruit in Guatemala
is a prime example of this strategy. Former small land-owners fall prey
to much larger ones backed by troops, and end up as peons with no homes,
no rights, and less than they had before.
But you would summarize socialism to these people as follows:
In other words succesful socialism is the tyranny of the many
over the individual, and most socialism in practice is just
plain tyranny.
Not very persuasive, though, if you have lived under the tyranny of
the very many by the very few, is it? But this is what goes on in the
<blank-out> countries. And who benefits from this? The "capitalist
paradises". And would THEY change it? No, because they
...just know what they like, and they don't like the Gov'mint
telling them what to do.
Right. The Gov'mint can tell the <blank-out> countries what to do,
but not us, who are getting fat on those police-states. THAT's not
your vaunted free enterprise, now is it?
Well, just drop me a line the next time you want to skip over some
never-ending debates on political systems and go straight to the
real evidence. I might save you some embarassment.
[Entering Confession Mode:]
Hey, Ziggy, listen: I was once a Libertarian hard-liner. No wait!
come back! It's true! I read Ayn Rand when I was thirteen, and it took
me a decade to get self-deprogrammed. I'm serious. It took me 10 years
to become disillusioned with laissez-faire capitalism. If the world were
already pretty straightened out (i.e., approximate equality of nations,
or no nations at all and equality of people) it might be a great idea.
But it is not the one true answer to all the world's problems. Especially
if it blinds you to what the world's problems really are, which is what
it did to me. Capitalism imposed at gun-point is no better than Communism
at gun-point.
Equally seriously: I'm grateful that I was a Libertarian. It
means that I can stand up to doctrinaire socialists (and there's a lot
of 'em in Berkeley) with the reasons why THEY are full of shit. My
view of the ideal society is, I think, closer to yours than theirs.
But you'll have to shed some illusions and do some reading before we
can really talk.
My Last Flame at You (I Promise!)
Michael Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!megatest!fortune!dsd!atd!avsdS:avsdT:roberts
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Title: Re: The Flying [sexist] Engineers
Article-I.D.: avsdT.318
Posted: Wed Feb 23 13:20:14 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 21:54:15 1983
References: rabbit.1148
Yes it is a shame that some organizations are run by people just trying
get others of like mind together for fun or whatever, and are not really
proficient at putting together the literature they probably have to
run off on hand cranked mimeograph device due to the fact that they
put the organization together with funds from thier own pocket and
operate out of a back bedroom and a post office box.
However, even if they are INTENTIONALLY sexist, would you please
post thier address to the net?
As a flying engineer, I have never heard of this group before, and
would like to inquire to them as to thier purpose and nature.
They may be a great bunch of people for all we really know, you
can't judge a book by its you know.
R.Roberts
AMPEX Corp. RWC
dsd!avsdT:roberts
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: socialism, capitalism, and strikes - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.700
Posted: Thu Feb 24 02:01:26 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 22:18:19 1983
#R:hplabsb:-137800:ucbesvax:7100005:000:3219
ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 23:15:00 1983
Jeff,
I agree with this, and I hope that nothing I've said so far makes
you think that the "right" to strike (a little more complicated than
that, I'll allow) is a strictly socialist idea. In fact, there is over-
whelming evidence that unions dominated by Communist and socialist
parties have often played the role of strike-breaker, when this was
the only way they could get their hands on state power.
Solidarity is only the most recent example of this. There were
and are unions in Poland apart from Solidarity, but they were party-
controlled. Italy, France, and Spain would seem to be different, in
that they are not Soviet satellites, and their respective Communist
parties have never held total state power. But in each of these non-
Communist states, the CP holds fantastic power over union activity.
In Italy, the CP formed the "Historic Compromise" coalition with a
center-RIGHT Christion Democrats, with the understanding that it would
take part in a general crackdown on leftist groups and autonomous [i.e.
non-CP-aligned] unions -- under the general smear campaign of "Wipe Out
Terrorism". For a while there [1977-1980], Italy led NATO in the number
of persons held in prison without charge (around 1200).
In France, the CP has a similar degree of union control. In 1968,
during a general strike, the CP had to face the very real possibility
of a revolution in which they were not necessarily guaranteed any
resulting power. That is, workers were striking WITHOUT BEING TOLD.
This scared the French CP so much that they hastily began to look for
solutions to the crisis which would keep the Gaullists in power -- who
were, at least, a known variable.
In Republican Spain (1935-49?), the CP took its orders from Stalin,
who did not want a revolution. He wanted a stable Mediterranean/Atlantic
trading partner for the USSR. The result is quite well documented in
George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". In Spain today, after Franco, the
party plays a similarly regressive role, but very large (>100,000 people)
wildcat strikes did take place in the mid-to-late seventies, showing
that the party's hold is not so strong.
In all these countries, there are worker's movements which are
quite radical, while at the same time hostile to doctrinaire "party
line" reasoning about what they should or should not be doing. This
makes them incoherent, disorganized, faltering, and sometimes violent.
But so much depends (to my mind) on the ability of workers to think,
work, and act for themselves, that I certainly don't blame them for
wanting to dump the hoary ideologues of old left-wing parties and
the hardened career bureaucrats of unions which don't represent them
anymore.
No ideology can make a particular moral claim on the right to
organize and strike. The appropriateness is entirely situational.
Those who would impose some over-arching theory over this right will
almost always ending up repressing it themselves.
(Why am I flaming at YOU about this? Oh, well: reponses are
welcome in any case.)
Michael Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.699
Posted: Thu Feb 24 02:01:22 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 22:19:19 1983
#R:ucbvax:-91700:ucbesvax:7100004:000:338
ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 21:35:00 1983
Mr. Christopher,
We seem to agree, so far. However, we do have the problem of
thousands of small enterprises being overshadowed by truly monstrous
ones. To a large extent, any state is going to depend for its
legitimacy on the survival of these monstrosities. See, for example,
the Chrysler bailout.
Mike Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Re: Answer to question about what's - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.701
Posted: Thu Feb 24 02:01:30 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 22:22:54 1983
#R:mcnc:-154900:ucbesvax:7100003:000:317
ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 21:30:00 1983
Why, thank you! I don't necessarily agree with what you say,
but I will defend to my death your right to publicly recognize
my seriousness.
Just Kidding,
Michael Turner
P.S. Hey, who says that leftists have no sense of humor, huh? I mean, that
was pretty lame, but at least I tried.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hplabsb!soreff
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: socialism/capitalism/Ayn Rand
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1388
Posted: Wed Feb 23 18:19:28 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 22:24:45 1983
In response to Tom Cramer:
Ayn Rand and fellow thinkers make a number of extreme simplifications in their
views of the world.
1) They do not admit that there is any use of force in the free market. If
an employer threatens to fire an employee when the economic conditions are
such that the employee will starve, they do not consider this "force". As a
result, they see the extraction of any concession by the use of such a threat
as a bargain struck between the employer and employee (no matter how disparate
their positions), while any taxation is seen as the use of force.
2) They have a very simple view of what property is: they seem to view it as
something that an individual can use to promote their "values" (preferences?
interests?) without any restrictions. There are a wide variety of situations
where the use of property creates major effects on nearby individuals without
their consent. That is why there are zoning laws, land use regulations,
pollution control laws, noise control laws etc. Rand's model of ownership
considers possesion and use of an object but not side effects. It also has no
way of treating collective goods like clean air.
3) The claim that property rights are valid because life is valuable is a
bizarre deduction. One could equally well claim that since life is valuable,
the community must provide all its members with protection against potentially
lethal hazards as a natural right. I don't claim that this is true, but it is
an EQUALLY reasonable conclusion.
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!yale-com!brunix!gh (Graeme Hirst)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: The Roots of Socialism are rotted
Article-I.D.: brunix.1674
Posted: Wed Feb 23 10:23:14 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 22:30:07 1983
References: houti.214
The discussion of socialism is very much like the discussion of the existence
of God a few weeks ago -- everybody has their own definition, different from
everybody else's, and then attacks or defends their own private vision of
socialism. For example, the socialism I defended earlier has little in common
with Tom Craver's Ayn Rand-inspired nightmare.
At the bottom of this discussion, I think, is the question of *selfishness*.
Capitalist economies, especially America's, are predicated on the assumptions
that
(1) People are selfish.
(2) You can structure an economy such that if everyone acts selfishly,
the result is still the best for all.
Point (1) is undoubtedly true in America, but only because the system has been
in place long enough that people are brought up that way. I have grave doubts
about point (2).
On the other hand, Socialism (as I see it), assumes people aren't selfish,
and if you allow for that fact you can make an even better economy. Most of
the flames against Socialism, like Tom Craver's and Mark Terribile's, take
people's selfishness as innate and unchangeable, from which it follows that
Socialism has to be imposed by force and against the will of The People.
Optimists like myself believe that we can slowly but surely change human
nature if we try hard enough.
Not much more than a hundred years ago, a lot of Americans believed it was
okay to possess (to use Tom's favorite word) other people as slaves. Not even
the Moral Majority believe that any more. Maybe by the year 2100, people will
look back in amazement at the 20th century and its attitudes to wealth and
possession, just as we look now at the slave-owners of the 19th century!
Graeme Hirst, Brown University Computer Science
!decvax!brunix!gh gh.brown@udel-relay
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!trc (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: More Rotted Roots (A Reply)
Article-I.D.: houti.216
Posted: Thu Feb 24 12:46:42 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:13:28 1983
David Sher proposes that I can substitute rape (or some other verb, such
as steal, destroy) in my argument - see if it makes sense to you.
Do humans have a right to rape/steal/destroy non-human things?
Yes - because [raping/stealing/destroying] those things helps
achieve values, and so enhances ones' life.
Does anyone really believe that these negative things really help enhance
ones' life? Can possession really be equated with rape or theft?
Consider that possessing something is neutral to OTHERS's rights - neither
enhancing or harming others. It is possible to USE something one possesses
to harm others, or help others. But the mere fact of possession does no
harm. The same cannot be said of rape/theft/destruction of others or their
property. (Some will argue that it harms one if someone else owns something
that one needs - not so - that harm would come from the other person refusing
to negotiate a mutually beneficial solution to the first person's problem.)
David also asks why people must have "exclusive access" to things [I presume
he means, in order to gain the benefits of those things.] It is not a
question of exclusive access, but the RIGHT to, if one chooses, have
exclusive access. In the case of renting, the owner has choosen to let
the renter stay in the apartment in return for monetary payments. He has
also choosen not to let someone else stay who wouldnt have paid. In the
case of a married couple, two people have agreed that they value the well
being of each other above all their material possessions - and so they
share ownership of all they have. [Although, in the past, women had
no real property, and were, to some degree, property themselves.] But
it should be noted that this choice of sharing would not be possible if
there were no possession in the first place. They would not be able to
choose NOT to share things with others in order to reserve that right
for their mate.
To summarize, I dont think David poked any holes in the arguement that
possession is a right arising from the right to ones' life, and which
in turn leads directly to capitalism, namely the respect of all individuals
rights of possession.
Several other points - "enforced capitalism" - where some persons rights
to possess are abrogated by force in order for others to gain - is not
capitalism at all. However, existance of some instances of this type
of activity does not preclude capitalistic actions elsewhere in the same
country - we need look no further than the US for examples. The government
enforced monopolies (there is no other kind except forced) are some of
the least efficient, yet "fattest" corporations around.
Steve Bellovin says he would only have socialism apply to the largest
corporations. But what this means is that it applies to anyone who
owns part of a large corporation at the time it is "socialized". There
are problems with corporations that seek only the short term bottom line -
but those problems are best dealt with by insuring an environment where
anyone who is harmed by the corporation can gain reparations.
Currently, people are only liable to the limit of what they invest. If
they had to take responsibility for the full impact of the corporate
actions, perhaps there would be more emphasis on the long term gain
of never giving people reason to bring suit against the company. And
if not, then they would be fully liable for the results.
I would agree with anyone who claimed that stock holders should actively work
to see to it that their corporation doesnt harm people. In fact, people
boycotting a company for its actions (EG Nestle) would be wiser to
put together an investment fund for the purpose of getting a voice
in the corporation to work against undesirable practices. Further,
it would be easy for the anyone to gauge the level of support
they have by the amount of investment gained in their fund. Likely,
the corporation involved would be more impressed by such, and would be
more likely to act before being "invaded". Maybe the investors would
even make a profit!
Tom Craver
houti!trc
American Bell, Inc
Holmdel, NJ
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!rabbit!jj (Jim Johnston ~!rabbit!jj)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1162
Posted: Thu Feb 24 12:58:14 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:14:01 1983
References: mhuxt.1125 <262@inuxd.UUCP> mhb5b.136
I suggest that those of you who espouse socialism, AND
those of you who espouse unrestrained capitalism without controls
(especially considering some <much milder than the current socialistic
one> labor regulation) study the effects on the individual when the
individual loses control of his own destiny, and the resultant effects
of that loss of control on society.
For references, both in current and historical events,
and in the scholastic vein, I suggest:
1) Present day Poland
2) Present day USSR economy, especially the farm system
and the heavy industry system.
3) Pre- WWII Germany, and the willingness to subscribe to a
nationwide psychosis.
4) Seligman, "Hopelessness", currently in print.
5) Lebanon, 1983.
Please consider, when you post your idealistic solutions to the
world's problems (or your own, for that matter), that the human race
consists of individuals, each of whom suffers in some unique way when
you take away his/her freedom to self-determination. Furthermore, please
consider the historical effects of such behavior.
rabbit!jj
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ihuxp!tfilm (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Today's 'Isms
Article-I.D.: ihuxp.380
Posted: Thu Feb 24 12:26:06 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:15:07 1983
Reply-To: tfilm@ihuxp.UUCP (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
RE: Capitol-, Commune-, Social- ism
Perhaps if all the 'ism' experts would agree to read something like
"Today's 'Isms", a good college level political science text, they
would have a consistent basis for more rational, substantive,
meaningful, reasonable dialogue.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ihuxp!tfilm (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: More on 'isms
Article-I.D.: ihuxp.381
Posted: Thu Feb 24 15:11:41 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:32:21 1983
Reply-To: tfilm@ihuxp.UUCP (M. E. Lindenmeyer)
RE: The 'ISM Controversy
Another worthwhile text is Friedmans' "Free to Choose".
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!houxi!houxa!houxm!npois!npoiv!harpo!decvax!utzoo!mark
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Title: Re: The Flying [sexist] Engineers
Article-I.D.: utzoo.2833
Posted: Thu Feb 24 00:08:28 1983
Received: Thu Feb 24 23:37:12 1983
References: rabbit.1148
the manager of the vax/vms site i work at is a member of the organization
of professional engineers of ontario. about a year ago her husband
received an invitation to join their wives' auxilliary. (he didn't).
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!faustus (Wayne Christopher)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Socalism
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.959
Posted: Thu Feb 24 17:53:04 1983
Received: Fri Feb 25 11:05:34 1983
Rabbit!jj has made a point that we seem to miss much too often in our
political discussions. It is easy enough to invent models to describe
sociology and to predict the effects of any political system, but the
real world it not by any means constrained to follow our models. The
most significant test of any theory is, for sociology and political
science, just as it is for 'real' sciences, the degree to which it
works in the real world, and in the case of socialism and also unre-
strained capitalism, the model tends to work quite badly. Men are not
going to work for the good of the state with no concern for themselves,
but rather are to an extent greedy and want to enjoy the fruits of
their own labor. There is no way that we can avoid this fact. And
likewise, an economy based solely on lassez-faire cannot suceed because
there is no way to ensure perfect competition. Nature took millions of
years to work out what system it has, and we expect to develop a system
based on 'natural selection' that will work for the economy in the few
hundred years that people have been thinking about this? No, the economy
will not take care of itself, and we need a certain amount of government
control, and perhaps ownership of resources to make it run smoothly. But
the one thing that we must remember is that nothing EVER works the way
the theorists say it will, at least not in sociology. We must examine
our theories under the light of empirical evidence and modify them
so that they do work. This is the major distinction between the
scientific method and mysticism, and I think that we all would
prefer to think of sociology as a science rather than a subset
of mysticism...
Wayne Christopher
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!microsof!uw-beave!ubc-visi!sample
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Canadian "propaganda"
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.268
Posted: Thu Feb 24 14:07:26 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 21:24:20 1983
I would like some opinions from US citizens on the news article summarized
below, which I heard on the radio this morning.
The U.S. Justice department has classified three award-winning Canadian
films as "political propaganda". Two of the films were produced by the
National Film Board, and concerned acid rain. They had both received
international awards. The third film, which concerned disarmament, has
been nominated for an Oscar. U.S. citizens who to see these films will
have their names entered in a list.
The news article did not specify who would keep the list, and how names
would be entered into it.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!duke!unc!bch (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Canadian "propaganda"
Article-I.D.: unc.4710
Posted: Fri Feb 25 10:21:06 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 21:50:33 1983
References: ubc-visi.268
I believe that the classification of a film as "political
propaganda" means only that a disclaimer must be displayed
at each showing. There is no requirement that I know of
that viewers register as having seen it. *That* statement
sounds like political propaganda.
Nevertheless we were quite shocked to hear about it on the news,
and can only attribute it to the pro-corporate mood which infuses
all aspects of the current administration in the U.S.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!trc (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: A question of selfishness
Article-I.D.: houti.219
Posted: Fri Feb 25 11:46:51 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 21:53:10 1983
Graeme Hirst addresses the question of selfishness in human beings.
He assumes that selfishness is a vice, rather than a virtue. This
is, of course a wide-spread idea in our society, resulting mainly
from religious "self-sacrificial" morality. In fact, Ayn Rand's
definition of selfishness is not quite the same as that of our
society. She excludes "greed" and "evil" from that definition,
leaving what I would describe as "self-fullness". That is, a healthy
self-interest. By healthy, I mean that the individual rationally
realizes that he is not the center of the universe, and that others
have a right to their own self-interest.
Graeme makes two contradictory statements - that Socialism assumes people
are not selfish; and that "optimists" (socialists) believe that human nature
can (IE must) change to allow socialism. The latter is true - human nature
would have to change for socialism to be right. But would what remains
be human, or termite? And, what is the justification for living under
a system that goes against our basic natures?
As to the slavery issue, there is a qualitative difference between
owning a human being and owning something else. Most of those slave owners
of a hundred years ago would not have even considered owning a
fellow white man. The fact is that they, either mistakenly or evilly,
did not consider blacks to be human, but rather sub-human. A large
number of people, even then, realized that slave owners were wrong, and that
Negroes are indeed human. I dont see any "free the french fry five" or
"release the roses" movements around today, and I doubt I ever will.
Few people today thing inanimate objects are somehow human.
In fact, it is socialism that most resembles slavery - everyone required
to serve a nebulously defined "greatest good", with those that define
the practical "greatest good" taking the place of the slave owners.
Tom Craver
houti!trc
American Bell,Inc.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!kcwin!we53!we13!lime!houti!trc
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Roots are still rotten
Article-I.D.: houti.218
Posted: Fri Feb 25 11:43:55 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:00:54 1983
Response to Jeffrey Soreff:
There cannot be any force in a free market - by definition. Jeffrey gives
an example of a worker threatened with firing, when he would starve if fired.
First, would you also oppose workers striking in order to gain concessions
in an manner? Most socialists see nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, conditions must be extreme before such a case could even come about.
I object to Jeffery's "Lifeboat-ethics" methods - he chooses only an
extreme situation to test - does this mean that he thinks socialism
can only be justified in certain infrequent and odd circumstances? I
believe that the most important test of a system is whether it stands up under
normal life situations. Socialism fails there. And to directly address
the example, while the employer would be within his rights, there is nothing
nothing in capitalism that demands that employers be cruel or mean.
If the employer feels it is right, he might aid his employees in
rough times, in hopes of having their loyalty when he has troubles.
And if he is mean, the employees will probably quit once hard times
are past, and he will have a harder time hiring new workers.
Capitalism does not mean that one is not responsible for ones actions,
or for the side effects of ones actions. Quite the opposite, under
capitalism, it is wrong to harm others for any reason. Socialism allows
individuals to be harmed "for the greatest good of the greatest number".
The issue of air pollution and other abuses of "free" things can be
handled under capitalism. Consider how a person who set traps on public
sidewalks would be treated. It is not that person's use of the sidewalks
that would be criminal, but the harm (or threat of harm) caused by the
traps. The same is true of pollution. As with all free things,
air can be taken and possessed, so long as no harm is caused to others.
Jeffrey's final point was that the value of life could just as well result
in a right to protection by the community. The flaw here is that it is
not "LIFE" as an abstraction that is valuable. It is that ones' OWN life
is valuable to ones' self! It is possible that others' lives can be
valuable to one, but only indirectly, and such value should never be
taken against the will of the other. There is no way to derive from
ones own love of life that others MUST live for you (at least not for
a rational person who realizes that others love their lives equally.)
And finally, let me address a pet peeve - Jeffrey mentions the
"extreme simplications" of Ayn Rand. Perhaps he feels that simplication
is a vice. In fact it is not. The primary difference between
humans and animals is that humans can form and use abstractions, which
are by their nature simplifications. Simplicity is something scientists
strive for in their theories. There seems to be a "cult of complexity"
in our society - anything simple must be overly simple. If it doesnt
cover all cases with equal ease, it must be wrong even for those it does.
If its is complex, it must be right, or at least, someplace within its
diversity, contain some truth. - I say this is mental and moral cowardice.
Tom Craver
houti!trc
American Bell
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!kcwin!we53!we13!lime!houti!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!whuxk!monitor
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism & TPC
Article-I.D.: whuxk.149
Posted: Fri Feb 25 11:12:54 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:07:54 1983
Perhaps I am prejudiced, seeing that I work for said phone company,
however, I must say that after using the phone systems in such
civilised countries as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan,
I can safely say that the US phone system is equal to or better than
the best that is offered by these countries. Direct dialing is non-existant
for long distance calls (let alone international calls) from almost all phones
in Spain and Italy. Direct international dialing is just starting to be
implemented in Japan, Germany, and France (on a limited basis, currently
around half of the phones in the US could be hooked into international
dialing exchanges, but access is limited to people who ask for it
(would you like your kid to dial upper volta on a dare?)).
I have heard that making an overseas call from Israel is an hour long
process (from a friend of mine who worked in a kibbutz for a summer).
A phone call (direct dialed) from Germany to the US runs about $5 per
minute...about twice the prime time rate for the reverse call, here to
there.
It seems to me that the US still has the most advanced switching systems
available for large applications (of course Rolm and Nippon make excellent
PBX's that rival the Bell System's DIMENSION* PBX), and large applications
is what national phone service is all about.
Pat Wood
Bell Laboratories
harpo!whuxg!mphw
* DIMENSION is a registered trade mark of Western Electric
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!harpo!decvax!genradbo!lloyd (Rick Lloyd)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Title: Re: What IS wrong with socialism
Article-I.D.: genradbo.1548
Posted: Fri Feb 25 16:41:42 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:18:12 1983
References: mitccc.349
I have a basic problem with this "discussion" of socialism;
it appears to consist primarily of opinions formed from stories
about the ism, rather than actual experience. In this sense
the articles provide as much new information as Reader's Digest.
so flamed
I talk quite often with a woman from China (yes, she is in this
country for advanced education; no, I do not accept the current
superiority of some of this countries institutions as any statement
about all of same).
I also have friends from Iran, Israel, Greece, Italy, etc...., and
based on their experiences can honestly say that the system of
government used is less important to the commoner (as I count myself)
than the purpose to which that government is directed.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: The Roots of Socialism are rotted
Article-I.D.: houti.214
Posted: Tue Feb 22 19:17:18 1983
Received: Sat Feb 26 22:44:13 1983
To understand what is wrong with Socialism, one cannot start at its products
and work down. It is necessary to go the the roots, and try to see how
the products are a natural result of those roots.
To get at the roots, it is necessary to ask some very basic questions.
Does a human being have a right to live?
I think that this can be given an unqualified YES for normal
humans. (In considering cases such as murderers, it is only
necessary to see that, if another would interfere with ones
basic right to life, self-defense, including killing, is just.)
What makes life worth living - IE, what is it that, without it, one would
be better off dead?
I think that it is the ability to achieve values that makes life
worthwhile. (Some values are better than others for one, but
even if one has bad values, life is less enjoyable if they cannot
be achieved.)
How can values be achieved best?
By the free choice of the individual among opportunities (or
disadvantages - choosing the lesser of evils) - the individual
will most naturally choose those things that fulfill highest values.
Do humans have a right to possess non-human things?
Yes - because those things help achieve values, and so enhance ones'
life. (Living but non-rational things are an interesting case,
but do not void my answer.)
What does it mean to possess something?
To have the right to make choices about that thing in order to
achieve one's own values. This MUST include the right to not
allow others to make choices with regard to that thing.
Is it possible for more than one person to TOTALLY (ie not in shares)
possess something?
No - for different individuals have different values, which will
lead to different choices for that thing. Since both choices
cannot be taken, the individuals will not both have full choice
with regard to the thing.
What does Socialism mean?
All "means of production" (in reality, anything can serve to fill
a value, so really everything) are owned in equal shares by everyone,
with no individual totally possessing any thing.
Since socialism does not now exist, and never has, in the full sense,
how can socialism be created?
Since individuals now possess things, they must give up possession.
Since this will mean that those possessing things will lose
the benefits of possession, they will not wish to do so.
Thus they must be FORCED to give up their possessions - that
is, it is necessary to violate their rights of possession by threat
or application of violence.
How can socialism be sustained in the face of individuals' natural desire
to regain that which was stolen from them?
By continued force.
Assuming that force can be used effectively long enough that the original
possessors die and their children forget their lost inheritance, what
remains wrong with socialism?
Since choices will be made without regard to individual values,
almost no-ones' values will be satisfied, beyond the basic
animal needs - food, etc. Further, even the latter will not
be the first choice, since those in positions to choose will
most naturally choose in ways that tend to benefit themselves.
Those having the power of choice for others will make choices
that extend their (and their descendants') benefit. In effect,
and in truth, those individuals will possess all things. Since
all others must do as they are ordered (Force, again) in all
things, they do not even possess their own lives.
Hence, the origin of statements such as "Under socialism, my
life is not my own" and "Better dead than Red". The latter is
literally true, if "Red" is taken to mean any form of full
socialism or communism. Life is not worth living if it is
impossible to achieve any values.
What is Capitalism?
The recognition of the natural right of possession as a means
to the end of achievement of values, by the individuals involved.
(It is not necessary to have "the government" recognize this right
in order for it to be a right. However, since the government
has a monopoly on force, it is necessary for the government to
recognize and support the right of possession. It does this
by refraining from use of force except to counter force that is
applied to deprive individuals of their rights (not just the
right of possession.) It is only obligated to use its force
in support of its own citizens, but it must not use its force
against any individual's rights, citizen or not.
Is, or has the US ever been, a capitalistic nation?
No, not fully. It has been close, at times. However, we
have had a mixed economy almost from the start. Freedom and life
satisfaction has waned in proportion to the waxing of government
control (IE choice and so possession) over individuals and their
property.
Doesnt Capitalism mean that some people have to give up their production
to "Capitalists"?
No - they can quit their jobs and be self employed - they
can use their own capital (IE possessions) rather than using
that of others. The owners of the means of production (the
capitalists) have a right to whatever benefits they can get,
without use of force, from their capital.
What about the poor?
They generally have the ability to work, somehow. If not,
they will often have someone who is willing to support them.
If all else fails, there are charities - nothing about capitalism
says that it is wrong to give to others - merely to be forced
to give.
The above views are my own, probably flawed view, of the far less flawed
vision of Ayn Rand on the subject. I apologize to her memory (or estate),
or to anyone who knows those views better.
Tom Craver
houti!trc
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!houxi!houxa!houxm!npois!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!yale-com!brunix!dkw (David Wittenberg)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Canadian "propaganda"
Article-I.D.: brunix.1709
Posted: Fri Feb 25 12:26:04 1983
Received: Sun Feb 27 19:00:54 1983
References: unc.4710,ubc-visi.268
According to "All Things Considered" last night (24 Feb) there was
a requirement that all groups that show the film be reported to the justice
dept. This includes the name of the group and the names of the people involved.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!duke!unc!bts (Bruce Smith)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Marxist Computer Science
Article-I.D.: unc.4719
Posted: Sat Feb 26 16:23:19 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 01:31:31 1983
I spent several hours last weekend looking through some
of the more obscure science journals in our (UNC-Chapel
Hill) main library's periodicals. In a corner of the
stacks, I found a whole shelf of what seemed to be magazines
on Marxist physical science. In case you've never seen such
things, they were full of articles on how Marxism helps to
explain physics or chemistry or other sciences. (My first
impression was Creationism without the King James Version.)
I was a little nervous about standing there looking at
such things, but I did notice that there was no mention of
computer science. I know it's debatable whether or not we
are a science (or ought to be or even could be), and I know
that very few programmers were around during Marx's life-
time. Still, I was a little surprised to be left out.
Does anyone out there in net-land know if there is such
a thing as "Marxist Computer Science"? If there is, what's
it all about? If not, why is that? Everyone wants to get
into computers, surely Marxists are no exception. Can it be
that computer scientists are too logical for Marxism, or too
greedy? If Marxist computer science does exist, should the
non-Marxists among us worry? I'd be interested in seeing
facts, opinions or flames-- pretty much in that order.
Bruce Smith, UNC-CH
duke!unc!bts
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism
Article-I.D.: dciem.195
Posted: Sat Feb 26 19:02:17 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 01:45:46 1983
References: mhb5b.136
There is probably no need to reply to people who equate socialism with
totalitarianism and what happens the other side of the Iron Curtain.
But it would be nice if such people would keep their ignorance to themselves
rather than filling up the net with it. On the other hand *** it does
help the rest of us to know what these peculiar people are ``thinking''.
They are the ones most likely to set up a dictatorship in North America.
Martin Taylor
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Roots are still rotten
Article-I.D.: dciem.196
Posted: Sat Feb 26 19:22:27 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 01:47:12 1983
References: houti.218
Various contributors to this quasi-religious discussion suggest that
we look at the results of capitalism and socialism. Perhaps it would
be a good idea to do that, in respect of countries where the two kinds
of government alternate. From my reading of the situation, Conservatives
get in, ruin the economy, and then lose an election to the Socialists,
who are shot at by all the businessmen until they sort out the economy
and are then replaced by the Conservatives at an election, to start
the cycle over again.
More seriously, there are many overriding factors beyond type of
government that determine a country's economic health. Fifty percent
of the variance is determined by the amount of money invested in research,
for example. That means that all other factors COMBINED cannot have any
greater effect than the amount invested in research. Why was the US so
successful after WWII? I guess it was not because of Capitalism, but because
of all the scientists evicted from Europe by Hitler, or who came to assist
in the research effort against Hitler. Why is the US now declining? Because
Nixon started to cut back on research funding, and Carter was unable to
bring it back up as he had proposed. What will happen now? Abrupt decline
because Reagan is cutting back even more. It isn't Capitalism. There is
no real incentive for a small company to invest in research, because no-one
knows where the real benefits will appear. The more basic the research,
the longer the gamble and the more dramatic the results when it pans out.
Government has to support basic research, large companies can afford
mission-oriented research, and small companies can afford development.
Of course, small companies that do buck the odds successfully and win
from basic research get to be big companies quite quickly, but they were
probably naive and lucky. Basic research benefits us all. Development
benefits whoever does it.
Martin Taylor
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!trc (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: sad flame on flaming
Article-I.D.: houti.221
Posted: Mon Feb 28 08:58:28 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 02:26:17 1983
I was rather disappointed to see Martin Taylor's flame - do all discussions
of controversial topics on the net have to end with stuff like this?
Cant we allow someone to disagree with us without feeling that the other
person is attacking us personally, causing us to attack in supposed retaliation?
I, for one, would enjoy a "net.partytalk", in which it is possible to
hold conversations on any topic without periodic discussions of whether
the discussion belongs someplace else, and without anyone taking the
discussion so personally that they start to apply character assassination.
I guess that the only problem with such a news group would be that
everyone would enjoy it so much that other non technical groups might
die out. But perhaps that would just be a good sign that a "catagorized"
system might not be the best way to run the network.
Oh well, it was a pretty good discussion for a while there.
Tom Craver
houti!trc
American Bell
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:tektronix!teklabs!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: PDX LBJ Alert
Article-I.D.: cdi.158
Posted: Fri Feb 25 01:36:17 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 02:32:13 1983
Stolen from CBBSNW (Community Bulletin Board Northwest)
Msg 10154 is 07 line(s) on 02/20/83 from MAUREEN HACKLEY
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb???
only one, but it takes a long time, and the light bulb has to really
want to change.....
Msg 10155 is 08 line(s) on 02/20/83 from MAUREEN HACKLEY
How many Oregonians does it take to change a light bulb???
Six,
one to change the light bulb and five to file an environmental
impact statement....
Msg 10174 is 07 line(s) on 02/21/83 from FRANK WEISSIG
*
*
* How many Portlanders does it take to change a light bulb?
*
*
*
* Only one... but 500 applied for the job anyway...
*
Msg 10208 is 11 line(s) on 02/23/83 from ERIC GUSTAFSON
HERE ARE A FEW MORE THAT I HEARD:
HOW MANY IRANIANS DOES IT TAKE TO
CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
501...1 TO CHANGE THE BULB, AND
500 OTHERS TO SHOUT 'DEATH TO P.G.E.'
HOW MANY PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS DOES
IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
6...1 TO CHANGE THE BULB AND 5
OTHERS TO GET INJURED WHILE HOLDING
THE LADDER. (THAT ONE IS A FEW YEARS
OLD)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!houxi!houxa!houxm!npois!npoiv!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hplabsb!soreff
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: a new topic: privacy
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1397
Posted: Fri Feb 25 16:00:24 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 02:58:52 1983
I suggest that the capitalism/socialism debate is getting stale
and that introducing a new topic might be desirable at this point.
I suggest that the impact of assorted things (technology, political
changes, demographics, etc.) on privacy might be a good topic.
I think that there are a variety of distinct types of privacy and that
they are subject to different threats. The privacy of one's political
views, for instance, are not invariably compromised when the IRS starts
to intrude into the details of one's finances. One's educational and
medical records also present (partially) separate issues.
I have read comments to the effect that maintaining financial privacy is
almost hopeless, because of the records one must produce for tax purposes.
Do you think that this is true, false, or an oversimplification?
Do you think that the other forms are privacy are as threatened, less
threatened, or more threatened?
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!hplabsb!soreff)
P.S. mail (even flames) welcome
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!hocda!machaids!5941ux!houxm!npois!npoiv!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Re: reagan - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.705
Posted: Sat Feb 26 18:05:07 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 03:21:33 1983
#R:dadla-b:-32300:hp-pcd:17400005:000:1517
hp-pcd!courtney Feb 24 08:21:00 1983
Reagan is no more likely to solve the problems of our economy any more
than the (wo)man in the Moon.... Reagan's election was a symptom of
a anxious society. People are afraid that they might be losing their
Presto-Burgers, their three-car garages, their world "domination"...
Inflation is a symtom of a finite world being scoured of the wealth of
resources that it has developed over the millenia, not to mention the
fact that the US economy accomplished much of its growth by importing
cheap raw materials and labor (a practice that many differently-developed
countries have been trying to curb). It is silly to think that we can
continue to consumed more "stuff" every day without banging our heads on
the ceiling...not to mention the cost of defending such a material-wealth
differential between US and our many poor neighbors.
Rather than spending our political time and energy to try to continue
to increase the rate of despoilage of our common home (the Earth), we would
be much better off to take a closer at what quality-of-life really means...
Is it really more important to have that extra toy than to spend the extra
time and energy to develop better relationships with our friends, neighbors,
and people that we don't even know? What level of material wealth is a good
balance between being physically comfortable and being continously and almost
totally pre-occupied with increasing the store of our personal "stuff"?
Without answers,....
Courtney Loomis
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!hocda!spanky!ka (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Japanese Internment Camps
Article-I.D.: spanky.223
Posted: Sun Feb 27 14:53:30 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 03:22:25 1983
The New York Times decided that the report to congress on the
imprisonment of Japanese during WW2 rated a front page story. I
read the article, and as nearly as I could tell the commission
had nothing new to say about the subject. This left me wondering
why this was such important news. So my question is: For all of
you who studied WW2 in history classes, how was the internment of
the Jpanese dealt with? Was it described as a major violation of
civil liberties? Or was it portrayed as a "military necessity?"
Or was all mention of it simply suppressed?
As usual, responses mailed to me will be summarized to the net.
Kenneth Almquist
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!houxz!hocda!machaids!5941ux!houxm!npois!npoiv!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!thekid
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Reagan/Loomis
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1125
Posted: Sun Feb 27 14:03:10 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 03:24:40 1983
Re... Reagan article by Courtney Loomis;
Courtney, i sympathize with your feelings.
however, i know of no one MORE likely to solve the problems
of our economy... the so-called New Deal didn't work either,
and i think most of the current Democratic programs are
nothing more than the New New Deal.
from a rather cold/hard (realistic ?) viewpoint, what we need is a good war.
anyway, i find the idea that American society will begin to
evaluate its quality of life and will start to strive for
more `spiritual' values sad, ridiculous, humorous, ironic
and a few other things (in turn).
slowly reaching for another slice of pie,
thekid
...![ seismo, mcnc, we13, lime ]!rlgvax!thekid
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: The Roots of Socialism are rotted - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.732
Posted: Mon Feb 28 18:29:21 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 04:22:19 1983
#R:houti:-21400:ucbesvax:7100006:000:1971
ucbesvax!turner Feb 26 00:28:00 1983
As someone who knows "those views" all too well, I don't accept
your apology. As for the "far less flawed" -- let us say perfect,
shall we? -- vision of Ayn Rand, I beg to differ.
The main difference that I see is that Ayn Rand writes a hell of
a lot better than you. So much so, that I was completely taken in
for many years.
Tom, life is not as axiomatic as all this. Nor are you as
rigorous axiomatic as you think you are. When you asked what it
was "that without it, one would be better off dead?", I had to laugh.
I'm sorry, but I did. Ayn Rand had the guts to admit mortality into
the discussion -- doesn't one of her characters in "Atlas Shrugged"
define his value system in terms of his own death? (Ellis Wyatt,
I think.) But what is mortality to you? Just another value (albeit
negative) among many to "freely choose from"?
What it came down for Ayn Rand, I think, is that death scared her
into silence. She got older, lost her looks; too many cigarettes,
perhaps, not getting enough writing done. Not able to milk any more
life out of her "axiomatic" approach to it all. I was a fervid
Objectivist for more years than I care to count, but when she died
recently, I thought: there goes one big coward. She never could
admit to be wrong on any point, on the need to review and start
over on something. Some philosopher!
What it comes down to for me is that I want to live for awhile
(until I get sick of it, anyway) and see what happens. A Socialist
Tyranny could put a damper on my plans, but I don't think that a
revocation of property rights in itself would send me weeping off the
local skyscraper.
Being better off dead is an interesting concept, but I have
trouble carrying it very far. Perhaps you could make a contribution
to net.philosophy on this point? Or net.suicide?
Another Altruist-Collectivist Pig,
Michael Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Socialism - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.730
Posted: Mon Feb 28 18:29:10 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 04:26:25 1983
#R:ucbvax:-91700:ucbesvax:7100004:000:338
ucbesvax!turner Feb 23 21:35:00 1983
Mr. Christopher,
We seem to agree, so far. However, we do have the problem of
thousands of small enterprises being overshadowed by truly monstrous
ones. To a large extent, any state is going to depend for its
legitimacy on the survival of these monstrosities. See, for example,
the Chrysler bailout.
Mike Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hplabsb!soreff
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Ayn Rand et al rotten roots of socialism
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1400
Posted: Sun Feb 27 14:03:30 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 20:25:24 1983
I'd like to thank Tom Craver for his reply. It is always gratifying
to see that someone reads and thinks about what one writes.
I think that the definitions of "force" are really at the heart of
the disagreement over the legitimacy of laissez-faire capitalism.
I don't believe that definitions are purely arbitrary or purely
linguistic things. I think that there is an empirical element
to most definitions. To take a legal/medical example: The old
definition of death as when the heart stops beating has required
revision in the past few decades because it has become possible to revive
some patients whose hearts had stopped beating and it has become
possible to maintain heartbeat (for some time, at least) in patients
with no hope of revival. As a result of these experimental findings,
death is often defined now in terms of brain function rather than
heartbeat. If one wants to decide if some action is a use of "force",
there are some empirical tests that may be relevant. If one threatens
a person with that action (firing, expulsion, incarceration,
conscription, evisceration, etc.) if the person does not perform some
service, does the person feel COMPELLED to perform that service? Does
the person threatened feel that they have a choice? If one has the
option to threaten someone with the action in question, would one be
surprised to see the person NOT avoid the action against them?
If most people would answer "yes" to those questions about some action,
then I think the action can usually be considered a use of force.
I think that if "There cannot be any force in a free market - by
definition" then the definition is not a very realistic one.
I regret my phrasing of the original reply. I should have said that
I believe that Rand et. al. oversimplify (and actually lose qualitative
information) rather than saying that they simplify to an extreme degree.
I do think that economic force can occur in a free market, and that
firing someone when economic conditions are such that they would
starve is an example of it. Yes, I would also consider a strike
which sufficiently reduced an employer's income that the employer
starved to be a clear use of force. I don't think that such events are
very frequent. The first type of situation is uncommon now, but in 19th
and early 20th century laissez-faire (mostly) economies it was not very
uncommon. As a result it is NOT irrelevant to discussions of libertarian
politics, because it is perfectly possible that without the partly
socialist "safety net" built up since FDR, that use of economic force
would be as extreme as anything in a 19th century company town.
This is also not a case of "lifeboat ethics" because the usual
situation in "lifeboat ethics" is one where there are insufficient
resources to keep everyone alive. In the situation I described, the
employer has the option to retain all the employees, in which case no
expirations occur. There are often more options available than are
obvious at first glance. To pick another 19th century example: during
the Irish potato famine, Ireland was EXPORTING some agricultural
products (and not in exchange for a more plentiful form of food for
famine relief either). This clearly resulted in some deaths that could
have been avoided without causing any other deaths, in contrast to
the lifeboat situation.
I still don't see the logical progression from "One's own life is
valuable to oneself" to "Property rights are valid"
(quotes used to indicate others' ideas: not really quotes!)
as plausible. One could equally well say "One's own life is
valuable to oneself," "What enhances one's ability to achieve
one's values enhances one's life," "Controlling the actions of other
people enhances one's ability to achieve one's values," "Power is a
legitimate goal." This ignores the fact that if person A can control
some of the actions of person B, then person B cannot control as much
of his/her life as if person A didn't exist. Rand's argument ignores
the fact that if person A can totally control access to and use of
object Obj, then person B cannot obtain as much access to object Obj as
if person A didn't exist. To some extent purchasing exclusive access
rights to an object that one did not create is an act hostile to
bystanders. It is not wholly neutral.
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!hplabsb!soreff)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!genradbo!mitccc!rgvdh (Robert van der Heide)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics
Title: What's wrong with socialism/and libertarianism
Article-I.D.: mitccc.387
Posted: Wed Feb 23 16:51:37 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 21:25:22 1983
Yes, some versions of socialist theory (and practice) are interested
in what the individual owes society, but not at all in the rights
of the individual. On the other hand, quite a few (though certainly
not all) of the people who call themselves libertarians (notably the
people who publish Ergo at M.I.T.) spend all their time worrying about
the rights of the individual and deny that the individual has any
responsibility to society as a whole. While I have no philosophical
basis for this assertion, just a gut feeling, I believe that people have
a responsibility to put as much useful work into society as was put
into their education and raising. On the other hand, it is not at all
obvious that the government should get to define "useful" (all too
frequently in a manner convenient to private interests). And I am
not convinced that human nature is such that fear of punishment
or unemployment is required to make people do this work (though it
would take a culture rather different from ours).
I consider both "socialism", defined as a demand that people
contribute to society, and that those incapable of taking care of
themselves be provided for, and "libertarianism", defined as the
demand that people be allowed to do what they want to do, to be
principles that are both useful to keep in mind when thinking
about specific issues, but which are bound to lead to disaster if
followed to extremes. Absolutes don't work well in the real world.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:ucbesvax!turner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Marxist Computer Science - (nf)
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.741
Posted: Tue Mar 1 02:33:53 1983
Received: Tue Mar 1 21:47:27 1983
#R:unc:-471900:ucbesvax:7100007:000:2225
ucbesvax!turner Feb 28 21:59:00 1983
I don't know about \Marxist/ C.S., per se -- although Marx and more
particularly Engels wrote quite a bit about the Natural Sciences, and
the dialectic of science. Marx got quite interested in mathematics in
his later years, apparently teaching himself calculus in his fifties.
(This, in itself, is a pretty fair indication to me that he was, at
LEAST, very intelligent, if not the genius that some claim.) How this
all applies to the "Sciences of the Artificial", as Herbert Simon called
them, is not clear. The Russian penchant is still more for analog
control systems, and cybernetics generally. While this might reflect
a different (more mathematical?) culture, it has more to do, I think,
with their underdevelopment in digital electronics and memory technology.
This technological lag has, as it turns out, some IDEOLOGICAL (if
not strictly Marxist) roots. This is pretty obvious from the history
of computing, where we can see that Eastern Bloc countries (Poland, in
particular) were at most a couple of years behind the west in their
development of electronic computers (ca. 1949).
What followed has yet to go down in history with the Lysenko debacle,
but it certainly should: the Party line on computers was that they were
likely to engender an elite technical class, which would (of course!)
imagine itself to be better than the "proletariat", AND have more material
control over the workings of society and the economy than the party
cadres and bureacrats. An untenable situation, clearly (from the point
of view of cadres and bureaucrats, anyway.) This view held throughout the
50's. (And, of course, they held up a number of achievements to support
their view of the dispensability of computers: the H-bomb, Sputnik, manned
space-flight. Great proletarian technological feats.)
Now, of course, they are playing catch-up; and Scharansky, among
many others, is good evidence for their original thesis. So they lose
on both counts, being both wrong AND right. *sigh*...such is
dialectical materialism, fellow apparatchiks. Pass the vodka.
Catch Ya Later, Fellow Elitists,
Michael Turner
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan (A Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Canadian "propaganda"
Article-I.D.: inuxd.266
Posted: Tue Mar 1 20:38:24 1983
Received: Wed Mar 2 19:35:07 1983
References: ubc-visi.268 unc.4710
The portion of film that I saw on TV was indeed propaganda--a
movie clip of Reagan smiling over another clip of Hiroshima,
with a narrative by a too-too-clever femaleperson telling how
beautiful Hiroshima was THAT DAY.
What are we to expect from government-subsidized filmmakers, anyway?
Canadian taxpayers have poured out presumably millions to produce
many second rate films, because of the government subsidies
available up there. Wonder how many of their unemployed feel good
that their taxes go to promote the leftish/liberal propaganda?
Are these the same people, by the way, who want a "Free [read, Marxist
]
Quebec"? Sounds like some of the same hivemind.
--arlan andrews--libertarian, and free.
Down with socialism,
down with collectivism, and down with the Soviet Empire and its
booklicking lackies!!
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: About Economic Force and Property Rights
Article-I.D.: houti.223
Posted: Tue Mar 1 18:23:16 1983
Received: Wed Mar 2 19:37:33 1983
In response to Jeffrey Soreff:
If I read your note correctly, the following were your main points:
1: Definitions must match reality to be correct
2: there is such a thing as "economic force" that can exist in a
laissez-faire economy
3: there are historic examples of people starving or otherwise
being harmed by economic force
4: it is possible to get from "life is valuable to me" to
"using force on others for my benefit is good"
5: acquiring exclusive control (possession) of an object by
any means is likely to be a harmful act for someone
1: I couldnt agree more - in fact, this is the very basis of Ayn Rand's
philosophy - for the truth, always look to reality.
2: I have to disagree - not that the thing you are calling economic force
doesnt exist, but that it is not really force in the same sense
that physical force is, and that it is not force in the sense
that the individual's rights are being violated.
In any example of economic force, assuming laissez-faire capitalism,
the person being "forced" to do something cannot be said to have
a right to the economic thing that is being withdrawn or threatened
with withdrawal. In your example, the worker does not have a
"right" to keep his job - he and the employer must both agree
that he should work there.
3: There are many examples of natural catastrophes harming people. If
I understand what you are saying, you would force those who
were not harmed so badly to help those that were. This would
violate their rights. (The property right is discussed below.)
I would point out that much of the difficulties the poor had
in the late 19th century were a hold over from centuries of
poverty for the masses and enforced (REAL force) concentration
of wealth. Capitalism resulted in a far lesser degree of
concentration - not greater. Today, in countries that have
been strongly capitalistic, the vast majority of the wealth is
distributed among the "masses".
4: Rather than considering it from a personal view, take the same argument
as "what is right for all individuals"? Since you are one of those
individuals, it must also be right for you. Any system or philosophy
which would allow that you have a right to try to control others,
must also allow that others have a right to try to control you.
(I presume you mean use force to control others.) A system that
doesnt assume that right doesnt have that problem. One is
anarchy or barbarism, the other is civilization. I leave
the choice to you!
5: Taking possession of something by fair means (purchase, claiming
something that is free) is neutral. If the "bystanders" had
not claimed possession of something free, and are acting in
a proper self-interested manner, then they must not care that
someone might take it. If is already possessed by someone,
that person has a right to dispose of his property by selling
it, and has the right to choose who to sell it to. (Again,
this refers to the property right.)
The property right: I've already put down my arguments in the note
which you responded to. I hope I've adequately addressed
the criticisms you presented in points 4 and 5. I welcome
further comments. While I believe my original arguments
were essentially correct, they were not as well presented
as Ayn Rand and her associates have done it. I strongly
suggest that anyone not familiar with Rand's work (not
to say that you aren't, Jeffrey ) take the time to
read some of it. Even if you disagree with it, and
hate every word she writes, I think you will find it
was worth reading.
Finally, I'd like to thank Jeffrey Soreff for presenting his thoughts
in a calm, rational manner.
Tom Craver
houti!trc
American Bell, Inc.
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: More Rotted Roots (A Reply)
Article-I.D.: rocheste.861
Posted: Wed Mar 2 02:32:53 1983
Received: Wed Mar 2 19:38:10 1983
References: houti.216
I am very busy right now so am replying to your reply rather late.
This part of the article I found of questionable logic (whether it is
in fact right or wrong is something I am not prepared to evaluate).
David Sher proposes that I can substitute rape (or some other verb, such
as steal, destroy) in my argument - see if it makes sense to you.
Do humans have a right to rape/steal/destroy non-human things?
Yes - because [raping/stealing/destroying] those things helps
achieve values, and so enhances ones' life.
Does anyone really believe that these negative things really help enhance
ones' life? Can possession really be equated with rape or theft?
<End - Quote>
Anyway it depends on your philosophy of life. Rape or theft or random
destruction is not something that would help my life in the slightest
(I find these things depressing). However people certainly engage in
theft cold bloodedly and I can only assume that when they do so they
hope in some manner to improve the quality of their life. The problem
is that this was stated wrong. You do not have right to anything that
can improve the quality of your life. You merely have a right to
improve it in certain exceptable ways (the number of ways might be
infinite but they are not all inclusive). Similarly you never have the
right to totally exclude access of anyone to anything (it is a
reasonable proposition that you must give a person something that is
not vital to you if it is necessary to save his life similarly less
vital things must be given up for less important purposes (such as
preventing an injury or stopping a crime)). You merely have the right
to control access in certain specified ways. However I admit that this
might be insignificant hair splitting (about the access not about the
right to posess).
-David Sher (ofttimes AI project)
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!rocheste!gary
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Some relevant quotes on Socialism/Capitalism
Article-I.D.: rocheste.868
Posted: Wed Mar 2 11:34:37 1983
Received: Thu Mar 3 01:09:22 1983
From: Gary.Cottrell
"The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and
cared for not by our labor agitators, but by the Christian men to
whom God in his infinite wisdom has given control of property
interests of the country, and upon the successful management of
which so much remains."
George F. Baer (railroad industrialist)
"They don't suffer. They can't even speak English."
George F. Baer (answering a reporter's
question about the
suffering of starving miners)
"God has intended the great to be great and the little to be little...
The trade unions, under the European system, destroy liberty ... I do
not mean to say that a dollar a day is enough to support a workingman
... not enough to support a man and five children if he insists on
smoking and drinking beer. But the man who cannot live on bread and
water is not fit to live! A family may ive on good bread and water in
the morning, water and bread at midday, and good bread and water at
night!"
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher
"The American system of ours, call it Americanism, call it Capitalism,
call it what you like, gives each and every one of us a great
opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of
it."
Al Capone
"When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results."
"Civilization and profits go hand in hand."
Calvin Coolidge
(compiled from the War Resisters League 1983 Calendar)
gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary
From: pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!kiessig
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Social Security Number as ID?
Article-I.D.: fortune.812
Posted: Tue Mar 1 16:14:52 1983
Received: Thu Mar 3 01:11:42 1983
Does anyone out there know the exact extent of the law
when it comes to using SSNs as IDs? I know there is some funny
clause that says if someone has a legal right to know your SSN
in the first place (like your employer), then they can use it
in whatever way they want. Or something like that. Perhaps
someone can quote the law books concerning authorized use
of social security numbers?
Rick Kiessig
{megatest,ucbvax!hpda,harpo}!fortune!kiessig