British Gun Control and the Case Against Moderate Speech
Otto Bahn
Jaffo wrote:
> Most people are like Ellen. When I argue with Ellen, she always falls back on
> anecdotal stories. She places great value on personal testimony and the kind
> of "first-person" stories you see on the stage at political rallies.
Statistics verses single data points (which, ironically, is what
those anecdotes are: shoddy statistics) are practicle arguments.
Don't forget the theory. I'd prefer capitalism over socialism
even if socialism was more efficient. There is an important
point in there, and many cannot grasp it.
I guess the important thing is to delineate between theory
and practice. Keep each aspect of the discussion labelled
as such. Muddying the two is a tried and true way to confuse
your opponent (or them you).
> And it WORKS. Scholarship cannot compete with emotion in your average public
> forum.
Shades of H.L. Menken laughing at democracy.
> Your thoughts?
To perfectly honest, I think it's hopeless. I choose to
laugh instead of cry, and at least I can die knowing I tried.
I hear the pitter patter of 5 billion feet as the entire planet
slowly marches towards the sea. If we ever get back to limited
government, it will be because the whole fscking society
collapsed.
Back on Monday,
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
Otto Bahn wrote:
> To perfectly honest, I think it's hopeless. I choose to
> laugh instead of cry, and at least I can die knowing I tried.
> I hear the pitter patter of 5 billion feet as the entire planet
> slowly marches towards the sea. If we ever get back to limited
> government, it will be because the whole fscking society
> collapsed.
Had a bad day, did we?
> Back on Monday,
The sea beckons...
The ghost of --oTTo-- clone
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
: This is very interesting to me, because it's completely backwards from the way
: I normally argue. See, these individual stories DON'T work on me. I take a
: much larger, broader view of reality, and I think it's foolish to base your
: political opinons on a few anecdotes.
: Unlike most people, statistics CAN change my opinion, if I can be sure the
: statistics are reliable and "targeted" to a specific issue.
: This is why I fail.
: Most people are like Ellen. When I argue with Ellen, she always falls back on
: anecdotal stories. She places great value on personal testimony and the kind
: of "first-person" stories you see on the stage at political rallies.
: Powerful, emotional stories like this form the backbone of most people's
: opinions. If you ask the average person about economics or gun control, they
: won't rattle statistics at you, they'll tell you a story about "this guy whose
: child got shot" or "this one woman they saw with food stamps."
: Successful politicians use this technique all the time.
Yeah, but the truky dangerous people are the blokes such as myself, people
who know the language and rhetoric like most people know how to walk.
Everyone's got their talents, and Communicators (I capitalize for a
reason) can wrap debate all together in an airtight and powerful set of
both broad sweeps of commentary and heart-rending personal stories.
Unfortunately, we often fall prey to our own enjoyment of the blinding
speed with which we can discuss and move from topic to topic[1].
My technique usually involves starting with a personal story, something
that I or someone I know have seen. Then, I retell the main structural
parts of the story, and apply each of them to the structure of the
argument and line of philosophic reasoning I'm supporting. I explain how
I (or my acquaintance) learned the principles from the experience, then I
begin to expand the principles outward and, if I have specific statistics
to use, I include them. If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
and so forth.
The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
our culture. Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
In my experience, however, people -do- believe in universal Truths. The
key is to discover which they believe in and move them forward from there.
For instance, most people believe things such as "All human life has
inherent value." The step forward from there is: "Why?" Thus, the
effective Communicator keeps his over-arching principles in mind when he
relates his anecdotes and his sociological data. The challenge is to use
every comment, every joke, every tangent, and every gesture to keep
pointing the person toward your central guiding principles. This is the
basic and obvious structure of any cogent style of argument, and it is
also the structure of one of the crucial philosophic ideas which our
society is tossing out like yesterday's garbage: Logocentrism[2].
: Your thoughts?
I've given them, though I've sent followups out of TriBizz, since, even
though this is interesting, it's not terribly funny or appallingly weird.
If Andy Simmons joins in, though, it will be appalling.
--Gurk
[1] Yes, it sounds like I'm tooting my own horn. I'm just a guy who
LOVES his passions and enjoys honing the related skills and talents.
[2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me. Or any
substantialist. Do not ask most people in your English or Philosophy
department. Their definition of logocentrism will usually revolve around
the fact that they don't believe in it. Ask a logocentrist.
--
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ gu...@ncsu.edu Andrew S. Damick
substantialist | companion | human | poet | author | believer | communicator
- - - - - - - d e u s j u v a t - - - - - - -
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
: This is very interesting to me, because it's completely backwards from the way
: I normally argue. See, these individual stories DON'T work on me. I take a
: much larger, broader view of reality, and I think it's foolish to base your
: political opinons on a few anecdotes.
: Unlike most people, statistics CAN change my opinion, if I can be sure the
: statistics are reliable and "targeted" to a specific issue.
: This is why I fail.
: Most people are like Ellen. When I argue with Ellen, she always falls back on
: anecdotal stories. She places great value on personal testimony and the kind
: of "first-person" stories you see on the stage at political rallies.
: Powerful, emotional stories like this form the backbone of most people's
: opinions. If you ask the average person about economics or gun control, they
: won't rattle statistics at you, they'll tell you a story about "this guy whose
: child got shot" or "this one woman they saw with food stamps."
: Successful politicians use this technique all the time.
Yeah, but the truly dangerous (read: "effective") people are the blokes
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 17 May 1997 16:49:41 GMT, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
:Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
:discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
:(a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
:many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
May I recommend triangle.bizarre.moderated?
I send posts to tribizz for one reason and one reason only, Otto Baun can't
read APJ. If he can read AFTB, I'll start sending there there instead.
Jaffo
--
"A true measure of your worth includes all the benefits others have
gained from your success." - CULLEN HIGHTOWER
Richard Crew
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
:
: And it WORKS. Scholarship cannot compete with emotion in your average public
: forum.
:
Scholarship? Why is it scholarship? Because it uses statistics? Because
any use of numbers is a guarantee of correctness? Do you believe that
anyone who puts on a white coat and messes with test tubes or oscilloscopes
is a "scientist," and that what he says must be taken *very* seriously?
A book that you should definitely read -- it was published in the 50's and
looks a little dated, but is still very useful -- is "How to Lie
with Statistics."
I deal with numbers on a regular basis and I can assure you that they are
nasty little weasels that will bite you on the leg if you let up your
guard for a moment. It's very difficult to keep one's bias out of a
statistical study. So really, nothing is less surprising than to hear than
that a bunch of anti-gun-control enthusiasts have statistics showing that
gun control is a bad idea.
By all means, let's have a scientific study of this. But just because it
has statistics in it doesn't mean *anything*, a priori.
--Rich
--
###########################################################################
#
# IF YOU PUT ANYTHING HERE IT WILL GO AWAY
#
E.Holmes
On Sat, 17 May 1997, Jaffo wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/In alt.politics.jaffo, on 17 May 1997, Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
/
/:Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
/:discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
/:(a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
/:many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
/
/May I recommend triangle.bizarre.moderated?
/
/I send posts to tribizz for one reason and one reason only, Otto Baun can't
/read APJ. If he can read AFTB, I'll start sending there there instead.
[1]
Yeah. What he said!
Me, I forgot aftb was a serious group and was just cutting down on
the xposts. I figured the population was the same for both & wanted
everyone to know I was miffed. Does anyone have any remaining doubts
about my miffedness? If so, I can pick some entirely UNRELATED new
groups to copy stuff too. Like alt.sex.hello-dolly or something.
E.(or talk.moderate.moderated, that would be a good forum)hOlMeS
[1] You forgot the <pats head> part. I added it to the headers.
--
"I have myself been "attacked" twice that I know of.
It's like being nibbled to death by ducks." -- Phil
Boswell, describing the Gr*borclan activities.
Kevin P. Neal
ri...@archytas.duckpond (Richard Crew) wrote:
>Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
> :
> : And it WORKS. Scholarship cannot compete with emotion in your average public
> : forum.
> :
>
> Scholarship? Why is it scholarship? Because it uses statistics? Because
> any use of numbers is a guarantee of correctness? Do you believe that
> anyone who puts on a white coat and messes with test tubes or oscilloscopes
> is a "scientist," and that what he says must be taken *very* seriously?
>
> A book that you should definitely read -- it was published in the 50's and
> looks a little dated, but is still very useful -- is "How to Lie
> with Statistics."
"Liars figure, and figures lie."?
Although I must say that my parents love to ask emotional questions,
and expect to win points with those. An example:
"But all of the guns in America spend most of their time in homes,
near children. Then you have children shooting themselves. How would
you feel if your child was shot by himself?"
My response? "That's an emotional argument. Emotional arguments *do
not* make your case more valid." They, to this day, have not found a
response to that (aside from telling their friends and family "we wish
Kevin would be a laywer. We think he would be a good one.")
>###########################################################################
>#
># IF YOU PUT ANYTHING HERE IT WILL GO AWAY
>#
Been reading Makefiles, huh?
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Glenn Knickerbocker
Jaffo (ja...@onramp.net) wrote:
: Unlike most people, statistics CAN change my opinion, if I can be sure the
: This explains why Ronald Reagan's story about the welfare mother in the
: cadallac is more powerful than a legitimate University of Chicago study about
: welfare.
:
After a weekend of reading rabidly right-wing flyers and student newspapers
around the U of C campus, I'd have serious doubts about the legitimacy of
any such study done there. Even the conference I was attending sponsored by
a linguistics department had a pretty noticeable rightward slant.
^R http://members.aol.com/notr/whynot.r.html N.B. -
Do not on any account attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
Andy Simmons
In article <5llhln$e...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>
>: I'm confused. I thought you, Gurk, personally, had decided
>: alt.fan.the-bob was a dead group.
>
>It is. But it's not decomposed or anything. Just lying very still.
>(Like a corpse, you know.)
Yay. Now we may argue politicky stuff in Dead Earnest. Or the-BOB. But
"Earnest" was funnier.
--Didymos
--
d a s i m m o n @ u n i t y . n c s u . e d u - Didymos, PPoS
"Do you realize how difficult it is to try to transmit knowledge
to what is essentially a dried puddle of masturbatory emission?"
--Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.politics.jaffo did James Ryan Younce a stately USENET-post decree:
: In triangle.bizarre Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: : OK, lovely.
: : Now, do explain why you removed alt.fan.the-bob (a group which has
: : discussed politics since time immemorial[1]) and left in TriBizz
: : (a group which is only political when it comes time to discuss how
: : many women Bill's slept with and truly !squishy most of them are)[2].
: : Nothing personal, but you get the idea.
: I'm confused. I thought you, Gurk, personally, had decided
: alt.fan.the-bob was a dead group.
It is. But it's not decomposed or anything. Just lying very still.
(Like a corpse, you know.)
--Gurk
--
-------------------------------------------------Andrew S. Damick-----
"It's true...no man is an island. But if you take a bunch of dead guys
and tie 'em together, they make a pretty good raft." -- Earl, Red Meat
----...@ncsu.edu----------------------------------------------------
Stefan Kapusniak
[tri-bizz snecked]
In alt.politics.jaffo, ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
[...]
>Particularly on Usenet, people are so lazy, they won't even bother to refute
>your statistics. They'll just say, "Statistics don't mean anything." and
>start telling stories!
Personally, I find that the USENET one of few places where people
will occassionally care about whether one has any concrete evidence
to back up ones rhetoric.
Doesn't mean this happens too often of course. The human mind is
built for pattern creation, matching, and extrapolation from minimal
and incomplete information. Not for carefully weighing up all the
available evidence and coming to the most accruate conclusions
possible.
A compelling and elegantly constructed pattern of rhetoric, woven
into brushstrokes of anecdote and emotion, always has more impact
and effect upon us than assertions of what appear to be the
currently available facts.
<expecting to get slugged in the jaw>
If you _really_ believe that this kind of thing doesn't have an
influence on the way you think, then I must humbly suggest that
you know yourself less well than you think you do.
</expecting to get slugged in the jaw>
Study closely a text that you feel states correctly a position
with which you profoundly agree, perhaps even one you've written
yourself, with an eye to spotting all the rhetorical slights of
hand, and emotional gambits, that are used that you didn't notice
were there before.
If you are not surprised by the results then report yourself to
John_-_Winston as a suspected space-person (-;
>And it WORKS. Scholarship cannot compete with emotion in your average public
>forum.
Of course it can't, in virtually any forum, public or otherwise.
Not for changing what people actually think and believe.
I have to admit, that I'm rather surprised that you seem to find
any of this surprising...
...why do you think we all try NOT to argue in that style, and fail
miserably most of the time?
We all know it works. We can all do it with ease. Most of the time,
alas, we find it almost impossible not do it, but fortunately I think
all of us here in apj know it doesn't aid us in ACTUALLY finding
solutions to problems that might ACTUALLY stand a chance of working.
It is in finding solutions to problems that have a chance of
working in the real world, NOT in convincing people, that
scientific method, scholarship, experiment, and careful analysis
have their utility.
I would have thought this would be one of the core arguments
that someone who takes a libertarian position would advance
for why politics and politicians, tend to screw things up.
Politics is after all, largely the art of convincing large
numbers of people to support a certain position, and to carry
out or sit still for a certain set of actions.
>Your thoughts?
If you find profound the observations on rhetoric of someone who
seems to believe that being killfiled by everyone in a 'froup, or
encountering someone brave enough to stand by their position
even when the only option they are presented with in order to do
so is in terms of agreeing with the statement 'are you in favour
of living in a slave state?', are signs of their 'winning the
argument', then I wonder what would happen if you encountered a
really solid text on the art of rhetoric.
Gurk? Got any recommendations for works on this subject capable
of causing Jaffo's HEaD tO ExPLODE!!!11!!!111
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Jaffo
Andrew, one of the greatest joys in my life is watching you irritate the hell
out of people.
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Sun, 18 May 1997 12:49:38 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wanted to share:
:Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
:into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
Theater, actually. A watered-down kind of politics. <ducking>
:My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
:knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
Well, then everyone BUT YOU knows...<G>
:> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
:> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
:> our culture.
:
:All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
I believe he was referring to *American* culture: a nebulous collection of
outdated social mores, obsolete moral codes, and a bunch of stupid anecdotal
stories written by Dead White Men. <G>
:> Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
:> toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
:> Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
:> seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
:> realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
:
:That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
:the term. Too jargony.
It should be interesting to see Andy define postmodernity. I look forward to
it. This is his favorite subject, and I'm not 100% clear on it myself.
:> [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
:
:You may proceed.
...said the Spider to the Fly....
Jaffo <-- munching popcorn
Susan Hogarth
> Jaffo wrote:
> :Susan Hogarth wrote:
>
> :Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
> :into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
>
> Theater, actually. A watered-down kind of politics. <ducking>
;-)
> :My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
> :knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
>
> Well, then everyone BUT YOU knows...<G>
<sigh> so I've been told...
> :> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> :> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> :> our culture.
> :
> :All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
> I believe he was referring to *American* culture:
Yes, but what *I* meant was isn't that (identification with the
specific) true of *all* cultures?
> Jaffo <-- munching popcorn
Pass me some?
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life."
-- Stilgar (Frank Herbert)
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
...
> My technique usually involves starting with a personal story, something
> that I or someone I know have seen. Then, I retell the main structural
> parts of the story, and apply each of them to the structure of the
> argument and line of philosophic reasoning I'm supporting. I explain how
> I (or my acquaintance) learned the principles from the experience, then I
> begin to expand the principles outward and, if I have specific statistics
> to use, I include them.
Fine. Dandy. Lovely.
> If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
> and so forth.
Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
> The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> our culture.
All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
> Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
> toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
> Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
> seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
> realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
the term. Too jargony.
> [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
You may proceed.
Dan Knauss
Jaffo wrote:
>
>
> How many people remember and re-tell statistical data on a regular basis?
>
> Particularly on Usenet, people are so lazy, they won't even bother to refute
> your statistics. They'll just say, "Statistics don't mean anything." and
> start telling stories!
>
> forum.
>
>
> Jaffo
>
I think statistics are boring, and in English literature, interpretive
arguments rarely require them, thankfully. They at least do not have a
dominant role. But I agree with you--in social and political debates,
statistics are important. Anecdotes are rhetorical flourishes that can
become manipulative. This is what I teach when I teach rhetoric. I try
to get students to maintain a healthy balance. I had a vague memory of
the food stamp mother story that was mentioned, but I never gave it much
thought, because like you, I say so what? But I have had several
students write research papers for me on welfare reform, and all of them
used this anecdote or a variation of it. Most of them started their
papers with it. All of them argued for different types of reform,
increase, or removal in welfare policy. The article is definitely right
about the pervasiveness and power of such stories. I have many similar
examples of such cheap rhetoric among students. It has gotten to the
point that I believe that they are all programmed to think and
speak/write according to some invisible culutural vocabulary that is
totally foreign to me. (Inexplicably, they all use "can not" instead of
"cannot" and will not alter this style.) From simple syntactical
structures to argumentative tropes, these kids are all on the same sheet
of music which is a debased for of rhetoric without much consciousness,
critical ability, or eloquence. They work from mental templates that
someone else has fabricated. Maybe they all buy their papers from the
same place. It is definitely weird. No, scholarship cannot compete with
average public opinion when that public has reverted to a pre-literate,
oral saga-based tribal culture.
Dan
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
: > and so forth.
: Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury. Going
: into Law, are you? Or is it politics.
Neither, actually, though I have, in the past, considered both. It does
mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
"Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
: knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
I do, I'm almost always being facetious. After all, that is one of the
classic logical[1] fallacies.
http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/, and all that.
: > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
: > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
: > our culture.
: All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
: > Additionally, the postmodernity of our age has geared people
: > toward an irrational fear and hatred of generalizations and categorizations.
: > Essentially, we have become so heartily relativistic that we no longer
: > seek to understand and interpret universal Truths. In the political
: > realm, we have cast off the sociologist and embraced the psychologist.
: That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
: the term. Too jargony.
It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. For a good understanding of
the term, I recommend Terry Eagleton's _The_Illusions_of_Postmodernism_.
Eagleton's a Marxist (in the literary-philosophic sense), but, despite
that, he gives excellent criticisms of the postmodern sensibility[2] that
non-Marxists can understand and appreciate. The book is rather dry, but
that's mostly on account of its high density. Briefly, however, the
postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy. You can tell I'm
not a fan.
: > [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
: You may proceed.
"Logos" is Greek for thought, word, law, Reason, Word (no, it's not a
repeat), idea, truth, philosophy. (Eastern philosophies have the similar
concept of the Tao.) Thus, the philosophic idea of logocentrism is that
there is Truth and that everything extends outward from it. Contrary to
what critics of logocentrism might tell you, most logocentrists do not
claim to have found and defined the Logos. Instead, they simply claim to
believe its existence and to be pursuing it, to, as C.S. Lewis put it,
misunderstand a little less completely.
In the Christian philosophy, for instance, logocentrism would put God as
the Logos, the Absolute Truth on which all depends. Other philosophies
would name the Logos as something else, but true logocentrists tend to at
least be theists (there is a God, though it may not be rigidly defined).
Critics of logocentrism, primarily found in literary-philosophic circles
as deconstructionists these days, define it as the fallacy of believing an
arbitrary Logos to be the true one. Indeed, when a human claims to have
the Absolute Truth written down on a piece of paper and wholly
interpretable and understandable by him, it is my belief that he probably
does have a false center.
However, the paradox of the non-fallacious sort of logocentrism is that,
while no human can completely grasp the Logos, his life's purpose is to
attempt it, the more incomplete misunderstanding. The Logos, while
reachable, is not graspable, and the Logos which can be named or pointed
to (in the sense that it has been defined and boundaries drawn) is not the
true Logos, for only the Logos understands itself. Thus, while we can see
it, we cannot fully comprehend it.
Substantialism is a logocentric philosophy. It generally refers to a
basic Substance from which all stems outward, and it also refers to the
Substance of individual things, termed in a revision of the Platonic sense
of the Forms. See some of its literary beginnings and underpinnings in
the ideas of mimesis in Sir Philip Sidney's _Defence_of_Poesie_.
We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
temporary host site soon.
--Gurk
[1] I believe that logic, while a useful tool, can only take one so far.
This is why I believe that mysticism[3] is required for the sort of belief
and understanding which is commonly termed "faith." Interestingly enough,
you might be shocked to know that a higher percentage[4] of scientists
proclaim some sort of faith than do normal people who rely on their
lackluster knowledge of science to justify their atheism or agnosticism.
[2] I label it a "sensibility," because there is no real defined
philosophic system which can be labelled "postmodernism." Indeed, it finds
much of its strength in its refusal of unity. The only true unity is in
its diversity (according to itself, anyhow). Critics of it point to a
number of recognizable characteristics, which I've touched on briefly
above.
[3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about the
Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
[4] According to a report I heard on NPR.
--
_/-_|\ Andrew S. Damick http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
| | Prophet du Smerp Proto-Eminent Substantialist
\_-__* <----- Garner, NC g u r k @ n c s u . e d u
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Stefan Kapusniak a stately USENET-post decree:
: Gurk? Got any recommendations for works on this subject capable
: of causing Jaffo's HEaD tO ExPLODE!!!11!!!111
Cicero. A lot of it.
...and pretty much the entire Western Canon. S'right, boys and girls.
You, too, can learn the secret of SPEAKING and WRITING by READING.
--Gurk
--
Due to recent cutbacks, the light Andrew S. Damick
at the end of the tunnel has been Independent Reality Contractor
turned off until further notice. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
>
> : > If not, I'll say stuff like, "People tend to..."
> : > and so forth.
>
> : Which means exactly _nothing_ unless you're arguing before a jury.
> It does
> mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
> "Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
Same thing, as far as I can tell - I must be dense :-( My standard
reply to this sort of thing is "small sample size". Of course,
*everyone* recognizes some universals - I guess I'd go for something
like "I notice that women seem to pee squatting," but mostly statements
like ""Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
seem to be used for rhetorical effect - you're trying to "paint a
picture", and often the person who is listening will just "follow
along". Sometimes this has very little to do with "reality" (or do we
need to discuss what "reality" is? :)
> : My Dearest One tries that crap on me all the time - "Well, *everyone*
> : knows this is how it is" - Sorry, but I *don't* know.
>
> Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
> knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
> I do, I'm almost always being facetious.
I think the way you phrased it, above, was really just a subtler version
of this.
> : > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
> : > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
> : > our culture.
>
> : All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
>
> Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
> generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
> or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
<sigh> I'm not communicating very well. What I meant was that the
identification with the specific is probably a *general* thing, and not
something specific to Western culture.
> : That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
> : the term. Too jargony.
>
> It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. ... Briefly, however, the
> postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
> identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
> grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
> and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy.
OK, thanks.
> : > [2] For a further understanding of logocentrism, ask me.
>
> : You may proceed.
>
> "Logos" is Greek for thought, word, law, Reason, Word (no, it's not a
> repeat), idea, truth, philosophy. (Eastern philosophies have the similar
> concept of the Tao.) Thus, the philosophic idea of logocentrism is that
> there is Truth and that everything extends outward from it.
OK; nice.
> ... true logocentrists tend to at
> least be theists (there is a God, though it may not be rigidly defined).
Yes, I can certainly understand that.
> We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
> which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
> temporary host site soon.
Do you have one in mind? Or are you still looking?
> [1] I believe that logic, while a useful tool, can only take one so far.
> This is why I believe that mysticism[3] is required for the sort of belief
> and understanding which is commonly termed "faith." Interestingly enough,
> you might be shocked to know that a higher percentage[4] of scientists
> proclaim some sort of faith than do normal people who rely on their
> lackluster knowledge of science to justify their atheism or agnosticism.
Footnotes to footnotes ;-) I'm a bit surprised at [4], though not
"shocked".
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
"I must work harder." -- Boxer (Eric Blair)
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > I have many similar
: > examples of such cheap rhetoric among students. It has gotten to the
: > point that I believe that they are all programmed to think and
: > speak/write according to some invisible culutural vocabulary that is
: > "cannot" and will not alter this style.) From simple syntactical
: > structures to argumentative tropes, these kids are all on the same sheet
: > of music which is a debased for of rhetoric without much consciousness,
: > critical ability, or eloquence. They work from mental templates that
: > someone else has fabricated. Maybe they all buy their papers from the
: > same place. It is definitely weird. No, scholarship cannot compete with
: > average public opinion when that public has reverted to a pre-literate,
: > oral saga-based tribal culture.
: Proof that exam time is Hell for profs, too...
And to think...I plan to try to get into the same line of work as Dan.
DON'T WORRY! WE'LL SAVE 'EM! ;)
--Gurk, or not.
--
"Herfh" has no meaning, Andy. - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - --
g u r k @ n c s u . e d u Andrew S. Damick, Literal Prophet of Smerp
-- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - "Herfh" has all meaning, you.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 17 May 1997 13:50:05 GMT, Glenn Knickerbocker wanted
to share:
:After a weekend of reading rabidly right-wing flyers and student newspapers
:around the U of C campus, I'd have serious doubts about the legitimacy of
:any such study done there. Even the conference I was attending sponsored by
:a linguistics department had a pretty noticeable rightward slant.
Cool! I think I know where I want to go to grad school!
Jaffo
--
"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it,
is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
- James Madison, from a letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : After a weekend of reading rabidly right-wing flyers and student newspapers
> : around the U of C campus, I'd have serious doubts about the legitimacy of
> : any such study done there. Even the conference I was attending sponsored by
> : a linguistics department had a pretty noticeable rightward slant.
>
> I suppose a leftward slant would be more reliable, eh?
Not really, but if you took a rightward-slanted person and a
leftward-slanting person and leaned them against each other, you could
use them as a rain shelter. But I guess that would only work if you were
squarely in the middle.
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > It does
: > mean something, though, because the comments are often in the form of,
: > "Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: Same thing, as far as I can tell - I must be dense :-( My standard
: reply to this sort of thing is "small sample size". Of course,
: *everyone* recognizes some universals - I guess I'd go for something
: like "I notice that women seem to pee squatting," but mostly statements
: like ""Well, I notice that people seem to do X. Have you noticed this?"
: seem to be used for rhetorical effect - you're trying to "paint a
: picture", and often the person who is listening will just "follow
: along".
You're right, it is for rhetorical effect. However, rhetoric, in case
all you politicians out there have forgotten, is the art of debate. The
effect is to establish a common ground of some human or cultural
universal, and there are a good many of them out there, even if they're
things such as: All human life has inherent value.
Note that many of my arguments are based on recognizable universals (the
Substance of mankind), which is, of course, in direct opposition to the
anti-universalism of the postmodern era, something which I think is not
only naive, but radically impractical! We need universals such as the one
I name at the end of my above paragraph.
: Sometimes this has very little to do with "reality" (or do we
: need to discuss what "reality" is? :)
Well, if you're a materialist ("there is nothing but the physical world"),
you and I won't get very far. :)
: > Ach! That is not what I meant. I rarely base arguments on "Everyone
: > knows that X is true, so what I'm telling you must be true, too." When
: > I do, I'm almost always being facetious.
: I think the way you phrased it, above, was really just a subtler version
: of this.
Not at all. The difference is that the common ground which I am trying to
establish is being based on observable things, a discussion of behavior in
itself, not that popular behavior ABOUT something (i.e. opinion) makes
that something true.
: > : > The reason why I start with the specific and move outward is that the
: > : > specific is much easier to visualize and identify with for most people in
: > : > our culture.
: >
: > : All cultures? Mammals? Animals?
: >
: > Thou knowest that which I mean. When I refer to "our culture," I
: > generally am referencing the majority culture of the United States,
: > or sometimes of Western Culture in general.
: <sigh> I'm not communicating very well. What I meant was that the
: identification with the specific is probably a *general* thing, and not
: something specific to Western culture.
Quite likely, given some of the things I've read from the East. I know
the West far better, though, which is why I commented on it.
: > : That's _good_. Except "postmodernity" - I'm afraid I don't understand
: > : the term. Too jargony.
: >
: > It has quite a specific meaning in my usage. ... Briefly, however, the
: > postmodern sensibility is one of relativism; fear/hatred of labels,
: > identity, and definition; denial of absolutes; a deliberate non-belief in
: > grand narratives about the direction of history and societal evolution;
: > and a sort of increased homogeneity of societal entropy.
: OK, thanks.
Oh, yeah. Add in anti-universalism (though it's really just an offshoot
of anti-label and anti-identity stuff).
: > We discuss a great deal of this stuff on the substantialism listserv,
: > which, unfortunately, is offline at the moment, but we hope to have a
: > temporary host site soon.
: Do you have one in mind? Or are you still looking?
We have one in mind. I just have to beat up the guys concerned a little
bit more and a little bit harder.
--Gurk
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: Not really, but if you took a rightward-slanted person and a
: leftward-slanting person and leaned them against each other, you could
: use them as a rain shelter. But I guess that would only work if you were
: squarely in the middle.
THE MIDDLE OF WHAT?! What entertains me greatly is how the PEEPL who
claim to be moderates and/or in the middle of the political spectrum make
the rather fallacious (mmm....fallacious) assumption that they really
-are- in the middle. After all, even though the proponets of Liberalism
are against those of Libertarianism, who is to say that both paradigms
are not WAY to the right or left of something else entirely?
This, of course, is ONE of the reasons that I have receded somewhat from
things political. That, and the fact that no one I ever know is likely
to get John-John in bed.
(Except Otto. He seems to have a way with dynastic democrats.)
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. Damick Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi --
A Substantialist dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. ----
g u r k , l i t e r a l p r o p h e t o f s m e r p --------
Jason and Heather
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>
> Everybody go take the Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml so I can
> decide whether I like you or not.
Between 90 and 100 on both sides depending on my mood and general faith
in humanity on any given day.
Am I a sycophant yet?
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Michael Straight
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
> for quick reference:
Screw that...
From ro...@netcom.com Tue Dec 6 08:15:31 MST 1994
Article: 51447 of alt.religion.kibology
Newsgroups: alt.politics.india.progressive,alt.politics.kibo,
alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.perot,
alt.religion.kibology
From: ro...@netcom.com (achille lauro)
In article <3bp6gg$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Scott Banister <bani...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>THE WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ
The hell with that!
THE WORLD'S SMALLEST BOZOCITY QUIZ
Fed up with bozo/megabozo labels?
Use this improved bozocity compass to test your identity. Take the
WORLD'S SMALLEST BOZOCITY QUIZ.
On your screen, circle "Y" when you agree, "M" for Maybe or unsure,
"N" for No. Use an indelible marker.
Are you a kibologist on PERSONAL issues? 0 10 20
* Happynet service should be voluntary. (No draft).......... Y M N
* Kibo should NOT control radio, TV, the press, cable, Usenet,
Adobe, or Ludw^H^H^H^HArchimides Plutonium................ Y M N
* Repeal regulations on trolling by consenting adults....... Y M N
* Newbie laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.......... Y M N
* Let people flame and forge freely......................... Y M N
My PERSONAL kibologist score: 20 for N, 10 for M, 0 for Y _________
Are you a kibologist on ECONOMIC issues? 20 10 0
* Businesses & farms should have anonymous XXX ftp sites.... Y M N
* People are better off with flat-rate access than hourly... Y M N
* Minimum wage laws cause loss of net access. Repeal them... Y M N
* End taxes. Pay for services with "MAKE.MONEY.FAST" posts. Y M N
* Europe & Japan should provide their own WAREZ sites....... Y M N
My ECONOMIC kibologist score: 20 for Y, 10 for M, 0 for N _________
How to use the Kibologist Compass
Mark your PERSONAL score on the left and your ECONOMIC score on the
right. Then, follow the grid lines (rows of dots) until they meet at
your political identity! An example for someone who scored 20 on
Personal and 30 on Economic is indicated with a lutefisk (<><).
The compass measures your kibological quotient (KQ). Bozos (BOZ)
value freedom of wackiness. Weenerbranes (WEE) value free
horndoggery. Geeks (GEE) value both and favor Mentos. Megabozos
(MEG) are against both and favor Zima.
. BOZ = Bozo
./ \. MEG = Megabozo
./ . \. ARF = Spot (poor Spot!)
./ . . \. GEE = Geek
./ . . . \. WEE = Weenerbrane
./ . .BOZ. . \.
./ \. . . . ./ \.
./ . \.___.___.___./ . \.
./ . . ! . . . ! . . \.
./ . . ! . . ! . . \.
./ . . . ! . . . ! . . . \.
100 \. .MEG. ! .ARF. ! .GEE. ./ 100
90 \. . . ! . . . ! . . ./ 90
80 \. . !___.___.___! . ./ 80
70 \. ./ . . . \. ./ 70
60 \./ . . <>< . \./ 60
Personal 50 \. . . . ./ 50 Economic
Kibologist 40 \. .WEE. ./ 40 Kibologist
Score 30 \. . ./ 30 Score
20 \. ./ 20
10 \./ 10
0 0
Examples:
Tim Pierce (left)
Joel Furr (right)
5150 (top)
Lisa Higgins (bottom)
Copyright, 1994, Advocates for Kibology, Inc., Corp., Co. Ltd.
5150
--
Way before I came to rule this place
I was king of an island
I only needed someone else to rule
Now my mind is an island
Hit ENTER to continue ...
Michael Straight
[a.r.k deleted from newsgroups]
On 21 May 1997, Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> What -does- bother me, as I stated above, is that I don't think that
> Centrists are necessarily in the Middle. I know a good many who would
> label themselves as such, simply because they like being called
> "Moderate." How many political paradigms are out there that aren't even
> addressed by the WSPQ? How biased is the WSPQ? Why do the people from
> Burger King not tell you that Whoppers have more fat than Big Macs?
Burger King *does* tell you that Whoppers have more fat than Big Macs.
Not very loudly. You have to look at the little charts at both
restaurants.
How available do you think that information would be if the government
hadn't started requiring businesses to label foods? (Burger King may do
it voluntarily, but only because government-required labeling on other
foods got people used to it enough to demand that fast food restaurants do
it too).
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Dan Knauss
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : > I have many similar
> : > examples of such cheap rhetoric among students. It has gotten to the
> : > point that I believe that they are all programmed to think and
> : > speak/write according to some invisible culutural vocabulary that is
> : > totally foreign to me. (Inexplicably, they all use "can not" instead of
> : > "cannot" and will not alter this style.) From simple syntactical
> : > structures to argumentative tropes, these kids are all on the same sheet
> : > of music which is a debased for of rhetoric without much consciousness,
> : > critical ability, or eloquence. They work from mental templates that
> : > someone else has fabricated. Maybe they all buy their papers from the
> : > same place. It is definitely weird. No, scholarship cannot compete with
> : > average public opinion when that public has reverted to a pre-literate,
> : > oral saga-based tribal culture.
>
> : Proof that exam time is Hell for profs, too...
>
> And to think...I plan to try to get into the same line of work as Dan.
>
> DON'T WORRY! WE'LL SAVE 'EM! ;)
>
> --Gurk, or not.
I'll be damned if I teach freshman composition for the rest of my life.
(& I should also be double-careful of typos when criticizing bad
writing, I see.) I was just blasting on about the general entry level
abilities of large, land-grant university students. There are many
exceptions to the rule, even within the halls of such state-military
research complexes. Perhaps even substance and souls... I managed to
assist in some good efforts against the spirit of mindlessness this past
semester. But the mass mental and linguistic conformity to a barely
literate level is really pervasive today. Yes, roll that rock up the
hill teachers... YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY PUDDING UNTIL YOU ACHIEVE SENTIENCE!
dk.
Mr. Knauss's Monday Morning English
Class
APHILOLOGISTICAL
The stultorious savants of NC State
Drift across the window-panes:
Truant in spirit, but few of them are ever
late.
Few of them are ever late,
Supersaturated with caffeine,
And at the measured turn of time
Demonstrate their cogitation's keen.
A philosophe of the Undergraduate school
Conceived an exegetical Sargasso Sea,
Proposing the raptures of the metaphysicals
Manifest a latent
homosexuality.
But through those eyes so pale and placid
Still shines the enervated wit;
Though impatient with all printed words,
They've talent for the TV set.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The bellicose scholars solemnly approach
The avenue of their Tompkins penitentiary,
Some are young and hopeful that
They'll escape these halls with a degree.
None seek parole* -- it is forced on them *pun on the French & English
meanings
By magisterial implicatum.
O Unjust Fate! O cruel curriculum--
Two whole courses in English graphein!* *Greek, "writing"
O envy the blest free office of the Greek,
And the red-bricked wall where frat pledges stand!
In sable dresses borrowed from sororities,
These are the glorious masters of partymath.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
to share:
:Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
:>
:> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
:> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
:
:What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
:that they lead to objective knowledge?
I saw this one coming a mile away.
Good luck, Andy.
I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
Jaffo
--
"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding who is for lunch."
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Wed, 21 May 1997 16:17:59 -0400, Michael Straight
wanted to share:
:[a.r.k deleted from newsgroups]
And PLEASE keep it that way!
:On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
:
:> I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
:> for quick reference:
:>
:> http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
:
:How would you score if the test had a few differently-biased questions?
:Here's a few from an alternate test (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~imk/lib.html)
:and a few of my own:
:
:<choose [Y]es, [M]aybe, or [N]o>
:
:* The laws of minimum hygiene, approved medicine, and occupational safety
: are nothing but ways for intrusive government to regulate free trade
: and individual liberty, and should thus all be repealed. Y M N
How long would a restaurant with poor hygiene stay in business?
Are all restaurants clean and safe now?
Would a physician prescribe unsafe or untested medicine?
Would the AMA certify a physician who would?
Would you go to an uncertified physician?
Would an unsafe workplace be able to attract and keep quality employees in a
tight labor market?
:* It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
: freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
Would you continue working at a place like this if other jobs at comparable
wages were available?
:* People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
: race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
: of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
Would a bus company that discriminated against minorities be able to attract
enough racist customers to stay in business?
Could a rival bus company gain a competitive advantage by taking away the
business of minority riders?
:* Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
: 6% unemployment. Y M N
How do you know how much labor would be worth in an unregulated market?
Can you please list some companies that could attract labor for 24 cents an
hour?
:* Better that some children receive no formal schooling than to have
: a tax-supported public system. Y M N
How many parents do you know that do not value literacy in their children?
Are 100% of children being educated under our current system?
Why or why not?
:* Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
: smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
Why do public radio stations have to be small?
Why do commercial stations have to be big?
:* Children should be able to buy heroin and cocaine over the counter at
: the drug store. Y M N
What respectable store would sell heroin and cocaine to children?
How long would they stay in business?
Why are parents allowing their children to buy cocaine and heroin?
Are current laws effective in keeping drugs out of the hands of our children?
Why or why not?
Your basic assumptions conflict with mine. You assume without government,
valuable services would not be performed.
You also assume that even WITH government regulation, people can be kept safe
from poor business practices.
The primary area of conflict is in my beliefs about the effects of a tight
labor market. Under a free market system, I believe individual workers will
become more valuable then they are now.
The more companies need labor, the more they will do to attract and keep good
employees.
The worst abuses of workers come when labor markets are loose, and jobs are
impossible to find. Under those conditions, managers can do ANYTHING they
want and people will tolerate it, because they have no choice but to keep the
job.
In a tight labor market, people will have greater opportunity to move between
good jobs.
By promoting policies that discourage employment, government actually creates
a climate where workers are treated WORSE, because jobs are so hard to find.
In an unregulated market, REPUTATION becomes the most important commodity.
Stores that develop a reputation for unsafe working conditions, poor hygiene,
racism, dishonesty, etc. will quickly go out of business as their competitors
advertise their defects and establish higher standards of quality.
Etc., etc.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Wed, 21 May 1997 16:25:50 -0400, Michael Straight
wanted to share:
:Burger King *does* tell you that Whoppers have more fat than Big Macs.
:Not very loudly. You have to look at the little charts at both
:restaurants.
:
:How available do you think that information would be if the government
:hadn't started requiring businesses to label foods? (Burger King may do
:it voluntarily, but only because government-required labeling on other
:foods got people used to it enough to demand that fast food restaurants do
:it too).
You assume that consumers wouldn't want this information. You assume that
only GOVERNMENT can research and provide it. And you assume competitors
wouldn't shout to the high heavens, "20% LESS FAT THAN THE BIG MAC!"
They don't do it now because they're afraid of lawsuits.
Have you ever heard of the magazine Consumer Reports?
Customers who want health and nutrition information can get it from private or
even nonprofit sources, and competitors will fall all over themselves to
advertise how healthy their products are and how unhealthy the competing
products are.
Again, you assume that if government does not provide a valuable service NO
ONE will provide that service.
If people want to know something, if they want something important done, it
WILL be done under a free market.
Nonprofit organizations will be developed to certify and inspect workplaces.
Companies that advertise their certifications will attract customers and
employees more than those that do not.
In a tight labor market, a company that refuses to show its certifications to
potential employees will find it almost impossible to find workers, and
competitors will POUNCE on health, safety, and employment violations and
advertise the defects to the public.
Nick S Bensema
In article <3383487b...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
>for quick reference:
>
>http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
>
>result:
>
>Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
>Your Economic Self-Government Score is 90%.
>
>This makes me a LIBERTARIAN.
So this is the "Nolan Baseball diamond" that Kibo says proves everyone is
a closet Libertarian.
I was wondering where to find it.
>Everybody go take the Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml so I can
>decide whether I like you or not.
I took the test and it says I'm a Hypocrite. That means everybody likes
the way how I talk bad about everything they don't like.
--
N i c k B e n s e m a < n i c k b @ p r i m e n e t . c o m >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
98-KUPD Red Card Holder #710563 [THIS SPACE UNDER CONSTRUCTION]
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> Burger King *does* tell you that Whoppers have more fat than Big Macs.
> Not very loudly. You have to look at the little charts at both
> restaurants.
>
> How available do you think that information would be if the government
> hadn't started requiring businesses to label foods? (Burger King may do
> it voluntarily, but only because government-required labeling on other
> foods got people used to it enough to demand that fast food restaurants do
> it too).
Jaffo's retort aside, the current IsItNotWonderfulGovernmentSolution
is far too complicated for your average schlomp to figure out, much
less understand even if he did manage to read *both* charts correctly
and then *remember* the value from the previous restaurant. And as
if a few drippings of less fat makes a difference when the schlomp
has ALREADY CHOSEN TO EAT FAST FOOD GREASY BURGERS.
People who *want* the answers can get them. Most people couldn't
care less. Granted there are a few people who will suddenly start
caring if you shove the answers down their throat, but these people
*need* to learn the hard way anyway.
BTW, I'm not totally against labeling in a common law fraud sort
of way, but telling people about some percentage amount of fat
for some average person's supposedly ideal fat consumption as
determined by some panel of people who all hate fat...
Burning off some fat right now,
--oTTo--
Run away run away run away
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> Between 90 and 100 on both sides depending on my mood and general faith
> in humanity on any given day.
Everytime I lose faith in humanity and feel maybe
some protections are justified, I am reminded that
these same losers VOTE and some of them get ELECTED.
Current statism:
"People are too stupid to make their own decisions.
Therefore, let the stupid people elect some stupid
person who will make our decisions for us."
I reserve the right to think for myself.
--oTTo--
Made a mistake or two myself
Watson Aname
On Wed, 21 May 1997 14:17:03 -0500, ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
>
>I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good
>job for quick reference:
>
>http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
>
>To give you an idea where good ol' Jaffo is on this spectrum, here's my
>result:
>
>Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
>Your Economic Self-Government Score is 90%.
>
>This makes me a LIBERTARIAN.
>
>Libertarian
>
>Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters.
>They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from
>coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and
>tolerate economic and social diversity.
>
>Left-Liberal
>
>Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central
>decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the
>disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social
>diversity, but work for economic equality.
>
>Centrist
>
>Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize
>practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open
>mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a
>check on excessive liberty.
>
>Conservative
>
>Right-conservatives prefer self-government on economic issues, but want
>official standards in personal matters. They want the government to
>defend the community from threats to its moral fiber.
>
>Authoritarian
>
>Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals
>through expert central planning. They often doubt whether
>self-government is practical. Left-authoritarians are also called
>socialists, while fascists are right-authoritarians.
>
>Everybody go take the Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml so I can
>decide whether I like you or not.
Here are the results for my dear Watson on this spectrum:
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
This positions me as LEFT-LIBERAL.
Since you and I have the highest possible Personal Self-Government
Scores, we both appear to have the greatest confidence that we will
not cause harm to others by our personal behavioral choices. Your
three times greater Economic Self-Government Score suggests you are
vastly more confident than I that you will not be harmed by others
through their economical behavioral choices.
Can you like me now? There's nothing here you didn't already know.
>Jaffo
>
>P.S. I'm crossposting this to ARK because there HAS to be a way to make
>this funny!
Not sure if this is precisely what you had in mind, but *I* think it's
kinda funny. :)
--- Repost from November 26, 1996 ---
From: na57...@anon.penet.fi (Watson Aname)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.jaffo,misc.misc
Subject: Are You A Conservative Or A Liberal Or A Centrist Or ....
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 02:42:18 -0500
Message-Id: <1996112607...@mail.visi.net>
For a differently modeled quiz on the 'Are You A Conservative Or A Liberal'
theme, drop by and take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Maybe this
can gin up a less stratified discussion on who is them and who is us, and
whether we should sanction the use of 'dum-dums' (not referring to anyone
in particular) in resolving our political differences.
URL: http://www.self-gov.org/fee-quiz.shtml
I'm a *10* on the C-SPAN quiz. I owe it all to that movie with Bo Derrick.
Watson Aname
--
I had a .sig, but I fell asleep, it fell on the floor and my dog smoked it.
No, really.
--- End Repost ---
Watson Aname
--
"Then this! - And that! - And sure enough! The man's
neck was broken, just as the book said it would be."
- Robert A. Heinlein freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net
Jason and Heather
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
> Jason and Heather wanted to share:
> > Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> >
> > that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> I saw this one coming a mile away.
*whistles innocently*
> Good luck, Andy.
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have
> had NO luck.
Funny, I didn't either. But -- ever the optimist -- I hope our
substantialist friends will have better luck with their epistemology.
Your philosophy does have one, does it not?
Jason and Heather
> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
that they lead to objective knowledge?
jason
Dan Knauss
> > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
>
> that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
irrational?
I think mysticism just admits that there is no pure objectivity or
rationality possible, but only provisional approximations of each.
Having made that admission it does not try the fruitless path of making
an idol out of the "objective" and pursues it only provisionally as it
assists in a certain context. It is also free then to pursue knowledge
through means entirely devoid of the attempt to gain
objectivity--various forms of vision and revelation. These means can
come most easily and directly through day to day experience--no weird
prophet/monk/jedi/madman weirdness. Love, for example, is the beginning
and end of knowledge as wisdom: philo-sophia. We moderns tend to repress
this truth, but exercise alleviates the atrophied spirit. Everyone has
some experience, probably many, that attests to our mutual, necessary
and natural entanglement with the complete otherness of a world of
knowing and being that we recognize but only as a land we forgot we
originated from. I use this analogy because objectivity and literality
fail at communicating the irrational.
Andy, I suggest you read Augustine's works. There is no obstacle between
the logic, rhetoric, language, and the mysterious other side of Logos.
Dan
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jason and Heather a stately USENET-post decree:
: Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: >
: > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
: What are those means,
It is difficult to explain, since they are non-rational. However, I
could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
exist for the materialist.
: and upon what foundation do you base the claim
: that they lead to objective knowledge?
Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
go, proof is not required." You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
argue for it. You cannot argue against it. You can only accept it or not
accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
of that paradigm.
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. Damick - - - http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www/
PoetRhetoricianWriterConversationalistSubstantialistTechie
n o r t h c a r o l i n a s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y
Depts. of English and Communication, CHASS - gu...@ncsu.edu
Dan Knauss
Jaffo wrote:
>
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
> to share:
>
> :Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> :>
> :> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
> :> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> :What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> :that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
>
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
>
>
Reconciling all that with a philosophy capable of dealing with objective
reality is probably a better move than one that tries to promote
objective reality. Objective reality is only worth promoting when it
comes to good beer and the like. (Objective reality occuring in the form
of Guinness is the immanentization of some mysterious aspect of
divinity. Unfortunately, canning, pasteurization, and exportation kills
this to varying degrees. Therefore, at the good Guinness places outside
of Ireland, it follows that the location or proprietor is receiving a
special dispensation from God. Ask any Dubliner where the best pint is
outside of St. James Gate and you'll realize that this is not a
pointless fanaticism--it's a kind of theology.)
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
[This is fun. Don't take it personally]
> <choose [F]reedom, [S]lavery, or [M]ayonaise>
>
> * The laws of minimum hygiene, approved medicine, and occupational safety
> are nothing but ways for intrusive government to regulate free trade
> and individual liberty, and should thus all be repealed. Y M N
Approved medicine, ooooh, watch the dying alzheimers patients
beg and plead and cry for the only drug that might help them.
Hygiene? Watch taxpayers save millions as health inspections
are done by insurance companies who been sued out the wazoo
one to many times.
Occupational safety? See insurance, and see why steel toe
boots are not such a great idea after all.
If anyone has seen my toes, lemme know.
> * It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
> freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION NOW. Dammit.
> * People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
> race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
> of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
It was THE LAW to put blacks on the back of the bus.
It was a BOYCOTT that almost put the bus company out of
business. Damn free market messin' wid suthun poltics agin.
I boycotted Exxon after they ran into a FRIGGIN' CONTINENT.
And they didn't pay for the whole cleanup. Guess who lets
them off the hook? I boycot Texaco. Soon I will have no
gas stations to go to. MORE WILL APPEAR LIKE MAGIC!!!
> * Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
> 6% unemployment. Y M N
Lessee, 0$ per day is better than $1 per day. RIGHTO!
And did you pull 1$ per day out of your arse or thin air?
> * Better that some children receive no formal schooling than to have
> a tax-supported public system. Y M N
Parents are incapable of teaching their kids.
It's a PROVEN FACT!
> * Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
You don't understand much about law, do you?
> * Children should be able to buy heroin and cocaine over the counter at
> the drug store. Y M N
Damn, need to be serious here. Libertarian theory generally
covers COMPETENT adults (or kids who can demonstrate it). So
no, neither you nor children would NECESSARILY be allowed to
buy heroin.
In France, it's okay for kids to buy wine, along with a fresh
(I can smell it now) baguette, and take it home to mere and
pere. It's THE CONSUMPTION that's frowned upon.
--oTTo--
Christopher D Dukes
Mr. Simmons,
Add "Piercing Fan Quarterly" to your list of nekkid guy magazines.
--
The following must be destroyed. Microsoft, Lyons Partnership, SoftCell.
Balkanize USENET!! Vote from the rooftops!!
Sending unsolicited commercial massmail to this account may result
in a network outage for your site. Have a nice day.
Andy Simmons
In article <5m08tn$7...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>,
Christopher D Dukes <cdd...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Simmons,
>Add "Piercing Fan Quarterly" to your list of nekkid guy magazines.
Ecch. ECCH.
*squirm*
*retch*
*shiver*
*gasp*
I'm sorry. I go out of my way to avoid puncturing certain parts of my
body, so *paying* someone to impale Mister Happy *or* his luggage is right
out.
Anyway... I'd hate having to remove a PA at the airport metal detector.
--Didymos, keeping all piercings *above* the waist
--
///D. Andrew Simmons////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"If no-one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying."
--Nicole Blackman, "Dogma"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\dasi...@unity.ncsu.edu\\
Andy Simmons
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970521...@login3.isis.unc.edu>,
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>* The laws of minimum hygiene, approved medicine, and occupational safety
> are nothing but ways for intrusive government to regulate free trade
> and individual liberty, and should thus all be repealed. Y M N
I still have a problem with the "approved medicine" thing. The FDA has
never provided *any* evidence that marijuana is either dangerous *or*
addictive, and yet prohibits any agency, private or federal, from
performing research to uncover such information. Does this make sense to
you?
"Why is this illegal?"
"It's bad for you."
"How do you know?
"We just do."
"Do you have proof?"
"No."
"Can I test your theory?"
"No. Now go pay your taxes."
>* It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
> freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
It should be legal, provided that the employer is squishy[1]. If I
worked for Joey Lauren Adams or Uma Thurman (or both! Partnerships are
s00per-kewl!!11!!!1!!), I'd be the BEST DAMN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORLD.
>* People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
> race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
> of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
How exactly does one test for gayness? Obviously, you can't tell just
by looking -- I've known plenty of effeminate straight men and plenty of
somewhat masculine-looking straight women. And I know plenty of gay or
bi men and women who look no different from your typical straight man or
woman.
Would they put copies of _Hustler_ and _Playgirl_[2] out for people to
read, and keep tabs on who reads what?
>* Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
> 6% unemployment. Y M N
I don't know about a rate *that* low, but there should be a set low
pay rate for simple, menial tasks. Even if you're working for beans, at
least you're working, and possibly learning a skill. Which is better:
a vagrant getting totally drunk and making $10 through handouts in one day,
which he will use to get drunk the next day? Or a vagrant cleaning
litter from the sides of the road, EARNING $20 a day, which he can *not*
use to get drunk if he wants to work the next day?
>* Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
Hell no. Our commercial stations suck.
>* Children should be able to buy heroin and cocaine over the counter at
> the drug store. Y M N
Silly boy. 1) children can't reach over the counter. 2) kids shouldn't
be allowed to carry that much cash.
--Didymos
[1] http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jwelliot/squish.html
[2] Yeah, that's the only nekkid guy magazine I could think of. Deal.
Jason and Heather
Belt the Bunny <be...@deviant.richnet.net> wrote:
> Jason and Heather (stei...@primenet.com) wrote:
> >
> > What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the
> > claim that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> you! Really! You're asking a mystic to elaborate on his mysticism
> to you?
I guess this mean my check for OT IV hasn't cleared yet...
> RATIONALIST PIG! EAT RABBIT!!!
Ptoo. Fuckin' velveteen.
Susan Hogarth
Michael Straight wrote:
>
> [a.r.k deleted from newsgroups]
>
> On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
>
> > I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
> > for quick reference:
> >
> > http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
>
> Here's a few from an alternate test (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~imk/lib.html)
> and a few of my own:
>
> <choose [Y]es, [M]aybe, or [N]o>
>
> are nothing but ways for intrusive government to regulate free trade
> and individual liberty, and should thus all be repealed. Y M N
Umm, yes.
> * It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
> freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
Toughie. I'd have to say "yes" again, though.
> * People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
> race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
> of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
They certainly don't have the "right" to do that, but the gov't can't
grant or take away "rights" any more than it can legislate morality.
(Not that it doesn' try...)
> * Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
> 6% unemployment. Y M N
Of course not. But what does *that* have to do with government?
> * Better that some children receive no formal schooling than to have
> a tax-supported public system. Y M N
Community schools. Communities can vote for/against local school taxes.
Move.
> * Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
If that happens, you must not have much "listener support", eh?
> * Children should be able to buy heroin and cocaine over the counter at
> the drug store. Y M N
If their parents and the shopkeeper let them, which is a *hell* of a lot
less likely than children getting drugs now from teen drug stoogs at
schools.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.politics.jaffo, Susan Hogarth <sjho...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Government regulation is based on the sad premise that most people are
>too stupid/uneducated/unmotivated
...or just plain busy doing something less boring instead...
> to look out for their own "best
>intrests". Sadly, this may be true....
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Michael Straight
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Otto Bahn wrote:
> Otto Bahn wrote:
> >
> > Michael Straight wrote:
>
> > > * Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> > > smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
>
> You're so confused I almost missed it! Truly "listener-supported"
> is COMMERCIAL you DOLT. "Public" radio may or may not get
> donations, but they are supported mainly by the government.
*BZT* you missed the point entirely.
The FCC regulates the airwaves so that, unless I'm licensed to broadcast
at 91.5 FM, I can't just drown out 91.5 FM with my own signal because I
have a bigger tower. Had nothing to do with "public" radio except that
it's an example of a radio station that would typically have a smaller,
less-powerful broadcasting tower.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Michael Straight
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on Wed, 21 May 1997 16:17:59 -0400, Michael Straight
> wanted to share:
>
> :[a.r.k deleted from newsgroups]
>
> And PLEASE keep it that way!
>
> :On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> :
> :> I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
> :> for quick reference:
> :>
> :> http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
> :
> :How would you score if the test had a few differently-biased questions?
> :Here's a few from an alternate test (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~imk/lib.html)
> :and a few of my own:
> :
> :<choose [Y]es, [M]aybe, or [N]o>
> :
> :* The laws of minimum hygiene, approved medicine, and occupational safety
> : are nothing but ways for intrusive government to regulate free trade
> : and individual liberty, and should thus all be repealed. Y M N
>
> How long would a restaurant with poor hygiene stay in business?
Very possibly long enough to make a lot of people sick.
> Are all restaurants clean and safe now?
More than would be without health inspectors.
> Would a physician prescribe unsafe or untested medicine?
It happens already.
> Would the AMA certify a physician who would?
Maybe. Would you trust the AMA if there were no other organization to
watch it?
> Would you go to an uncertified physician?
See previous response.
> Would an unsafe workplace be able to attract and keep quality employees in a
> tight labor market?
What happens if the labor market isn't tight? Ever read the Grapes of
Wrath?
> :* It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
> : freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
>
> Would you continue working at a place like this if other jobs at comparable
> wages were available?
This assumption of infinite jobs if only we got rid of government is
delusional.
> :* People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
> : race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
> : of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
>
> Would a bus company that discriminated against minorities be able to attract
> enough racist customers to stay in business?
I think companies that discriminated against gays could attract enough
customers in some parts of the country today.
> Could a rival bus company gain a competitive advantage by taking away the
> business of minority riders?
Maybe. Maybe not.
> :* Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
> : 6% unemployment. Y M N
>
> How do you know how much labor would be worth in an unregulated market?
Looking at other countries with unregulated labor markets.
> Can you please list some companies that could attract labor for 24 cents an
> hour?
Nike. Dole Fruit Company (or whatever it's called these days).
> :* Better that some children receive no formal schooling than to have
> : a tax-supported public system. Y M N
>
> How many parents do you know that do not value literacy in their children?
Too many. Children should not be denied schooling because of their
parents lack of finances or lack of interest.
> Are 100% of children being educated under our current system?
More than would be without public schools.
> :* Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> : smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M N
>
> Why do public radio stations have to be small?
Why ARE they?
> Why do commercial stations have to be big?
Why ARE they?
The point you missed is that FCC licensing grants exclusive broadcasting
rights for a given frequency so that we don't just have a situation where
whoever has the most powerful transmitters owns the airwaves.
> Your basic assumptions conflict with mine. You assume without government,
> valuable services would not be performed.
Where was the free market back when the meat industry was unregulated and
Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ was written?
> You also assume that even WITH government regulation, people can be kept safe
> from poor business practices.
No, just better than without it.
> The primary area of conflict is in my beliefs about the effects of a tight
> labor market. Under a free market system, I believe individual workers will
> become more valuable then they are now.
Yeah, and what's-his-name believed there's a UFO behind Hale-Bopp. I'm
not gonna kill myself or the minimum wage just because you have these
interesting beliefs.
> In an unregulated market, REPUTATION becomes the most important commodity.
> Stores that develop a reputation for unsafe working conditions, poor hygiene,
> racism, dishonesty, etc. will quickly go out of business as their competitors
> advertise their defects and establish higher standards of quality.
I can show you a lot of countries with little govt. regulation and lots of
unsafe working conditions, poor hygiene, etc. How many countries can you
show me where "REPUTATION" alone has been enough to work all the wonders
you claim it will?
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> > How long would a restaurant with poor hygiene stay in business?
>
> Very possibly long enough to make a lot of people sick.
>
> > Are all restaurants clean and safe now?
>
> More than would be without health inspectors.
Both of you seem to assume that without government we
can't have health inspections/standards. Having spent
many years in food service industries, I can assure you
that many of the regulations are *assinine*, some of them
are counterproductive, and none of them are properly
enforced. Things like the Jack In The Box fiasco are
always dealt with retroactively.
> > Would a physician prescribe unsafe or untested medicine?
>
> It happens already.
So what's the point?
> > Would the AMA certify a physician who would?
>
> Maybe. Would you trust the AMA if there were no other organization to
> watch it?
>
> > Would you go to an uncertified physician?
>
> See previous response.
Duh. It's like abortions. Over-regulate the process
and people use coat hangers.
> > Would an unsafe workplace be able to attract and keep quality employees in a
> > tight labor market?
>
> What happens if the labor market isn't tight? Ever read the Grapes of
> Wrath?
A noble prize winning member of the Austrian School of
economics wrote an excellent book of why the gov't was
responsible for that crash.
Depressions might happen anyway, but the point is a free
market provides more jobs and wealth than a regulated one.
The "invisible hand" is somewhat over worshiped, but no one
can react better to the market than the market itself.
When there is trouble, often to government "solutions", people
are all too willing to have government "fix" the market so
as to "improve". If they had left it alone to begin with...
> > :* It should be legal for an employer to inform an employee that s/he can
> > : freely choose either to give sexual favors or to be fired. Y M N
> >
> > Would you continue working at a place like this if other jobs at comparable
> > wages were available?
>
> This assumption of infinite jobs if only we got rid of government is
> delusional.
Who claims infinite jobs? You want delusion, how about your
implication that unemployment is a good thing???!!!!???!!!??!
> > :* People should have the right to discriminate against others based on
> > : race, so that, e.g. bus companies could make blacks ride in the back
> > : of the bus, a store owner would not have to let gays in, etc. Y M N
> >
> > Would a bus company that discriminated against minorities be able to attract
> > enough racist customers to stay in business?
>
> I think companies that discriminated against gays could attract enough
> customers in some parts of the country today.
That's their right *iff* you are correct.
> > Could a rival bus company gain a competitive advantage by taking away the
> > business of minority riders?
>
> Maybe. Maybe not.
The few historical examples we have imply what?
> > :* Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
> > : 6% unemployment. Y M N
> >
> > How do you know how much labor would be worth in an unregulated market?
>
> Looking at other countries with unregulated labor markets.
>
> > Can you please list some companies that could attract labor for 24 cents an
> > hour?
>
> Nike. Dole Fruit Company (or whatever it's called these days).
I'd like a citation on the 24 cents/hour. I'd also like to
see a cost of living analysis for the countries where such
a wage exists. Top it off with an analysis of the countries
jobs and wages. Then you can tell me about the "injustice".
> > :* Better that some children receive no formal schooling than to have
> > : a tax-supported public system. Y M N
> >
> > How many parents do you know that do not value literacy in their children?
>
> Too many. Children should not be denied schooling because of their
> parents lack of finances or lack of interest.
They wouldn't be. And the exact age at which one gets "educated"
need not be written in stone.
> > Are 100% of children being educated under our current system?
>
> More than would be without public schools.
Including the ones who don't want it and the ones
who don't need it.
> The point you missed is that FCC licensing grants exclusive broadcasting
> rights for a given frequency so that we don't just have a situation where
> whoever has the most powerful transmitters owns the airwaves.
This fallacy has no legal grounding. AT ALL.
> > Your basic assumptions conflict with mine. You assume without government,
> > valuable services would not be performed.
>
> Where was the free market back when the meat industry was unregulated and
> Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ was written?
People didn't even know what was going on until Upton
Sinclair exposed it. Even the government. There was
no perceived need for it yet. I will admit the market
cannot provide services when there is zero demand.
> > You also assume that even WITH government regulation, people can be kept safe
> > from poor business practices.
>
> No, just better than without it.
I think that's a dubious claim. For every way gov't helps
(I admit it can) there's another where it hurts. And there
is no mention here of individual freedom, sacrificed for some
dubious gain. How do we prove these trade offs are worth it?
> > The primary area of conflict is in my beliefs about the effects of a tight
> > labor market. Under a free market system, I believe individual workers will
> > become more valuable then they are now.
>
> Yeah, and what's-his-name believed there's a UFO behind Hale-Bopp. I'm
> not gonna kill myself or the minimum wage just because you have these
> interesting beliefs.
He's got answers all the way, comparing him to a lunatic
is rather underhanded, but you're almost being funny so
I'll let it go.
> I can show you a lot of countries with little govt. regulation and lots of
> unsafe working conditions, poor hygiene, etc. How many countries can you
> show me where "REPUTATION" alone has been enough to work all the wonders
> you claim it will?
Name those countries. Most of them are poor for reasons
unrelated to a libertarian type government, which none
of them are.
--oTTo--
Michael Straight
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Otto Bahn wrote:
> Michael Straight wrote:
>
> > > > > * Large commercial radio stations should be allowed to drown out
> > > > > smaller listener-supported "public" radio stations. Y M
> >
> > > You're so confused I almost missed it! Truly "listener-supported"
> > > is COMMERCIAL you DOLT. "Public" radio may or may not get
> > > donations, but they are supported mainly by the government.
> >
> > *BZT* you missed the point entirely.
> >
> > The FCC regulates the airwaves so that, unless I'm licensed to broadcast
> > at 91.5 FM, I can't just drown out 91.5 FM with my own signal because I
> > have a bigger tower. Had nothing to do with "public" radio except that
> > it's an example of a radio station that would typically have a smaller,
> > less-powerful broadcasting tower.
>
> Now I'm calling you a Dolt because you are one, having
> ignored my previous post where I claimed you didn't know
> the law.
>
> Common law already covers just about every tort against
> property you can think of. Even without the FCC, if you
> drown out 91.5 you'd be sued to not only stop it but also
> for any damages. All the FCC does is claim the government
> *owns* the airwave frequencies and then *rents* the right
> to use one. They do make sure there isn't overlap, but
> you don't need the government to do that.
Ok, so I don't know all the details about how this works. Can you fill me
in on how, in the absence of something like the FCC, it gets decided that
station X gets to broadcast on 91.5 in the Raleigh-Durham area? Is it
just because station X got there first?
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Andy Simmons
In article <33845A...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu>,
Otto Bahn <JGA...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>I'm no fan Ayn Rand but she did right an excellent article
>on how this would work. Unused frequencies should be there
>for the taking. You'd have *more* not less small stations
>if there weren't so many government fees and hoops to jump
>through. GO LOOK IT UP.
Otto has hit the nail on the head here. It was not *too* long ago that
Jill Barrett, Andy Damick and myself actively pursued starting and
maintaining a new radio station that didn't suck. The frequencies were
there waiting to be used, but Jill (who was essentially the leader of
this whole thing) spent a LOT of time tracking down and filling out
paperwork. Fees out the wazoo, and regulations on EVERYTHING. If you
could think of it, there were rules controlling it... your antenna has to
be outside of the view of historic landmarks, no taller than X, no
shorter than Y, no more powerful than N, and painted paisley.
You know, we could reduce the deficit *plenty* if we could get the FCC to
sell off some of the red tape they've been using to tie up potential
media providers.
--Didymos
--
KMFDMTHEYMIGHTBEGIANTSPIGMELVINSTHECULTSOUNDGARDENMEGADETHMEATPUPPETS
Andy Simmons: A Disturbed Mind For Disturbing Times
d a s i m m o n @ u n i t y . n c s u . e d u
TOOLREPLICANTSRESIDENTSPAVEMENTCHEMLABNIRVANAPINKFLOYDCOILWHITEZOMBIE
E.Holmes
On Thu, 22 May 1997 11:06:48 -0400, Otto Bahn wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/Michael Straight wrote:
/> This assumption of infinite jobs if only we got rid of government is
/> delusional.
/
/Who claims infinite jobs? You want delusion, how about your
/implication that unemployment is a good thing???!!!!???!!!??!
You want delusion, how about the implication that Michael implied
any such thing regarding unemployment???!!!!!????!!!!!!11!!!!??!!
[...]
/> The point you missed is that FCC licensing grants exclusive broadcasting
/> rights for a given frequency so that we don't just have a situation where
/> whoever has the most powerful transmitters owns the airwaves.
/
/This fallacy has no legal grounding. AT ALL.
I didn't realize you were so ignorant regarding the purpose, intent,
and specifications of FCC regulations.
E.
Otto Bahn
E.Holmes wrote:
> /> This assumption of infinite jobs if only we got rid of government is
> /> delusional.
> /
> /Who claims infinite jobs? You want delusion, how about your
> /implication that unemployment is a good thing???!!!!???!!!??!
>
> You want delusion, how about the implication that Michael implied
> any such thing regarding unemployment???!!!!!????!!!!!!11!!!!??!!
Steeeerike one!
From his mock-up of the WSPQ:
"*Jobs for everyone, some of which pay $1/day or less, is better than
6% unemployment. Y M N"
(Note Michael was doing the liberal biased version)
> /> The point you missed is that FCC licensing grants exclusive broadcasting
> /> rights for a given frequency so that we don't just have a situation where
> /> whoever has the most powerful transmitters owns the airwaves.
> /
> /This fallacy has no legal grounding. AT ALL.
>
> I didn't realize you were so ignorant regarding the purpose, intent,
> and specifications of FCC regulations.
Steeeerike two!
I'm not ignorant, you are. Your newsfeed may be slow,
or you haven't read the whole thread yet, but the posts
(not just by me, mind you) that thoroughly destroy your
above comment have already been posted.
--oTTo--
I'll buy ya a better bat next christmas
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Thu, 22 May 1997 16:20:00 -0500, Jaffo wanted to
share:
:Property rights cannot exist without some method of enforcement, but that
:enforcement does NOT need to come from government.
I screwed up here. Property rights do come from government, but property
OWNERSHIP should be infinitely transferrable without government intervention.
That's what I meant.
:If your argument is based on the notion that airwaves are a scarce resource,
:keep in mind that LAND is also a scarce, finite resource, and we have
:extensive private systems operating right now to allocate it.
Again, operating under the umbrella of government protection.
:Protecting property rights IS a legitimate function of government. However,
:the current FCC regulations censor content (violating the first amendment),
:PROHIBIT private ownership, and discourage competition.
That's what I meant.
Debating myself is so much more fun than debating others.
Otto Bahn
Otto Bahn wrote:
>
> Please note a few things first:
>
> 1) At this point, TriBiz is out of the newsgroups line, so
> email me if you want me to see it.
>
> 2) My character was appropriate for TriBiz. APJ has it's
> own standards for which I am now informed but am not responsible
> for the original crossposting into *my* group (though I
> understand someone was trying to include me. Need to
> find a better solution, and thanks for the effort).
Otto, you fucking *moron*. All this time you couldn't get
APJ, you *could* get alt.fan.the-bob. So! There! WHAT
WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO...
[Burp]
I feel much better now.
I've subcribed Otto to aftb. Won't cost him any extra
time as 95% of the messages were crossposted to TriBizz
anyway.
...Velveteen? WTF?
--The ghost of Otto's clone
Belt the Bunny
Jason and Heather (stei...@primenet.com) wrote:
: What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
: that they lead to objective knowledge?
YOU CAN'T PROVE MYSTICAL STUFF, YOU TWO YUTZES. I am surprised at you!
Really! You're asking a mystic to elaborate on his mysticism to you?
RATIONALIST PIG! EAT RABBIT!!!
--
One Rabid Rabbit. One Bad Bunny. ---------- be...@deviant.richnet.net ---
O F F I C I A L M A S C O T O F A L T . F A N . T H E - B O B
----- Belt the Bunny. Tired of being cute. -----------------------------
Lance Olkovick
ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
>I recommend the World's Shortest Political Quiz. It really does a good job
>for quick reference:
>http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
Don't bother, it's busted: when you submit your test, the little red
ball just stays at the bottom of the diamond.
Same for the lutefisk, too.
--
Lance
Glenn Knickerbocker
: Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
: >
: > In alt.fan.the-bob did Glenn Knickerbocker a stately USENET-post decree:
:
: > : After a weekend of reading rabidly right-wing flyers and student newspapers
: > : around the U of C campus, I'd have serious doubts about the legitimacy of
: > : any such study done there. Even the conference I was attending sponsored by
: > : a linguistics department had a pretty noticeable rightward slant.
: >
: > I suppose a leftward slant would be more reliable, eh?
:
In linguistics, only if you're a Chomskyite.
When the conclusion of a study supports a right-wing position, yes, I'd
consider it more reliable if it were known to be biased toward the left.
And vice versa. It's not a question of whether I agree with the researcher's
politics. It's a question of whether the result is desirable to the
researcher. Regardless of the field of study, a strongly desirable result
is always to be regarded with suspicion.
^R Plus meditandum, minus misculandum.
(Marty Shapiro, deftly translated by Sean Fitzpatrick)
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> Ok, so I don't know all the details about how this works. Can you fill me
> in on how, in the absence of something like the FCC, it gets decided that
> station X gets to broadcast on 91.5 in the Raleigh-Durham area? Is it
> just because station X got there first?
More or less. There are technical questions, like spillover,
so you can't have 91.5 and 91.3 in the same area generally.
Basically, a pre-existing station has a broadcast range over
which their signal is clearly picked up. Another station
cannot put out a signal that interferes with that. At the
borders of that range, where the signal begins to break up,
a new station would have to have their signal either breaking
up or less.
Given the existing range of existing stations broadcasting
at 91.5, you could figure out the max power for your new station
also at 91.5. If you use too much power, the other stations
could sue (a request would probably be enough) you to reduce
power. You would be liable for lost advertising revunue rated
on a percentage of market loss. This is worse than it
sounds because of ratings points and their long term effect
on advertising revenue (as opposed to the advertising merely
reaching less customers).
Even in the NYC area, the broadcast spectrum (as defined by
the FCC) is not used up yet. There really is no need to "blast
out" stations at their respective frequecy. There will generally
be areas where the smaller but local signal wins. If you want
to reach a huge audience, the best method is to use a frequency
that *doesn't* interfere with anyone else's.
Win-win. Even under the assumption gov't should regulate some
things, I don't think the airwaves are one of them.
Aside from the above, a general concept of Common Law is that
anything that been used for a long time has established a
right to that thing or action. If your neighbores have been
using a path across your lawn for 10 years, and then you attempt
to close the path, they could sue and win (the way to prevent
this is to explicity give permission in the beginning, then
withdraw it later.)
At any rate, ham radio users are in no danger of having their
frequencies "stolen" by some company using them for something
else. Any generally accepted uses of the electromagnetic
spectrum are well protected under Common Law (not to mention
usenet-type techniques of retribution). Government need not
lift a finger.
--oTTo--
Andy Simmons
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970522...@login3.isis.unc.edu>,
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>Ok, so I don't know all the details about how this works. Can you fill me
>in on how, in the absence of something like the FCC, it gets decided that
>station X gets to broadcast on 91.5 in the Raleigh-Durham area? Is it
>just because station X got there first?
Even WITH the FCC, it's basically a "who got there first" kind of thing.
They generally start assigning stations to the low frequencies, and work
their way up. Once they are filled, some stations eventually shut down,
leaving holes. Those unused frequencies can be picked up by new
stations... first come, first serve. BUT... they have to go through LOTS
of paperwork to get the right to broadcast.
--Didymos
--
e v e r y t i m e i p i n d o w n w h a t i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Simmons. Pseudo-artiste. Highly combustible. Not for internal use.
Tired of boring, bulky content? Try: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dasimmon
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t h i n k i w a n t i t s l i p s a w a y
Otto Bahn
Jaffo wrote:
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
I see no reason to do so. An objective reality is one
we could theoretically all agree on; this by definition
leaves your (singular or plural) spiritual world(s) out
of the objective reality in regards to political
philosophy.
There are Christian anarchists who figure God's word
is probably more accurate than anything any stinkin'
government could say, but I don't think that's what
you meant.
> I have had NO luck.
Do unto others...
--oTTo--
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Jason and Heather a stately USENET-post decree:
: > Jason and Heather wanted to share:
: > > Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
: > > >
: > > > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
: > > > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
: > >
: > > that they lead to objective knowledge?
: > I saw this one coming a mile away.
: *whistles innocently*
Well, since it was coming from someone who openly and passionately mocks
Christianity and things which remind one of it, I was not surprised. I
think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
(I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
--Gurk
--
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ gu...@ncsu.edu Andrew S. Damick
substantialist | companion | human | poet | author | believer | communicator
- - - - - - - d e u s j u v a t - - - - - - -
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : >
> : > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
> : > the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
>
> : What are those means,
>
> could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
> still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
> and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
> exist for the materialist.
Well, *that* explains a lot! I guess that's why I never hear God - I
must be a materialist. Does that mean I won't feel Hell?
I *did* used to think God was hiding in my closet (really!), but I never
saw him. I guess even then I was a "closet" materialist. Ha!
> : and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> : that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
> nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
> the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
blech. If I "know" that I'm the Savior of Mankind; does that make it so?
> And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
> PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
> antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
> go, proof is not required."
Not wanted, either, I suppose (it'd take away all the fun, wouldn't it?
The sense of superiority that you know something that "merely rational"
people "can't" know). blech.
> You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
> argue for it. You cannot argue against it.
Boy, don't *that* make it easy!
> You can only accept it or not
> accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
> through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
> inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
It irritates me when people say things like this. Christians often try
to pull something like this. They say "But *you* have an emptiness, a
yearning, don't you?" Well, I guess I do... hmmm... "So" (says
Christian), "that must be 'cause you are lacking God - *I* am not
yearning". It took me quite a while to get through this muddled
"arguement" (I'm pretty slow) - it's a little (lot) like a drug-pusher
saying "if you take this drug, you won't feel hunger or thirst anymore".
While that may be *true*, that wouldn not neccessarily be a Good Thing.
I *cherish* my hunger and thirst; it leads me to *food*. Extend the
analogy on your own, please; I'm getting tired of typing.
> The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
> paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
> materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
> of that paradigm.
yup. that about says it all.
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> ... I
> think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
> substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
> weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
>
> In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
Pot-kettle-black?
> (I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
you bet!
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > It is difficult to explain, since they are non-rational. However, I
: > could probably term it best with my own paradigm as listening to the
: > still, small voice of God. It's not an audible sort of communication,
: > and, frankly, it does not exist for the materialist. Mysticism -cannot-
: > exist for the materialist.
: Well, *that* explains a lot! I guess that's why I never hear God - I
: must be a materialist. Does that mean I won't feel Hell?
Well, add in what I assumed all would: "Mysticism cannot exist in the
mind of the materialist." It's not so much a matter of belief changing
reality as it is simply wrong belief.
: > Like Plato's man who has glimpsed the realm beyond the shadows and has
: > nothing with which to explain to the shadow-dwellers, I cannot describe
: > the foundation of its objectivity to you. I simply know.
: blech. If I "know" that I'm the Savior of Mankind; does that make it so?
No, it does not.
: > And that's the crux of it, really. Though there is evidence, if you seek
: > PROOF of mysticism, you will find none, because finding it would be
: > antithetical to its very nature. As Dan Knauss once said, "Where mystics
: > go, proof is not required."
: Not wanted, either, I suppose (it'd take away all the fun, wouldn't it?
: The sense of superiority that you know something that "merely rational"
: people "can't" know). blech.
If you want to read superiority complexes into it, go ahead. I will say,
though, that you scoff pretty easily at the mystical because of it's
non-rationality. :) I don't think that rationalists -can't- know the
mystical; I think that, as long as they are purely rationalist, they
cannot. You see, I don't think that -anyone- is purely rationalist.
: > You cannot explain it rationally. You cannot
: > argue for it. You cannot argue against it.
: Boy, don't *that* make it easy!
And infinitely difficult, as well.
: > You can only accept it or not
: > accept the idea that there is much in Reality which cannot be explained
: > through the use of logic. It is a truth which I believe that we all
: > inherently know, whether we consciously accept it or not.
: It irritates me when people say things like this. Christians often try
: to pull something like this. They say "But *you* have an emptiness, a
: yearning, don't you?" Well, I guess I do... hmmm... "So" (says
: Christian), "that must be 'cause you are lacking God - *I* am not
: yearning". It took me quite a while to get through this muddled
: "arguement" (I'm pretty slow) - it's a little (lot) like a drug-pusher
: saying "if you take this drug, you won't feel hunger or thirst anymore".
: While that may be *true*, that wouldn not neccessarily be a Good Thing.
: I *cherish* my hunger and thirst; it leads me to *food*. Extend the
: analogy on your own, please; I'm getting tired of typing.
Well, as useful a tool apologetics is, no one was ever argued into belief
in God. In fact, I'm of the belief that no one whom God doesn't choose to
believe in Him will. Predestination and all that. Radically unfair idea.
Oh, well. Fairness was never something I was too fond of, anyhow.
: > The acceptance of both Reason and Mystery is one of the most essential
: > paradoxes of substantialism. Again, if you're a pure rationalist or
: > materialist, you will never accept it, because it exists quite outside
: > of that paradigm.
: yup. that about says it all.
Sure does.
--Gurk
--
------== Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick, Prophet of Smerp ==------
--------===== http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/ncsu.soc =====--------
------== EMBRACE SMERPOLOGY. IT TASTES LIKE CHICKEN. ==------
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > ... I
: > think you'll find, though, that the truths upon which we've based
: > substantialism are not something which can be crushed, even under the
: > weighty weight of the greatest skill with logic.
: >
: > In philosophy, the blind will ever believe that they are the seeing.
: Pot-kettle-black?
:
: > (I am sure you would apply that sentence to me, as well.)
: you bet!
Of course. Mystics[1] and pure rationalists[2] sit on opposite sides of
the fence. Each is antithesis to the other. The mystic asserts that
there is existence beyond that which can be experienced through the (IMO)
culturally over-privileged physical senses. The pure rationalist asserts
that there is naught indiscernable by his eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and
hands.
Neither can particularly argue the other into seeing his side, because the
mystic will give evidence of things mystical and the rationalist will only
give evidence of things rational. Both have made an essentially
unprovable presupposition. The mystic presupposes the existence of the
mystical. The pure rationalist presupposes the exclusive existence of the
material. Just as I cannot prove the existence of the mystical, one
cannot also disprove its existence. Just as the pure rationalist cannot
prove the exclusive existence of the material, I cannot disprove it.
Though it did a good many useful and good things, I am of the opinion that
the Englightenment has poisoned our thinking, that we are now under the
carefully constructed illusion that all we seek is graspable in some grand
gnostic vision by finite Aristotelean logic principles. The Enlightenment
instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
which is unproven is therefore false. We have deluded ourselves that we,
being gods, have no need of faith. What a depressing and ostrich-headed
notion.
--Gurk
[1] Note that mysticism does not preclude rationalism. It simply limits
its applicability.
[2] Note also that I think there are no pure rationalists. The pure
rationalist I speak of is a metaphorical person for the purposes of
illustration and discussion.
--
Due to recent cutbacks, the light Andrew S. Damick
at the end of the tunnel has been Independent Reality Contractor
turned off until further notice. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick/www
Kevin P. Neal
po...@osl-south.csc.ncsu.edu (Wobbles the Goose) wrote:
> jeff. even if I did decide to change my ways and give
> my own gender a try (not this decade, thanks),
> I know better than to sleep with a Kennedy.
And the next decade starts in how many years?
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"
Michael Straight
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on Thu, 22 May 1997 11:27:43 -0400, Michael Straight
> wanted to share:
>
> :Ok, so I don't know all the details about how this works. Can you fill me
> :in on how, in the absence of something like the FCC, it gets decided that
> :station X gets to broadcast on 91.5 in the Raleigh-Durham area? Is it
> :just because station X got there first?
>
> Michael, thanks for not flaming Otto. He was asking for it.
>
> The longer answer to your question is in the FCC Regulation thread.
>
> The short answer is to make airwaves the same as any other kind of private
> property, protected by government, but not OWNED by government. That's the
> crucial distinction.
>
> Libertarians believe the government should use force to protect Life, Liberty,
> and Property. And airwaves are property.
Yeah, but I find the "I got here first so it's mine" method of claiming
resources as "property" to be morally repugnant. I do *not* believe 91.5
FM belongs to you just because you happen to be the first one to put up a
tower and start broadcasting on it.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Michael Straight
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on Thu, 22 May 1997 09:16:27 -0400, Michael Straight
> wanted to share:
>
> :The FCC regulates the airwaves so that, unless I'm licensed to broadcast
> :at 91.5 FM, I can't just drown out 91.5 FM with my own signal because I
> :have a bigger tower. Had nothing to do with "public" radio except that
> :it's an example of a radio station that would typically have a smaller,
> :less-powerful broadcasting tower.
>
> And you have eloquently made the case for private property rights in the
> electromagnetic spectrum.
>
> Property rights cannot exist without some method of enforcement, but that
> enforcement does NOT need to come from government.
>
> If your argument is based on the notion that airwaves are a scarce resource,
> keep in mind that LAND is also a scarce, finite resource, and we have
> extensive private systems operating right now to allocate it.
Exactly. And I find the libertarian concept of an absolute right to land
ownership just as morally repugnant as I do for airwaves and other
resources. Property rights have limits because the earth's resources
belong to God (or, if you prefer, to all of humanity, although I believe
we are merely stewards).
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
"In the American context, libertarianism remains in the largest part a
thought experiment for college sophomores of all ages."
--John Richard Neuhaus
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> Yeah, but I find the "I got here first so it's mine" method of claiming
> resources as "property" to be morally repugnant.
Why?
> I do *not* believe 91.5
> FM belongs to you just because you happen to be the first one to put up a
> tower and start broadcasting on it.
Why not? Their are *plenty* of frequencies. First come first
serve simply sorts out who gets what. What is the inherent
reason government gets all frequencies on a first come first
server basis?
It's not like government makes the process any fairer; if
anything it guarentees only the rich and powerful (save a
few exceptions) get to own broadcast rights.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
Michael Straight wrote:
> Exactly. And I find the libertarian concept of an absolute right to land
> ownership just as morally repugnant as I do for airwaves and other
> resources.
To be honest, it is not completely absolute. Common Law
actually did make public access to restaurants, hotels, etc.
a right from something like the 1600's on. This is binding
law in the UK and the US. It took a government to pass laws
*over-riding* that Common Law. Then the government finally
overturns those laws and people say "See why we need government?"
Property rights are *almost* absolute. Property rights also
allow non-governmental ways to control pollution, but I
digress (many libertarians don't realize it, but property
rights lead to tough environmental repercussions).
BTW, there are some libertarian types who make one exception
for land ownership. Check out the Democratic Freedom Caucus.
> Property rights have limits because the earth's resources
> belong to God
Can you prove that?
>(or, if you prefer, to all of humanity, although I believe
> we are merely stewards).
These are beliefs, not logically sound arguments.
You are entitled to them, but they'll never convince
a small government type (nor will we convince you).
--oTTo--
Michael Straight
Jaffo wrote:
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective reality out
there, our understanding of it will always be subjective to some degree,
and that your mystical experiences of God's existence are every bit as
philosophically defensible as, for example, a claim that you saw your
neighbor walking his dog yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that
all knowledge is no more or less well-grounded
You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God is
"properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of things
that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we assume other
unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world actually exists or
that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they were today.
I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries I've
read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff, but I will
say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand outside yourself
and outside of the universe and look at it all "objectively" kind of
ridiculous.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Jason and Heather
Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> Jaffo wrote:
> >
> > I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> > faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
>
> Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective
> reality out there, our understanding of it will always be
> subjective to some degree, and that your mystical experiences of
> God's existence are every bit as philosophically defensible as, for
> example, a claim that you saw your neighbor walking his dog
> yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that all knowledge is
> no more or less well-grounded
Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
> You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
> influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God
> is "properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of
> things that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we
> assume other unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world
> actually exists or that the laws of physics will be the same
> tomorrow as they were today.
Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my list
of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very intelligent. He's
still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude himself as to what it is
he's trying to show.
And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
"properly basic" or "warranted".
That's fine, so far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far. As
Plantinga admits, whether or not an assumption is properly basic has
nothing to do with whether or not it is actually TRUE. What's more,
the fact that an assumption is properly basic does _not_ exempt those
who hold it from the responsibility of examining it further to find
out whether it is true or false.
To understand just how little Plantinga is shooting for, and how
useless his idea of warrant is in epistemology and the search for
truth, realize that at one time belief in a flat earth was "properly
basic"!
> I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries
> I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff,
> but I will say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand
> outside yourself and outside of the universe and look at it all
> "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an objective
philosophy.
jason
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Michael Straight
On 23 May 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> Michael Straight <stra...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> > Jaffo wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his
> > > faith in God with a philosophy promoting objective reality.
> >
> > Many philosophers argue that, while there may be an objective
> > reality out there, our understanding of it will always be
> > subjective to some degree, and that your mystical experiences of
> > God's existence are every bit as philosophically defensible as, for
> > example, a claim that you saw your neighbor walking his dog
> > yesterday. Some would go so far as to argue that all knowledge is
> > no more or less well-grounded
>
> Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
Actually, the people I'm thinking of (except maybe in the last sentence)
are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out that what
generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not really boil down to
"baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you suggest. There's a truly
beautiful proof of this that I can't fit in the margin here (that is to
say, I'd need to re-read a couple of books to really talk about this).
> > You might be interested in looking into Alvin Plantinga, a fairly
> > influential philosopher at Notre Dame who argues that belief in God
> > is "properly basic," in other words, it falls into the category of
> > things that make sense to assume as a starting point, like we
> > assume other unprovable things, such as that the rest of the world
> > actually exists or that the laws of physics will be the same
> > tomorrow as they were today.
>
> Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my list
> of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very intelligent. He's
> still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude himself as to what it is
> he's trying to show.
>
> And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
> agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
> assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
> "properly basic" or "warranted".
I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his beliefs. He
would argue that he has good reasons for believing in God but that those
reasons are not the sort of thing that you can turn into a "proof."
We both have good reason to believe that hitting me with a baton tomorrow
will hurt just as much as it did today, but you can't prove it today.
(I'm not sure if that's a good illustration for what Plantinga's talking
about or not, actually.)
I started to respond to the rest of your paragraphs but realize I was
really out of my depth..
> > I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting summaries
> > I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument about this stuff,
> > but I will say that I find the notion that you could somehow stand
> > outside yourself and outside of the universe and look at it all
> > "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
>
> I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an objective
> philosophy.
What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
FLEOEVDETYHOEUPROEONREWMEILECSOFMOERSGTIRVAENRGEEARDSTVHIESBIITBTLHEEPSRIACYK
Ethical Mirth Gas/"I'm chaste alright."/Magic Hitler Hats/"Hath grace limits?"
"Tight Camel Hairs!"/Chili Hamster Tag/The Gilt Charisma/"I gather this calm."
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Fri, 23 May 1997 09:45:03 -0400, Michael Straight
wanted to share:
:Yeah, but I find the "I got here first so it's mine" method of claiming
:resources as "property" to be morally repugnant. I do *not* believe 91.5
:FM belongs to you just because you happen to be the first one to put up a
:tower and start broadcasting on it.
:
You are absolutely right. 91.5 FM belongs to you because you EARNED money to
buy it through peaceful trade, and were willing to pay a full market price for
the bandwidth.
We need to have open, public auctions for our airwaves, and they will go to
the highest bidder.
Once we have that starting point, people can trade amongst themselves and the
market will decide the true value of 91.5.
Not to say there isn't some foundation for the notion of Common Law ownership
(in the case of the American Indians, for example) but Common Law does not
protect telecommunications transactions because that property was taken by
force and redistributed according to government whim.
Right now, the airwaves are stolen property, controlled and maintained by a
government agency that has no moral authority over them.
Once the airwaves are sold in the open market, they become the legitimate
property of the buyers, and the market will decide how much they are worth.
Jaffo
--
"Have versus have-not, or zero-sum thinking, belongs to the
Machine Age, not the Information Age." -- Steve Gibson
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Fri, 23 May 1997 18:21:38 -0400, Otto Bahn wanted to
share:
:Gotta disagree with ya here Jaffo. Most of the airwaves
:are not even being used. They are owned by no one. Those
:who paid the government their bribe should get to keep the
:airwaves they currently use. The other airwaves are abandoned
:property and are free for the taking.
So I guess it really is, first come, first serve.
:If government had no right to take the airwaves in the first
:place, why auction off the unused ones?
You've got me there.
:I agree that auctions can be a useful way to transfer goods
:to the free market. In the case of airwaves, I see no need
:for it.
You're right, of course. It was wrong for government to claim ownership of
the airwaves, but it would be even worse to take the property away from those
who bought it from the government.
My mistake, that's not what I meant to imply.
:Why not auction off domain names?
Who owns domain names now, exactly?
Otto Bahn
Jason and Heather wrote:
> Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
Yes. While I cannot be %100 sure that my life is
not just the figment of some delusional being's delusions,
everything else is irrelevant if I give that possibility
any weight. How can 2 people bother to have a discussion
about philosophy without there being an objective reality
where both people agree each other exist, and words exist
too, with agreed upon meaning (should you bother to define
them)?
If things get overly subjective, you are just arguing
with yourself for all you can prove.
Religious experiences, while often real and tangible to
the individual (like the neighbor's dog), fail the test
of the PR-24 police baton. Assuming there is a god
*and* an objective reality, I have no reason to believe
mere humans would be able to understand all parts of an
objective reality. Ie., even though reality *is* objective,
only so much of it *appears* objective to humans. Whether
or not god can alter the "objectivity" of reality falls
in this category. Any philosophy attempting to account
for god claims to understand him.
In short, I still don't see why a belief in god need get
in the way, unless of course god decides that it's high
time he passed the PR-24 police baton test, at which point
it'd be a moot point anyway. We'd all have similar religious
experiences and could agree on how to define god.
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
> : Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> : > acknowledgement of God's omnipotence in the matter and that there is
> : > nothing in us, despite the God-shaped hole, that innately moves toward
> : > God. God calls us.
>
> : Umm, in that case, what *is* the point in "seeking" God, or even
> : "listening" for Him? He'll just have to shout a bit louder to get my
> : atttention....
>
> You seem to be getting the point. :) One cannot build a tower to God or
> a bridge to any mystical thing. The point, therefore, in listening for
> such things is that our culture currently trains and socializes us to do
> precisely the opposite, to tune out all frequencies that aren't in the
> approved bands. If you shorten your antenna or turn your receiver off,
> it often doesn't matter how large or how obvious the signals are.
But your God _cannot_ be denied, can He? You talk as if God *will* speak
when He wishes, but then you say that I must be *listening*. How can I
deny God?
As for listening - I'm all ears, but I'm a busy woman (or *should* be!).
back to the lab...
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: But your God _cannot_ be denied, can He? You talk as if God *will* speak
: when He wishes, but then you say that I must be *listening*. How can I
: deny God?
You simply do. God does not force Himself on anyone. You can deny His
existence all you like.
--Gurk
--
-----------------------http://www4.ncsu.edu/~asdamick Andrew S. Damick
"I smell like a married man!" --Andy "Didymos" Simmons gu...@ncsu.edu --
Packed with pheromones, Didymos really satisfies. -------------
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: >
: > In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: > : Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
: > : >
: >
: > : >... The Enlightenment
: > : > instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
: > : > with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
: > : > which is unproven is therefore false.
: > : Guess those guys in the statistics department missed out on the
: > : enlightenment. They sure as hell don't reject an unproven hypothesis.
: >
: > What about an unprovable one?
: You're *very* good at this -
*modest nod* Only 'cause I read lots of the good stuff. That, and I'm
drinking milk!
: I've gotten lazy working around a bunch of
: pippeter-pushing molecular biologists....
...IN A JAR!!! (Had to. I mean, who wouldn't've?)
: Speaking for myself *only*
: I actually don't care too much for the word (or concept!) "proof" - I
: tend to concentrate on the accumulation of eveidence. I don't think
: there are *many* things I would consider *proved*. I guess I differ from
: many scientists in this respect.
Preponderance of evidence? You'd do well as a jurist for a civil trial.
I also believe what I believe based on an accumulation of evidence. I
simply see it as that I accept more forms of evidence than you would.
ME: "Your Honor, God told me that he was lying."
YOU: "Yeah, right."
--Gurk
--
Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick _/-_|\ "Lay on, MacDuff, And damn'd be him
c l a n m a c d u f f | | that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"
Fifeshire, Scotland ----> *_-__/ --MacBeth, Act V, Scene VIII
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
>
> : > what I feel is life lived far below its potential. I'm a victim to this
> : > disease to, and that constantly gets me down.
>
> : I wonder who is "down" more - me or you? I suspect it's you, since you
> : say "that constantly gets me down".
>
> Solomon said that wisdom is sorrow, and persecution and hardship often
> follows hard on the heels of all who tread certain paths. Those are not
> evidence that those people are on the right paths, but their occurrence
> should not be surprising, neither should being "up" or "down" be
> considered (in)validation for any particular philosophy.
Yeah, but *he* called it a disease, not *me* (whine...). I just say I
don't feel very "sick".
> So? What is beauty in the materialist world but some easily explainable
> biochemical reaction in the human brain? Squirt-squirt. Flow-flow.
And your point is....?
> ... Without an
> immaterial soul, beauty can be nothing but some sort of highly specialized
> sexual/psychosomatic reaction to natural stimuli. Love's the same thing.
Well, if that's the way it is, I guess that's that. If I don't believe
that my Husband is my "soul mate" (a concept I also believe is poo-pooed
by Christians), does that make our Love any less? I don't think so.
Besides, we know (well, we *believe* :) the universe isn't
deterministic, and that chance has a *huge* role in everything from the
weather to whom you marry. Other elements than chance and "chemistry"
may be involved, too - I certainly wouldn't deny that offhand. But if I
was somehow to *know* my Love was "merely" chemistry and chance, I
wouldn't love any less. Is that really so hard to understand? I
*experience* love. I have *several* half-understood mechanisms of love
to think about which would *more* than explain it *without* (in my mind)
robbing it of its "specialness" - and you want me to consider it as a
*mystical* experience? It may *be*, but I'll just have to wait to find
out, I guess.
> In fact, in the materialist world, free will is mere illusion. Ro-bot-ic.
> We are purely the product of our atomic forces.
A believer in _predestination_ is worried about *that*???!!
It's *possible* that we *are* robotic. So? Wanting it not to be true
doesn't give me an "excuse" for not believing it, does it? You want me
to give up intellectual honesty because I don't happen to *like*
reality?
However, it so happens I *do* like reality (lucky me:). And whether that
reality is controled by the Creator, or by randomness acting on "atomic
forces"; I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.
I do *feel* like I make choices. Apparently, so do you. But just as in
Christian theology (and correct me if I'm wrong) God knows *everything*
that will happen; much of what I do is probably predictable. Perhaps all
of it. But that *can't* change what I *believe* to be true, no matter
how I *like* the idea. Does that make any sense? <whine>
It just so happens that I'm pretty comfortable with the universe right
now...
... aside from being exceedingly tired and under-data'd
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
>
> In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
> : >
>
> : >... The Enlightenment
> : > instilled in us a denial of our own finite state and also programmed us
> : > with the value of skepticism, the ironically irrational notion that that
> : > which is unproven is therefore false.
>
> : Guess those guys in the statistics department missed out on the
> : enlightenment. They sure as hell don't reject an unproven hypothesis.
>
> What about an unprovable one?
You're *very* good at this - I've gotten lazy working around a bunch of
pippeter-pushing molecular biologists....
Speaking for myself *only*
I actually don't care too much for the word (or concept!) "proof" - I
tend to concentrate on the accumulation of eveidence. I don't think
there are *many* things I would consider *proved*. I guess I differ from
many scientists in this respect.
--
Susan (what can I say - they're all shallow and I'm not...)
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.fan.the-bob did Susan Hogarth a stately USENET-post decree:
: Yeah, but *he* called it a disease, not *me* (whine...). I just say I
: don't feel very "sick".
The sick rarely do. Besides, why should you base the validity of what you
believe on "feelings?" Where's the materialist explanation for that? I
mean, with that sort of philosophy, I could become a Unitarian Universalist
tomorrow, because I ate the wrong sort of turnip.
: Well, if that's the way it is, I guess that's that. If I don't believe
: that my Husband is my "soul mate" (a concept I also believe is poo-pooed
: by Christians), does that make our Love any less? I don't think so.
: Besides, we know (well, we *believe* :) the universe isn't
: deterministic, and that chance has a *huge* role in everything from the
: weather to whom you marry.
So, what's chance? Where does it come from? Is it governable by the Laws
of Thermodynamics? Where does chance come from in a material universe?
What about Chaos Theory? Explain randomness to me in such a way as that
it's not merely a band-aid to allow for free will in an otherwise
deterministic materialist universe.
If you're not determinists, what then? Epicureans, believing in the
Doctrine of the Swerve[1]?
: Other elements than chance and "chemistry"
: may be involved, too - I certainly wouldn't deny that offhand. But if I
: was somehow to *know* my Love was "merely" chemistry and chance, I
: wouldn't love any less. Is that really so hard to understand?
Sure is. You see, I don't see anything particularly special or privileged
about endothermic reactions coupled with the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle (not that I really know what the HUC is, but that's not the
point). What causes it to rise above everything else and make it love?
: I *experience* love.
The present experience is the closest we can come in this world to
touching eternity. It is what it is most like it. It is also how
God experiences all of what we refer to as Time, except He does it
all at once, since He exists outside of Time. The Past, Present,
and Future are all Present at once for Him.
What does it mean to experience love? Why should we value it? Why should
we value anything? Which combinations of biochemistry and Chance(tm) are
better than the others? Why?
: I have *several* half-understood mechanisms of love
: to think about which would *more* than explain it *without* (in my mind)
: robbing it of its "specialness" -
What is "specialness?" Define it for me in physical terms, if you don't
mind.
: and you want me to consider it as a *mystical* experience?
Yes. Don't do it because I tell you that you should, though. I'm just
some guy with a language, after all.
: It may *be*, but I'll just have to wait to find
: out, I guess.
You may have found out, but just not realized it.
: > In fact, in the materialist world, free will is mere illusion. Ro-bot-ic.
: > We are purely the product of our atomic forces.
: A believer in _predestination_ is worried about *that*???!!
I don't believe in predestination in the sense that our actions are
controlled. I believe in it in the sense that God has sent out the
call to certain people, none of whom deserve it.
: It's *possible* that we *are* robotic. So? Wanting it not to be true
: doesn't give me an "excuse" for not believing it, does it? You want me
: to give up intellectual honesty because I don't happen to *like*
: reality?
No, it's not the uncomfortableness of a concept that should be daunting,
but rather how untrue it rings. I have a friend who tells me that free
will is an illusion. He truly is a hard determinist, a rare thing to
admit. I still think that he actually knows that free will is not an
illusion, particularly since he lives his life that way.
: However, it so happens I *do* like reality (lucky me:). And whether that
: reality is controled by the Creator, or by randomness acting on "atomic
: forces"; I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.
If it is completely determined by atomic forces and "randomness" (whatever
that's supposed to be), "you" don't particularly exist. In fact, I don't,
either. In fact, this entire conversation is about as remarkable as a
couple of asteroids glancing off one another.
: I do *feel* like I make choices. Apparently, so do you. But just as in
: Christian theology (and correct me if I'm wrong) God knows *everything*
: that will happen; much of what I do is probably predictable. Perhaps all
: of it. But that *can't* change what I *believe* to be true, no matter
: how I *like* the idea. Does that make any sense? <whine>
Not really. I was with you there on the omniscience/predictability thing,
but you didn't go anywhere I could discern. Were you saying that one
could accurately predict you without the use of supernatural knowledge?
If that's true, that breaks it out of free will again. It makes you into
a mathematical formula or collection thereof, albeit a complex one, I'm
sure. You see, I think that free will cannot exist without God.
The materialist viewpoint, as a good friend of mine said, seems to be
irritatingly narrow. How can one have a wide appreciation of the Soul
and the Universe when one has decided that 99.99% of it doesn't exist?
: It just so happens that I'm pretty comfortable with the universe right
: now...
So? (Sure, I guess you'd put that as being "mean," but I don't think
that the comfort level of an idea has much to do with its truth value.)
--Gurk
[1] Doctrine of the Swerve: The Epicureans were atomists, a group of sort
of proto-materialists. However, to account for the fact that they didn't
want to be determinsists (since they had a moral philosophy), they came up
with the Doctrine of the Swerve. Basically, it states that atoms normally
move on completely predictable courses, but that, every so often, one just
goes haywire and swerves off course at a random vector. Voila, free will.
(Yeah, right.)
Susan Hogarth
Andrew S. Gurk Damick wrote:
> Preponderance of evidence? You'd do well as a jurist for a civil trial.
> I also believe what I believe based on an accumulation of evidence. I
> simply see it as that I accept more forms of evidence than you would.
>
> ME: "Your Honor, God told me that he was lying."
>
> YOU: "Yeah, right."
<snicker> I think that about says it all...
--
Susan <haven't we heard *those* words before>
E.Holmes
On Fri, 23 May 1997 17:09:22 -0500, Jaffo wrote in alt.politics.jaffo:
/Property rights have limits because it is immoral to damage or steal the
/property of others.
Indeed.
/I can do anything I want with land I purchase, but when
/my activities pollute, destroy, or limit access to property owned by OTHERS,
/I am violating their rights.
Indeed.
/If a natural gas refinery moves in next door to me and starts polluting my
/air with toxic fumes, I have a right to defend the integrity of my property
/and sue them.
You can't sue them unless they violate a law that gives you that
protection from them. By definition. Which requires government
regulation (law).
E.(just a fleeting thought, I'm not really participating here)Holmes
--
"Here's a piece of advice, if you're planning a revolution,
leave the wife and kids at home." -- Tom Hudak
E.Holmes
On Fri, 23 May 1997 16:34:54 -0400, Michael Straight wrote in
alt.politics.jaffo:
/Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
Actually, Jaffo likes discussion about philosophy and especially
about cultural trends and how they've happened and where they
might go. And I love this thread and if I were feeling better,
I'd write in it. I was especially interested in how much I agreed
with Andy, and then you, regarding your respective philosophical
platforms. It reinforces my feelings of intense schizophrenia.
<G>
E.(and now to bed, perchance to sleep <BG>)Holmes
--
"Talk, Meow or get out of the Way." -- Fluffy
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Fri, 23 May 1997 16:34:54 -0400, Michael Straight
wanted to share:
:Michael Straight will bow to Jaffo if he wants to axe this thread.
Axe this thread? I wouldn't DREAM of axing this thread.
This is good stuff.
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Sat, 24 May 1997 05:09:56 GMT, E.Holmes wanted to
share:
: You can't sue them unless they violate a law that gives you that
: protection from them. By definition. Which requires government
: regulation (law).
Sure. Government's primary function is to protect property rights.
The question is, how do you determine when your property is damaged enough to
constitute a violation of law?
What level of contamination gives government the right to use force against
you?
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Sat, 24 May 1997 20:15:19 GMT, Watson Aname wanted
to share:
: I have a problem with the idea that one can claim a right to do anything
: they want with part of the only planet we have to live on.
That's not at all what I said. I said you can do anything you want your
property if you do not violate the rights of others. That is a crucial
distinction that you are ignoring.
: A cursory
: glance at a piece of land which has been 'destroyed' by the actions of
: its owner, say a toxic waste dump (or the back lot of the irresponsibly
: operated service station) should adequately illuminate my point.
If you will recall, I said these issues are very complex and hard to define.
But the moral point is very clear. Before you can punish a person for
violating environmental law, you have to PROVE that their actions have harmed
the rights of someone else.
If you can prove that the toxic waste dump or service station harmed someone
else through negligence, they have violated the rights of others, and can be
punished. But even then, they should only be punished to the same degree they
harmed someone else.
HOWEVER, right now this is being interpreted in VERY broad terms, and all
kinds of questionable scientific studies are being used to take away liberty
and property. We have to be extremely careful enforcing environmental law.
We have to PROVE harm before we can punish people. Otherwise, we can make up
any silly environmental justification we want to punish whatever business
pisses the government off next week.
We must have strict standards that prove harm, or you're just giving
government a blank check to take whatever they want from people without due
process.
: >If a natural gas refinery moves in next door to me and starts polluting
: >my air with toxic fumes, I have a right to defend the integrity of my
: >property and sue them.
:
: What power do you imagine you can exercise if you are that average owner
: of a quarter acre lot with tract home? Combining your outrage with that
: of all your similarly affected neighbors immediately moves you away from
: the libertarian ideal of total self reliance back towards a group action
: that leads towards the need for a governing body to coordinate a focused
: effort.
You haven't been paying attention to anything I've said recently, so you're
making a ridiculous assumption about what I believe. I have said all along
that government is required to protect LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY. Without a
government to do those three things, we have ANARCHY.
Please learn the difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism before you
start making rash statements like the one you just made. It's important that
you understand what my philosophy is before you start making these stupid
allegations.
People have an absolute right to protect their homes, their freedoms, and
their lives from harm. If a company is polluting the environment and violates
any of those rights, citizens should expect the government to protect them.
HOWEVER, you must prove harm. You must prove that by engaging in this
activity, that gas station is causing DIRECT damage to someone else's life,
liberty, or property. And you must punish that gas station according to the
DEGREE of harm.
Our current environmental laws don't make enough of a distinction between
degrees of damage. Taking a farmer's land just because it has an endangered
species on it is like putting a man in jail for spitting on the sidewalk.
: "[T]he last refuge of Communists and Socialists all over the world." I
: certainly wouldn't want to espouse any variation on an idea held by the
: Communists and Socialists as they scurry to hide from the pure light of
: god's own free market capitalism. Anyone know where one might locate a
: non-poisoned well to drink from in this discussion?
If you're not willing to discuss this issue without resorting to snide
personal attacks, you can get the hell out of my newsgroup. If you would like
to discuss your agreements and disagreements in a rational manner, I will be
happy to defend myself in a mature way.
But if you insist on putting forth these snide comments as a substitute for
real debate, I will killfile you.
As an example of how you should have written that paragraph, let me
demonstrate: "Jaffo, I think you are making an unfair generalization when you
say Environmentalism is the last refuge of Communists and Socialists. That
statement has no basis in fact. You are just spewing empty rhetoric."
My reply would have been, "Watson, you're right. I was exaggerating to make
my point. However, the attitude taken by most Environmentalists is
Collectivist, and I am opposed to that philosophy."
If you had said that, we would still be having a rational discussion instead
of a borderline flame war.
: >As usual, Force is the easy answer. But once we turn to that answer,
: >there's no point even debating anymore.
:
: Actually, honesty and self-discipline could also work, but only if they
: were practiced by everyone, especially those with the greatest capacity
: to and vested interest in abusing that chunk of the environment legally
: 'theirs' by right of purchase.
Is it possible to do signifigant harm to the environment WITHOUT infringing on
the property rights of others? If so, how?
: Does Libertarianism recognize no harm except to one's own interests? I
: personally want more and better in a social philosophy.
May I recommend Communism or Socialism? The distinction is very simple.
Either you support the rights of the individual above the rights of the
collective, or you do not.
I support the rights of the individual at all times, and I require substantial
proof of harm before we put any individual on the chopping block. You are
willing to throw people in jail because their activities MIGHT cause some
indirect damage to the planet.
Once you lower the standards like that, you leave yourself wide open for
abuse. With that blanket justification, environmental law can be used to take
anything away from anybody, on the flimsiest pretense. That is tyranny.
And, I might add, it doesn't protect the environment either. If you make laws
capricious or unfair people will not obey them. You'll get coverups,
corruption, protests, and rebellion.
In the backlash, you might end up with a system that doesn't protect the
environment at ALL. The use of force only goes so far. If citizens do not
CONSENT to these laws, they will not obey them.
: >At what point have my rights been violated?
:
: At the point where another reduces the quality of the common environment
: to a degree that it either unambiguously damages you or creates negative
: effects that are, for all *practical* purposes, irreversible (requiring
: a multi-billion dollar clean-up, or a 200 year time frame for a 'natural
: renewal', for instance).
If environmental law was implemented with that strict definition of harm, I
would be all for it. That is not the standard our current laws are based on.
And since the science of environmentalism is FAR from perfect, what happens if
we decide something is irreversible and then find a way to reverse it? Does
that farmer get his land back?
: >These are VERY tricky questions, and it's very easy to proclaim the
: >environment has INFINITE value, and declare that no one really owns
: >anything anymore. Like you just did.
:
: It also appears to be very easy to proclaim that any individual assault
: on the quality of the common environment has relatively so little effect
: that it should be thought of as trivial and an acceptable cost of doing
: business as the dominant species on the planet.
Please find where I said that. Or admit that you are making shit up.
: If a system of law does not adequately address the needs of justice for
: all who abide by that system, the solution ought to lie in refining the
: flawed system, not casting it out.
Did I say we should have no environmental laws? No. I said we should have
VERY strict standards to prove environmental damage, and we should respect
private property rights at all times.
: I did not recognize the validity of
: the 'black or white' mode of argument presentation in your conservative
: persona, and it's no easier to swallow in this libertarian incarnation.
There is nothing black or white in my environmental agrement. I am simply
stating that we must carefully measure degrees of harm, and assign punishment
accordingly. That statement is very sloppy and "gray." Unfortunately, when
the government gets to decide those standards, we are setting ourselves up for
tyranny. I'm just trying to find a way to minimize the damage. And that
means we have to set boundaries.
It sounds like you're advocating a system of NO boundaries, where government
has infinite power over the lives and property of citizens, as long as they
can find some environmental excuse.
When you grant government this power, environmental law will be used to punish
people on the basis of POLITICS, not science. That is the evil I'm trying to
avoid.
: "Takings" is an area that needs a non-ideological debate, since it deals
: with the right of the dominant species to take and use as they will that
: part/type of environment absolutely critical to the literal survival of
: another unique species. I do not subscribe to a deity granting a right
: to life or death 'dominion' over every other species in existence.
Do you believe animals have property rights? Do you believe animals have a
right to life? Do animals have a right to individal liberty?
I'm saying we should punish people for destroying animals if we can prove that
by destroying those animals, those people are causing measurable harm to human
beings. Anything less than that gives those animals superior rights over
human beings. That is absurd.
: >Without respecting the DEGREE of damage. Without acknowleding the
: >property rights of individuals, environmental policy will be ignored.
: >When you see that squirrel running across your lawn, you won't call the
: >EPA and report it. [...]
:
: Then refine the EPA laws, a process that would be much enhanced if the
: arguments could be made in a less ideologically charged manner ("Those
: evironmental wackos value the spotted owl more than human beings").
Either show me where I said that or admit you are making shit up.
: >That is exactly what's happening all over the world right now.
:
: This absolutely begs for some 'on point' citations.
: ~~~~~~~~
Do you really want me to throw out my list of rights violations justified in
the name of environmental law?
Let me save us some time. I can throw out a dozen examples, and your response
will be:
Those are isolated cases, of course that shouldn't be allowed.
Or, your response will be, That is right-wing propaganda, your sources are not
reliable.
When I know that's the response I'm going to get, why should I go to all the
trouble of digging this stuff up?
I'm saying that sloppy, poor-defined law that does not assign appropriate
value to property rights is WIDE OPEN for abuse and rights violations. You
cannot trust government regulators to just "do the right thing" because they
are granted the right to use FORCE to enforce their dictates.
You have to be very careful deciding WHEN a government agency can use force on
citizens and when it cannot. Otherwise, you get abuse.
: >So I present this question to you again. Who really owns your house?
:
: In the 'black or white' world or in a world where we use our intellects
: to good effect to solve problems and disputes? And, in either view of
: the world, who really *owns* the world?
That is the question I am asking your intellect to consider, Watson.
WHO owns your house? At what point do the activities on your land infringe on
the rights of others? The government has the right to take action against you
at that point, but not UNTIL that point. And once government DOES take action
to punish you, you have full rights to due process, and the penalties assigned
must be appropriate to the level of your violation.
That's all I'm trying to say. Which part of that do you disagree with?
: Don't be so quick to embrace Libertarianism, Michael. It would seem to
: demand of *all* qualities of honesty and self-discipline found abundant
: only in a few.
Nope. This is exactly the point I just made to Andy Damick in email.
Libertarianism does NOT require honesty and self-discipline. Libertarianism
clearly defines when government must act to protect people from the fraud and
irresponsibility of others.
: This "thought experiment" has yet to be tried out on a
: scale of sufficient size to show its clear strengths
And there it is. You have just casually dismissed most of the history of the
U.S. The basic principles of Libertarianism are clearly illustrated all over
the world. We have degrees of freedom all over the globe. When people have
more freedom, based on a system that respects the rights of the individual,
they get higher standards of living, increased productivity AND a cleaner
environment.
One could argue whether or not the early days of this nation were a
Libertarian society or not. But either you have to admit that society was
Libertarian, or you have to admit that this system you are so smug in
dismissing has NEVER EVEN BEEN TRIED.
It is a tribute to the strength of these principles that 70% free societies
are significantly better off that 50% free societies. And 80% free societies
are significantly better off than either of them.
The basic tenants of personal and economic freedom exist all over the world.
And those rights have clear, tangible effects on our nation and others. These
effects can be measured, and rational conclusions can be drawn from them.
In contrast, Socialism and Communism have also been extensively tested in the
real world. With obvious results.
We haven't had 100% Capitalism, 100% Communism, or 100% Socialism (if there is
such a thing) anywhere in the world. But are you saying it is foolish to draw
conclusions based on 90% or 80%?
That is absurd.
: much less those
: weaknesses that its proponents have understandably given less scrutiny.
Do you realize that the greatest proponent of capitalism spent his time
exploring and cautioning people against the dangers of Capitalism? Adam Smith
clearly defined how Capitalism could be abused, and every one of his
predictions has come true over and over again in the real world.
http://www.webcom.com/yardeni/public/t_900717.pdf
The greatest danger of Capitalism comes from private Capitalists exploiting
government power to corrupt the market. Ironically, this justification is
used over and over again to give government MORE POWER over the market. And
every time that happens, special interests infiltrate the government, and use
the government's power to corrupt the system.
Capitalists must be constantly on guard to thwart interference with the
market. And the only way a person can truly disrupt the market is through the
use of FORCE. Under Anarchy, any idiot with a gun can disrupt the market.
(We can see this clearly in the Soviet Union.)
In a "civilized" society, only government has the right to use force.
Capitalism can not function without a strict code of law to protect the rights
of the individual. Capitalism without order is Anarchy. Under Anarchy, thugs
and criminals have nothing to stop them from using force to accomplish their
goals. Capitalism can not survive under these conditions.
: I would suggest that not 'going off half cocked' "presents the greatest
: hope for humanity (and humanity's only planet) in the next century."
Please tell me your ideas of the perfect system of government. What country
in the world today best represents your ideals of "not going off half-cocked."
Or, if you prefer, which country at any point in history best represents your
point of view.
You have presented a vague, undefined ideal as if it were some kind of counter
to my arguments. The phrase "not going off half cocked" can be interpreted
differently by any person who reads it, thus, almost anyone who reads it is
likely to nod their heads and go, "Yeah, that's a reasonable! Stop going off
half-cocked Jaffo!"
But in reality, you haven't really SAID anything! You criticize
Libertarianism, but you offer nothing in its place. You defend yourself with
sweeping generalities and snide attacks.
Define in real, practical terms the kind of government you want, just like I
have. But don't just sit there throwing stones.
You have the rhetoric down. Can you back it up?
: >This is not a game. This is not monopoly money I'm talking about. This
: >is about real people with real guns and real bullets and real money.
:
: You may be revealing rather more about Libertarianism than you really
: want to in this sort of exposition.
A complete non-statement. Please define what you meant here. This is typical
of your style of argument. You throw out a vague insult, without defining
what it is you are insulting. This allows the audience to infer that you had
some deep, cutting logical point, when in fact, you haven't really said
anything at all..
: >This about your right to exist, your right to earn and keep property.
: >It's about your right to speak, move, and work according to your
: >conscience, instead of according to some grand government plan.
:
: Which is exactly why Libertarianism raises the hackles on the backs of
: the necks of a lot of people. It so often sounds like a random mix of
: The Fountain Head, Atlas Shrugged, Restoring American Civilization and
: The Way Things Ought To Be. This is not really a Good Marketing Plan.
Another long, rambling, non-statement. You criticize my ideas based on books
that reference them in some way, without stating what specifics out of these
books you oppose.
All of the ideas of freedom and individual liberty I'm talking about are
mentioned to some degree in these books. But I do not agree with the version
of reality presented in any of them 100%. You are implying I do, without
giving any specifics to back up your assertion.
I have profound disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, both on his presentation
style and his substance.
I have profound disagreements with Ayn Rand, although I have a lot more in
common with her than I do with Limbaugh.
Newt Gingrich presents a very intelligent plan for reforming our current
system in the book you mentioned, but it is a very intermediate step. And
many of his premises are flawed.
I have read all these books. Have you?
May I recommend the one book you could have listed that really does reflect my
beliefs?
Please read Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz.
http://www.libertarianism.org/
If you can read that book and present me with specific arguments against it,
we will have a very thoughtful and enlightening discussion, and at least you
will understand what it is I really believe.
: Setting aside your very casual adherence to the unvarnished reality of
: "the most beautiful and powerful nation on Earth," and an appeal to an
: ill-defined heritage, you argue for turning over the "natural rights of
: man" to the individual care of every man, the self-same every man who
: makes up those whose vote is defenseless before thugs and demagogues.
Can't you understand the difference between the power of the individual and
the power of the state? Individuals do not have a legal monopoly on the use
of force. Governments do.
I can not break into your house and imprison you. Government can.
I can not take your property. Government can.
Government is granted the legal authority to use force against those who
violate the rights of others. And government is being corrupted by people who
want to use force to achieve their personal goals and push their version of
morality on others.
I believe government should be allowed to do very specific, very limited
things. And that government cannot do MORE than that without somehow
violating the rights of its citizens.
: >Don't turn your back on your country.
:
: It's not the world's best idea to give advice to others when it appears
: you are standing on a platform constructed mainly of passionate hubris.
I am standing on a platform of individual liberty, protected by a
clearly-defined, strictly limited government.
And I think you need to spend some time defining and codifying your own ideas
before you appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner of mine.
You are throwing around empty rhetoric, undefined terms, and personal insults.
If you have specific points to make against my arguments, make them and let's
address your concerns. If you just want to make snide remarks and continue
ducking the issues, I would encourage you to do it elsewhere.
Jaffo
For more detailed information about the Libertarian approach to environmental
policy, please see this link:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-41.html
And please, read MORE than the gray box before you start condemning it. <G>
Ernest Brown
Start reading the works of Thomas Aquinas & Boethius, Jaffo. I especially
recommend THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY by Boethius, try to get the
Library of Living Arts edition.
You might also check out the URL below for more ideas.
Ernie
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Wed, 21 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:32:04 -0500
> From: Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.jaffo, alt.fan.the-bob, misc.misc
> Subject: Re: Logocentrism, Postmodernity, and Substantialism (Was: British Gun Control and the Case Against Moderate Speech)
>
> In alt.politics.jaffo, on 21 May 1997 12:23:00 -0700, Jason and Heather wanted
> to share:
>
> :Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> :>
> :> [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had about
> :> the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> :
> :What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the claim
> :that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> I saw this one coming a mile away.
>
> Good luck, Andy.
>
> I'm a confirmed mystic who is currently trying to reconcile his faith in God
> with a philosophy promoting objective reality. I have had NO luck.
>
> Jaffo
>
> --
> "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding who is for lunch."
>
> http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
>
>
>
Jason and Heather
Watson Aname <freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 1997 17:09:22 -0500, ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
>
> > If a natural gas refinery moves in next door to me and starts
> > polluting my air with toxic fumes, I have a right to defend the
> > integrity of my property and sue them.
>
> What power do you imagine you can exercise if you are that
> average owner of a quarter acre lot with tract home? Combining
> your outrage with that of all your similarly affected neighbors
> immediately moves you away from the libertarian ideal of total
> self reliance back towards a group action that leads towards the
> need for a governing body to coordinate a focused effort.
Just to interject for a second, the libertarian ideal is not total
self reliance. Libertarianism is a model for social interaction,
which would be completely unnecessary if we could be totally self
reliant!
The libertarian ideal is the abolition of the initiation of force and
fraud. Libertarians have nothing against groups, and many don't even
have anything against governments so long as nobody's been forced into
joining the group. To show you just how far this goes, I've even
heard libertarians say things like "I have nothing against socialism
between consenting adults."
Now back to the thread already in progress.
Jason and Heather
Otto Bahn <JGA...@cstatf.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> Religious experiences, while often real and tangible to the
> individual (like the neighbor's dog), fail the test of the PR-24
> police baton. Assuming there is a god *and* an objective reality,
> I have no reason to believe mere humans would be able to understand
> all parts of an objective reality. Ie., even though reality *is*
> objective, only so much of it *appears* objective to humans.
> Whether or not god can alter the "objectivity" of reality falls
> in this category. Any philosophy attempting to account for god
> claims to understand him.
Exactly. What does this result in? Several thousand - if not million
or billion - different philosophies, all with their own subjective
understandings of the supernatural.
I don't find any one of these particularly offensive. If someone says
"This is my experience of God", then I'm more than happy to indulge
them. If I'm in a mood to be amused I may ask them for details about
their experience just to watch them squirm. I'm always amazed by the
kind of vague evidence mystics base their philosophies on. For
example, how do you go from some ecstatic experience to belief in the
truth of some _specific_ theological concept? How does the mystic
know that it was, say, the Christian God and not just Loki fucking
with his head?
It's funny how I never get an answer to that question.
But I am less than amused when said mystic suddenly claims that he is
the bearer of objective truth, then evades these questions. How can
you possibly build an objective philosophy on a subjective
epistemology? Hell, half of these "objective" mystical philosophies
don't even _have_ a stated epistemology, which is even more silly
than trying to build a philosophy without metaphysics because
epistemology is by definition the foundation of all the rest of our
knowledge.
In the absence of a coherent, objective epistemology, we are left
with what amounts to a "Just-So Story". "That's the way it is because
I said so."
> In short, I still don't see why a belief in god need get in the
> way, unless of course god decides that it's high time he passed the
> PR-24 police baton test, at which point it'd be a moot point
> anyway. We'd all have similar religious experiences and could agree
> on how to define god.
Exactly. But until she does, what do we have? And how can it said to be
objective? I'm not saying it can't. But I'm certainly going to remain
quite suspicious until I get a straight answer to this question.
And the longer they evade, the more suspicious I get. Just what is it
they have to hide?
Jason and Heather
> >
> > Indeed. They're called solipsists and subjectivists. I can live
> > with them. They're amusing, generally harmless, and yell just as
> > loudly as the next person when you crack them over the head with
> > a PR-24 police baton. Which proves that there is - or at least
> > appears to be - an objective truth we can both agree on.
>
> sentence) are not solipsists, but "critical realists" who point out
> that what generally goes by an "objective philosophy" does not
> really boil down to "baton=pain" types of "truths" the way you
> suggest. There's a truly beautiful proof of this that I can't fit
> in the margin here (that is to say, I'd need to re-read a couple of
> books to really talk about this).
Um, I _am_ a critical rationalist. :)
Have been for a long time, but didn't find out the formal title for
my philosophy until someone said "Y'know, you sound like Karl
Popper", and I went "Karl who?" and proceeded to buy and devour a
bunch of his books. I consider it a point of pride that I came to
so many of the same conclusions he did independently.
I'm also an objectivist, but I base that upon the foundation layed
by critical rationalism's epistemology. I wasn't going to get to that
yet, but here you have jumped the gun and given away my hand. It
does throw a wrench into my cunning plan to lead the unwary down the
primrose path to unrepentant rationalism, but I must say it's a
delight to meet someone who knows enough to toss such an instrument
in the first place. Please do look up that proof. If you can give
me a reference, I probably already have it around here somewhere.
> > Plantinga is the only Christian philosopher to make it onto my
> > list of philosophy & religion links. He's certainly very
> > intelligent. He's still wrong, but at least he doesn't delude
> > himself as to what it is he's trying to show.
> >
> > And that's very little. Plantinga admits to being a "Christian
> > agnostic". He is not concerned with the correctness of his
> > assumptions, but whether or not they meet the criteria for being
> > "properly basic" or "warranted".
>
> I don't think that's quite correct. He's definitely a practicing
> Christian who is quite concerned about the correctness of his
> beliefs. He would argue that he has good reasons for believing in
> God but that those reasons are not the sort of thing that you can
> turn into a "proof."
Here we get into the question of what constitutes a "good" reason.
If your reasons cannot be formulated as a logical proof, by what
standard can they said to be good?
(And yes, that is a rhetorical quesiton. I know the answer. I just
want to see if you do, or how you will state it.)
> > > I don't follow philosophy closely, and I'm just parroting
> > > summaries I've read, so I can't really sustain an argument
> > > about this stuff, but I will say that I find the notion that
> > > you could somehow stand outside yourself and outside of the
> > > universe and look at it all "objectively" kind of ridiculous.
> >
> > I do too. Fortunately, that's not required for forming an
> > objective philosophy.
>
> What do you mean by "objective philosophy"?
Independent of the mind. Verifiable.
Philosophies are ideas, so they can't exactly be independent of the
mind. However, philosophy isn't just a mental game. It can be based
on verifiable premises, and a philosophy can be tested by observing
whether its application yields desirable results.
Philosophy practiced in this way has a lot of similarities to a
science, and it's no coincidence that critical rationalism deals
quite a lot with the philosophy _of_ science.
Jim Klein
In <338e4b60...@news.visi.net> freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net (Watson
Aname) writes:
>Setting aside your very casual adherence to the unvarnished reality of
>"the most beautiful and powerful nation on Earth," and an appeal to an
> ill-defined heritage, you argue for turning over the "natural rights
>of man" to the individual care of every man, the self-same every man
>who makes up those whose vote is defenseless before thugs and
>demagogues.
Well, that shows why voting is irrelevant to "the rights of man,"
doesn't it?
I've never visited this group before today, and know nothing of this
thread, but your comment here intrigues me. Perhaps you would be kind
enough to clarify:
What are the "natural rights of man"? Is that something _other_ than
the sum total of the natural rights of each person? If so, I'd be very
interested in knowing exactly what---I can't imagine a right applying
to any sort of entity except a person.
And if it _is_ just a summation of the rights of each person, who would
you have be _responsible_ for a given person's rights, if not that
person himself?
Thanks for clarifying, if you care to. Also, are you accessing through
a.p.j. or something else? I prefer a minimum of cross-posting, and
will delete the others unless there's a reason not to.
jk
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 25 May 1997 00:01:06 GMT, Jim Klein wanted to
share:
:Thanks for clarifying, if you care to. Also, are you accessing through
:a.p.j. or something else? I prefer a minimum of cross-posting, and
:will delete the others unless there's a reason not to.
Feel free to post your remarks to alt.politics.jaffo and alt.fan.the-bob.
These are both low-traffic groups where political discussion is encouraged.
Some of our readers cannot get apj on their servers, but they can get
alt.fan.the-bob. We use aftb to "piggyback" certain threads.
However, we should all drop triangle.bizarre out of our newsgroups line now.
James Ryan Younce
In triangle.bizarre Wobbles the Goose <po...@osl-south.csc.ncsu.edu> wrote:
: Three years, seven months and change.
: And I won't be sleeping with a Kennedy then, either. Or with a man,
: unless my Wendy undergoes some rather unexpected surgery between
: now and then.
You have a Wendy's? Very cool. 1000 Ryan Younce spiffo points. I
once tried for a Burger King, but I couldn't afford the throne.
Then there was McFucking Ronald McDonald, but I couldn't McGet
past his McOutfit without McLaughing my ass off.
: jeff. I would hope that I'd at least get
: a memo first.
TO: McWobbles the Goose
FROM: McRonald McDonald
RE: Wendy's
We regret to inform you that we will be performing McSurgery on
your Wendy's to make it more McSpiffo. The McBurgers will no
longer be flame McBroiled, but fried in a goo that resembles a
cross between primordial sludge and grease.
The McTransformation should take no more than five days, and
while I'm at it, could I McInterest you in a delightful meal
we call the McRib Value McCombo? Well, maybe not...don't want
to go too fast. Take your McTime. I'm always here.
And if Ryan McYounce mentions my costume, McShoot him.
Ryan Younce
Watson Aname
On 25 May 1997 00:01:06 GMT, rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein ) wrote:
>In <338e4b60...@news.visi.net> freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net (Watson
>Aname) writes:
>
>>Setting aside your very casual adherence to the unvarnished reality of
>>"the most beautiful and powerful nation on Earth," and an appeal to an
>> ill-defined heritage, you argue for turning over the "natural rights
>>of man" to the individual care of every man, the self-same every man
>>who makes up those whose vote is defenseless before thugs and
>>demagogues.
>
>Well, that shows why voting is irrelevant to "the rights of man,"
>doesn't it?
My point has nothing to do with whether or not voting *is* relevant to
these rights, but whether Libertarianism offers any greater protection
against them being lost than does the voter dependent system Jaffo has
characterized as a hunting preserve for the "thugs and demagogues." I
do not, in fact, believe that "the rights of man" are subject to being
altered through the voting process.
>I've never visited this group before today, and know nothing of this
>thread, but your comment here intrigues me. Perhaps you would be kind
>enough to clarify:
>
>What are the "natural rights of man"? Is that something _other_ than
>the sum total of the natural rights of each person? If so, I'd be very
>interested in knowing exactly what---I can't imagine a right applying
>to any sort of entity except a person.
I find the "among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
phrasing to be a sufficient definition for general discussion purposes,
and spoke only to *one* universal body of "natural rights of man." The
focus of my comment was on the question of whether those rights are any
better protected by depending on each individual to defend them alone or
a representative government chosen by those same individuals as voters.
>And if it _is_ just a summation of the rights of each person, who would
>you have be _responsible_ for a given person's rights, if not that
>person himself?
The "natural rights of man" are the same for everyone and everyone has
a personal responsibility to safeguard those rights for themselves. I
believe that defense is better assured by a 'community' dedication to
a combined defense than each individual being left to fend for himself.
>Thanks for clarifying, if you care to. Also, are you accessing through
>a.p.j. or something else? I prefer a minimum of cross-posting, and
>will delete the others unless there's a reason not to.
You have been extracting inferences from my words that I didn't intend.
I hope my attempts at clarification actually clarified, since there is
always the chance that I misconfigured my software, and my brain is set
to "maximize confusion." :)
You may continue to include the three current newsgroups without guilt,
as they are all effectively joined at the hip. I should warn you that
the denizens found on these three groups are, in addition to being avid
political debaters, avid trolls and mutants of a high order.
Welcome to you, Jim Klein.
Watson Aname
--
"Then this! - And that! - And sure enough! The man's
neck was broken, just as the book said it would be."
- Robert A. Heinlein freehold@^SNIP!^visi.net
Jason and Heather
Dan Knauss <dpkn...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Jason and Heather wrote:
> > Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick <gu...@ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > [3] Mysticism is the idea that objective knowledge can be had
> > > about the Universe/God/Nature/Life through non-rational means.
> >
> > What are those means, and upon what foundation do you base the
> > claim that they lead to objective knowledge?
>
> somewhat irrational?
Andrew first used the term. I was hoping he'd define it.
> I think mysticism just admits that there is no pure objectivity or
> rationality possible, but only provisional approximations of each.
> Having made that admission it does not try the fruitless path of
> making an idol out of the "objective" and pursues it only
> provisionally as it assists in a certain context. It is also free
> then to pursue knowledge through means entirely devoid of the
> attempt to gain objectivity--various forms of vision and revelation.
So what happens if my vision contradicts yours? Which one of them is
correct? Is either of them correct? If our revelations do not
coincide, then in what sense are they objective?
> These means can come most easily and directly through day to day
> experience--no weird prophet/monk/jedi/madman weirdness. Love, for
> example, is the beginning and end of knowledge as wisdom: philo-
> sophia.
So a teenager in love is all-wise? What kind of love are we talking
about here? What kind of knowledge? You're making a big and vaguely
defined assertion, but you're not backing it up.
> We moderns tend to repress this truth, but exercise alleviates the
> atrophied spirit. Everyone has some experience, probably many, that
> attests to our mutual, necessary and natural entanglement with the
> complete otherness of a world of knowing and being that we
> recognize but only as a land we forgot we originated from.
You talk purty, but you're not saying anything.
> I use this analogy because objectivity and literality fail at
> communicating the irrational.
Rather. But Andy's claiming that Mysticism _is_ objective, so it
should be communicable by objective means.