Ribbit! You've got froggy!
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on 9 Sep 1996 10:03:15 GMT, Carlos May said:
:I think that if you'd been paying attention, you could have been
:deducing a fair amount of my values and beliefs from some of my
:comments in posts here. I'll try to spell a few out more openly
:(though alas I'm sure you noticed I can't spell worth sthi).
:
:I don't believe that there is one set "right answer" or correct
:policy for politics. The answer depends on the question. By this
:I mean that what the best type of government is is dependant on
:what one wants from government and society.
Subjective Pragmatism. Goody!
:I think that politics deserve to be discussed with at least the
:seriousness of history, and am dismayed at much of the sloganeering
:and unthinking overgeneralizations that pass for discussion in the
:contemporary USA.
Do you really consider Deconstruction, Skepticism, and assaults on
individual presidents to be THINKING? Good Gawd.
:I am dissatisfied with what I see as a near monopoly by 2 large
:USA political parties. I suspect that if other ideologies were
:better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
:with some party other than the Republican or Democratic.
Please list your primary disagreements with the Democratic party.
:I would
:be more proud of the USA and have greater confidence that we are
:a healthy democracy if the presidential debates included in addition
:to Dole, Clinton, and Perot, the Green, Libertarian, and Socialist
:candidates, and maybe a couple of others. I think that would greatly
:increase the amount of real ideas expressed.
It certainly would! But with the advent of the web (and the printing
press) the electorate has access to these "real ideas" 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, 365 days a year. Why have they spent so little time
investigating them? HMMMM?
:As you might guess from this, I highly value free speech and
:pluralism. I feel that an amount of disorder is a price that
:a society pays for freedom, and that for the USA it is worth it.
PLURALISM - A condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic,
religious, or cultural groups coexist within one nation.
Ah...DIVERSITY.
:I think that scheptisim is a healthy attitude. I see it as
:a moderate viewpoint between gullibility and cynacism.
SKEPTICISM - (General Usage) A doubting or questioning attitude.
SKEPTICISM - (Philosophy) The doctrine that absolute knowledge is
impossible.
In general terms, skepticism is healthy. But Skepticism is HIGHLY
dangerous and stupid. Most Skeptics (please pay careful attention to
my capitalization of this word. When I capitalize it, I am using the
Philosophical definition) assume that since absolute knowledge is
impossible, OBJECTIVE knowledge is impossible.
This is false.
Absolute knowledge is the province of religion.
But Objective knowledge can be gained through LOGIC and EVIDENCE.
Without Objective knowledge, everything crumbles to dust.
:I think the concept of all persons being equal in the eyes of the
:law is a damn good one.
:
:I think that the notion that humanity is divided into different
:"races" is a bunch of banana oil with only negative effects
:on society.
Lovely sentiments that no rational purpose could disagree with.
:I concider war to be a dreadfull relic of humanity's barbarous
:past that should be eliminated. I am aware that it has been
:part of our culture since the begining of history. I am also
:aware that in past times the same could have been said for
:rule by kings, slavery, and religious human sacrifice. I
:think history shows that progress is possible, but not inevitable.
Is ALL war bad, Froggy? Would it have been destructive for American
slaves to rise up and declare war against their masters? Would it
have been "barbaric" for the Jews to rise up against the Nazis?
You have to be careful when you throw around platitudes like, "War is
barbaric." In a world ruled by force (as ours certainly is) War is
often ESSENTIAL to protect natural rights.
The fact that it has been used to VIOLATE rights throughout history
does not invalidate the concept of a morally justifiable war.
Despite our modern pretensions to the contrary, we live in a world
ruled by FORCE, and the only way to deter force is with the CREDIBLE
THREAT OF SUPERIOR FORCE.
This is just as true for criminal nations as it is for individual
criminals.
:I do not see that Idealism and Pragmatism necessarily conflict.
:I'd say that Idealism should be how one sets long term goals, and
:Pragmatism is how one applies them day to day.
An EXCELLENT statement. Idealism implies belief in certain unbendable
principles. We must always be rational and practical in applying our
principles, but we live in a society that thinks even HAVING
principles makes you a suspicious character.
:I usually don't like describing my beliefs in terms of "isms".
:I havn't found one that encompases all my beliefs.
Try Liberalism. <G>
Or Neosocialism. <G>
:I think that
:ideologies tend to become dogmas that refuse to acknowledge human
:problems for which they have no easy answer.
DOGMA - corpus of doctrines set forth by a religion.
Political principles accepted on FAITH are Dogma.
Political principles supported with logic and evidence are TRUTH.
Deconstructionists love to blur the line between Dogma and Truth. Be
careful.
:(For example:
:Libertarian and Free-Marketists who scoff at environmental
:concerns.)
You mean like Julian Simon, who devoted his life to debunking
Environmentalist Dogma with logic and evidence?
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/Ultimate_Resource/
I'm begging you, Froggy. Before you slander Libertarians this way
again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
There are legitimate environmental concerns in the world that demand
government intervention, but NOT MANY.
:I think that democracy and free-markets are better than any other
:system of government/economics yet devised, though both can be
:misused, intentionally or unintentionally, as instruments of
:oppression.
:I think that how well democracies and free markets function is
:dependent on how well the citizenry are educated.
Oh HELL yeah.
:There's more (plenty), but perhaps this is enough to get you
:started. If this isn't what you were looking for, you might
:try more specific questions than "whadda ya think".
You've dodged some vital issues here. Issues you continue to dodge
two years later.
How should we reform the tax system?
Should we privatize Social Security?
Should Welfare be abolished?
Should Medicare be abolished?
You've firmly established yourself as a SOCIAL Libertarian. But you
continue to talk like an ECONOMIC Statist.
Put the two together and that spells LIBERAL. <G>
Jaffo
--
"When personal judgement is inoperative (or forbidden), men's
first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their
choice." -- Ayn Rand
Carlos Froggy May
[a.c-e.b-o-93 snipped from followup line, since it's a totally
different type of newsfroup now than it was when this was
first posted back in '96. If any current ACEBO9'ers wanna
join in, come on over to alt.politics.jaffo, or catch the
thread on misc.misc]
Jaffo (ja...@cheerful.com), wrote:
: In alt.politics.jaffo, on 9 Sep 1996 10:03:15 GMT, Carlos May said:
[...]
: :I don't believe that there is one set "right answer" or correct
: :policy for politics. The answer depends on the question. By this
: :I mean that what the best type of government is is dependant on
: :what one wants from government and society.
: Subjective Pragmatism. Goody!
If you say so.
: :I think that politics deserve to be discussed with at least the
: :seriousness of history, and am dismayed at much of the sloganeering
: :and unthinking overgeneralizations that pass for discussion in the
: :contemporary USA.
: Do you really consider Deconstruction, Skepticism, and assaults on
: individual presidents to be THINKING?
Do you really consider that the above sentance is an accurate
summary of everything I've posted here?
: Good Gawd.
: :I am dissatisfied with what I see as a near monopoly by 2 large
: :USA political parties. I suspect that if other ideologies were
: :better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
: :with some party other than the Republican or Democratic.
: Please list your primary disagreements with the Democratic party.
Okay. Members of this party have advocated or caused needless wars,
created unnecessary and burdomsome government bueuracracy, restricted
the liberty of the citizenry at home and supported dictators abroad,
made corrupt deals with private interests that were contrary to the
general welfare, condoned dangerous plundering and polluting
of the environment, and colluded with the other largest party
to propagate the lie that the electorate has only two choices
of political options.
These are also my primary disagreements with the Republican party.
: :I would
: :be more proud of the USA and have greater confidence that we are
: :a healthy democracy if the presidential debates included in addition
: :to Dole, Clinton, and Perot, the Green, Libertarian, and Socialist
: :candidates, and maybe a couple of others. I think that would greatly
: :increase the amount of real ideas expressed.
: It certainly would! But with the advent of the web (and the printing
: press) the electorate has access to these "real ideas" 24 hours a day,
: 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Why have they spent so little time
: investigating them? HMMMM?
It is my impression that a variety of information and opinion is
indeed more readily availible on the internet than the average
USAian is usually exposed to off line, and that because of this,
a higher percentage of people with regular internet experience
have opinions differing from the main-stream positions of the
two largest parties than does the USA population as a whole.
: :As you might guess from this, I highly value free speech and
: :pluralism. I feel that an amount of disorder is a price that
: :a society pays for freedom, and that for the USA it is worth it.
: PLURALISM - A condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic,
: religious, or cultural groups coexist within one nation.
And opinions.
In fact, that was the first thing I was thinking of when I wrote
that.
The other stuff is groovy too.
: Ah...DIVERSITY.
As opposed to monolithic uniformity I guess. Okay.
: :I think that scheptisim is a healthy attitude. I see it as
: :a moderate viewpoint between gullibility and cynacism.
: SKEPTICISM - (General Usage) A doubting or questioning attitude.
Yep, that's what I was talking about.
: SKEPTICISM - (Philosophy) The doctrine that absolute knowledge is
: impossible.
: In general terms, skepticism is healthy.
I think that's what I just said.
: But Skepticism is HIGHLY dangerous and stupid.
.sig!
: Most Skeptics (please pay careful attention to
: my capitalization of this word. When I capitalize it, I am using the
: Philosophical definition) assume that since absolute knowledge is
: impossible, OBJECTIVE knowledge is impossible.
: This is false.
: Absolute knowledge is the province of religion.
: But Objective knowledge can be gained through LOGIC and EVIDENCE.
: Without Objective knowledge, everything crumbles to dust.
: :I think the concept of all persons being equal in the eyes of the
: :law is a damn good one.
: :
: :I think that the notion that humanity is divided into different
: :"races" is a bunch of banana oil with only negative effects
: :on society.
: Lovely sentiments that no rational purpose could disagree with.
I wish.
: :I concider war to be a dreadfull relic of humanity's barbarous
: :past that should be eliminated. I am aware that it has been
: :part of our culture since the begining of history. I am also
: :aware that in past times the same could have been said for
: :rule by kings, slavery, and religious human sacrifice. I
: :think history shows that progress is possible, but not inevitable.
: Is ALL war bad, Froggy?
Yes. War is always bad. (See "Bang, You've Got War", or
whatever the tangent that went off from this was called.)
: Would it have been destructive for American
: slaves to rise up and declare war against their masters?
That would be a revolt rather than a war.
I'll address that case anyway: A Nat Turner-type uprising,
where slaves killed all "whites" including non-slave owners
and children, was certainly UNDERSTANDABLE. IF it had
resulted in the destruction of the institution of slavery, it
would have had MORE BENIFIT THAN HARM. Still, the murder of
innocents is never a "good" thing. In some circumstances it
may be LESSER of multiple EVILS, but IMO this does not
make it stop being fundamentally a bad thing.
: Would it
: have been "barbaric" for the Jews to rise up against the Nazis?
See above.
BTW, I feel strongly that the time to start fighting a Hitler
is long before they come to power.
Again, neither of your examples is a war, which is fought
between governments, using the citizenry as a disposable
resource.
: You have to be careful when you throw around platitudes like,
: "War is barbaric."
Call what you wish platitudes. I was asked what I believed,
so I said it. I never claimed it to be nothing but
startlingly original concepts.
: In a world ruled by force (as ours certainly is)
Yes, unfortunately.
: War is often ESSENTIAL to protect natural rights.
Disagree.
If you said something like "In an imperfect world, there
may be times when war is the lessor of multiple evils"
I would not be able to simply dismiss you out of hand,
but here I am: I think you are wrong.
: The fact that it has been used to VIOLATE rights throughout history
: does not invalidate the concept of a morally justifiable war.
Do you also believe in the concept of "morally justifiable
slavery", or "morally justifyable mass murder of innocents"?
I do not believe in any of those three concepts.
: Despite our modern pretensions to the contrary, we live in a world
: ruled by FORCE,
In as much as coersion is the nature of all governments, yes.
: and the only way to deter force is with the CREDIBLE
: THREAT OF SUPERIOR FORCE.
If every nation believed that, there would be nothing but
frantic unrestrained universal arms race.
: This is just as true for criminal nations as it is for individual
: criminals.
Please see my earlier comments on this topic at the same place
you dug this one up from.
If criminal justice were practiced on the same "moral" basis
as war, it would be permissible to blow up the entire block
where a suspected criminal was located, and to kill and maim
the criminal's relatives who had no participation in the crime.
: :I do not see that Idealism and Pragmatism necessarily conflict.
: :I'd say that Idealism should be how one sets long term goals, and
: :Pragmatism is how one applies them day to day.
: An EXCELLENT statement.
Thanks.
: Idealism implies belief in certain unbendable
: principles. We must always be rational and practical in applying our
: principles, but we live in a society that thinks even HAVING
: principles makes you a suspicious character.
: :I usually don't like describing my beliefs in terms of "isms".
: :I havn't found one that encompases all my beliefs.
: Try Liberalism. <G>
Tried it. In many ways very close, but no cigar. Ooops, you
said "Liberalism"; I thought you said "Libertarianism".
Wackyparsing strikes again.
: Or Neosocialism. <G>
No thanks.
: :I think that
: :ideologies tend to become dogmas that refuse to acknowledge human
: :problems for which they have no easy answer.
: DOGMA - corpus of doctrines set forth by a religion.
Yep.
: Political principles accepted on FAITH are Dogma.
: Political principles supported with logic and evidence are TRUTH.
I had a friend who was a committed Trotskyite. He was brilliant
and could defend his philosophy with no shortage of logic and
evidence. I disagreed with him because I disagreed with his
underlying assumptions on what sort of society would be best,
and what methods are acceptable to reach such goals. His
political principles, however, flowed very logically from his
opinion of what sort of world he would like to see. This did not
make them TRUTH.
: Deconstructionists love to blur the line between Dogma and Truth. Be
: careful.
: :(For example:
: :Libertarian and Free-Marketists who scoff at environmental
: :concerns.)
: You mean like Julian Simon, who devoted his life to debunking
: Environmentalist Dogma with logic and evidence?
[snip]
Environmental concerns are a very important reason why I do not
accept the term "libertarian" as a complete description of my
core political beliefs. This is a big topic that I hope
to discuss more later. As I have not read the specific book
you site, I will read it first.
[...]
: There are legitimate environmental concerns in the world that demand
: government intervention, but NOT MANY.
Agree. The word "environmental" in the above sentence can
be removed.
: :I think that democracy and free-markets are better than any other
: :system of government/economics yet devised, though both can be
: :misused, intentionally or unintentionally, as instruments of
: :oppression.
: :I think that how well democracies and free markets function is
: :dependent on how well the citizenry are educated.
: Oh HELL yeah.
Agreement. YAY!
: :There's more (plenty), but perhaps this is enough to get you
: :started. If this isn't what you were looking for, you might
: :try more specific questions than "whadda ya think".
: You've dodged some vital issues here.
I brought up issues which I PERSONALLY felt strongly about.
I finished the post with an invitation for others folks to
ask about other issues which anyone reading this particularly
wanted to know my opinion on.
: Issues you continue to dodge two years later.
If you ignored my invitation to ask until now, I hardly
think you can reasonably fault me for not answering earlier.
: How should we reform the tax system?
Ideally, replace it with voluntary contributions only.
If pragmatically is concidered too disruptive in the
intermediate term, it should be progressively minimized
as much as possible.
: Should we privatize Social Security?
: Should Welfare be abolished?
: Should Medicare be abolished?
IMO, ideally, all should be privitized; IMO governmental involvement
should be replaced wherever possible with non-coersive participation
and voluntary payment. This goes for all other governmental
programs as well. I do not pretend to know how close to such
ideals we can achieve any time soon, but I would like to
try heading in that direction.
: You've firmly established yourself as a SOCIAL Libertarian.
If you say so. By your definitions.
: But you continue to talk like an ECONOMIC Statist.
If you say so. By your definitions.
: Put the two together and that spells LIBERAL. <G>
If you say so.
Though I notice your personal definition of LIBERAL here has
changed from what you were offering a few days ago. If you
get to define what your own terms mean and modify them at
whim, you can fit a whole lot into them.
So what is YOUR opinion on these issues?
-- Froggy
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
http://www.angelfire.com/la/carlosmay/
Jaffo
In misc.misc, on 18 Jun 1998 21:43:19 GMT, Carlos "Froggy" May said:
:Jaffo (ja...@cheerful.com), wrote:
:: In alt.politics.jaffo, on 9 Sep 1996 10:03:15 GMT, Carlos May said:
:[...]
:: :I don't believe that there is one set "right answer" or correct
:: :policy for politics. The answer depends on the question. By this
:: :I mean that what the best type of government is is dependant on
:: :what one wants from government and society.
:
:: Subjective Pragmatism. Goody!
:
:If you say so.
:
:: :I think that politics deserve to be discussed with at least the
:: :seriousness of history, and am dismayed at much of the sloganeering
:: :and unthinking overgeneralizations that pass for discussion in the
:: :contemporary USA.
:
:: Do you really consider Deconstruction, Skepticism, and assaults on
:: individual presidents to be THINKING?
:
:Do you really consider that the above sentance is an accurate
:summary of everything I've posted here?
Recently, yes. Finally, with this post, you've expressed some
concrete opinions, but you're still trying to weasel on the
terminology.
I note that you're still not offering any definitions, you're just
criticizing mine.
:: Good Gawd.
:
:: :I am dissatisfied with what I see as a near monopoly by 2 large
:: :USA political parties. I suspect that if other ideologies were
:: :better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
:: :with some party other than the Republican or Democratic.
:
:: Please list your primary disagreements with the Democratic party.
:
:Okay. Members of this party have advocated or caused needless wars
Check.
:created unnecessary and burdomsome government bueuracracy
Like what?
:restricted
:the liberty of the citizenry at home
How?
:and supported dictators abroad
Check.
:made corrupt deals with private interests that were contrary to the
:general welfare
Check.
:condoned dangerous plundering and polluting
:of the environment
Examples please?
:and colluded with the other largest party
:to propagate the lie that the electorate has only two choices
:of political options.
Check.
:These are also my primary disagreements with the Republican party.
Is there anything about the Republican Party that you think is BETTER
than the Democratic Party? Or vice versa? Or do you really believe
they are identical?
:: :I would
:: :be more proud of the USA and have greater confidence that we are
:: :a healthy democracy if the presidential debates included in addition
:: :to Dole, Clinton, and Perot, the Green, Libertarian, and Socialist
:: :candidates, and maybe a couple of others. I think that would greatly
:: :increase the amount of real ideas expressed.
:
:: It certainly would! But with the advent of the web (and the printing
:: press) the electorate has access to these "real ideas" 24 hours a day,
:: 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Why have they spent so little time
:: investigating them? HMMMM?
:
:It is my impression that a variety of information and opinion is
:indeed more readily availible on the internet than the average
:USAian is usually exposed to off line, and that because of this,
:a higher percentage of people with regular internet experience
:have opinions differing from the main-stream positions of the
:two largest parties than does the USA population as a whole
That's not strictly true. I benefit greatly from having Cato
Institute studies available online, and the Internet has INTRODUCED me
to a number of new ideas. But invariably, if I want to learn about
these ideas in depth, I have to go to a library or Amazon.Com.
The Web INTRODUCES people to new ideas, but it can't really teach at
this point.
:: But Skepticism is HIGHLY dangerous and stupid.
:
:.sig!
Of course, no one reading the .sig will understand the difference
between ordinary skepticism and philosophical Skepticism, so this
would be highly misleading.
:: Is ALL war bad, Froggy?
:
:Yes. War is always bad. (See "Bang, You've Got War", or
:whatever the tangent that went off from this was called.)
WAR - A state or period of armed conflict between nations, states, or
parties.
If America attacks Canada and Canada defends itself, the Canadians are
JUSTIFIED in conducting a war.
The definition of war does not address how or WHY the conflict
started. It just describes a state of conflict.
You're using a strange definition of war here.
:: and the only way to deter force is with the CREDIBLE
:: THREAT OF SUPERIOR FORCE.
:
:If every nation believed that, there would be nothing but
:frantic unrestrained universal arms race.
Every nation DOES believe that, but not every nation has enough money
to compete in the arms race. So they make alliances with countries
that do.
:If criminal justice were practiced on the same "moral" basis
:as war, it would be permissible to blow up the entire block
:where a suspected criminal was located, and to kill and maim
:the criminal's relatives who had no participation in the crime.
So if Canada is attacked by America, they should not retaliate unless
they can be sure no innocents will be harmed?
:I had a friend who was a committed Trotskyite. He was brilliant
:and could defend his philosophy with no shortage of logic and
:evidence. I disagreed with him because I disagreed with his
:underlying assumptions on what sort of society would be best,
:and what methods are acceptable to reach such goals. His
:political principles, however, flowed very logically from his
:opinion of what sort of world he would like to see. This did not
:make them TRUTH.
No, it certainly does not! And if you had been more educated about
the consequences of Communism, you could have refuted his arguments on
utilitarian grounds, without giving a damn about his "opinion of the
world."
The fact is, Statism is illogical because it can not achieve what it's
proponents wish to achieve. OPINION is not relevant.
:Environmental concerns are a very important reason why I do not
:accept the term "libertarian" as a complete description of my
:core political beliefs. This is a big topic that I hope
:to discuss more later. As I have not read the specific book
:you site, I will read it first.
I recommend you study the Libertarian approach to environmental
issues, particularly the recent work of Ronald Coase.
The first step toward addressing environmental concerns is to rely on
real science and rejecting the bogus studies passed off as fact in the
popular press.
The key to solid environmental protection is the strict enforcement of
property rights. If a company across the street (or across the
country) pollutes the air around your house, you are legally and
morally entitled to damages.
This notion is ENTIRELY consistent with the Libertarian view of
Natural Rights.
:: You've dodged some vital issues here.
:
:I brought up issues which I PERSONALLY felt strongly about.
:I finished the post with an invitation for others folks to
:ask about other issues which anyone reading this particularly
:wanted to know my opinion on.
Isn't that funny? I accuse you of being a Liberal because you don't
discuss issues I consider important, and you accuse me of being a
Statist Republican because I don't discuss issues YOU consider
important.
:: Issues you continue to dodge two years later.
:
:If you ignored my invitation to ask until now, I hardly
:think you can reasonably fault me for not answering earlier.
I'm not sure how strongly you believe these answers, Carlos. I don't
think you've really given much thought to the economic and
philosophical foundations of Libertarianism.
You use words like "ideally" and "progressively minimized."
How long should this process take? 10 years? 20? 30? 50? 100?
How long are you willing to wait for a free country?
:If you say so.
:Though I notice your personal definition of LIBERAL here has
:changed from what you were offering a few days ago. If you
:get to define what your own terms mean and modify them at
:whim, you can fit a whole lot into them.
Please supply my old definition of Liberal and explain how my current
one is different.
:So what is YOUR opinion on these issues?
Social Security should be abolished immediately. No new accounts.
Immediate full refunds to everyone who contributed thus far. If
widows and orphans have not yet been refunded in excess of what their
parents and husbands (or wives) paid in, that amount should be given
to them immediately as well.
No more new accounts.
Phase out Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid in 2 years.
End all education spending and stop collecting tax money for
education.
Have public schools start charging full market prices for their
services.
If it costs $6,000 per pupil to educate children, then the school
should charge parents $500 a month.
Again, parents and schools should have 2 years to prepare.
Repeal all drug laws now. Instantly.
Harry Browne had an EXCELLENT list of things a Libertarian president
could do in his first term. I would use that as a blueprint.
The most difficult issue is taxation. We may never have a practical,
voluntary system of taxation, so we should make do with a 10% National
Sales tax until one can be devised.
I had a plan for "Reinventing Democracy" that included a voluntary
flat tax, but David Friedman ripped me a new asshole when I showed it
to him.
So I have to admit I don't know how to do a voluntary tax system. <G>
Read the Machinery of Freedom and check out Friedman's ideas. He is
without peer, the ultimate expert on Anarcho-Capitalism.
Naturally, we would need a lot of police on the streets after the 2
year grace period, because a good portion of the population would
probably revolt.
This is all smoke and mirrors anyway, since the electorate won't be
ready to elect a Libertarian congress for at least 40 years.
In the meantime, I support ANY reduction in taxation or government
power. But it's important for us to declare how we WANT society to
be. How can we express principled opinions on current conditions
until we know what we want?
My questions to you were not, "what do you think is practical." My
questions were, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Blue sky it for me. Dream.
road...@iglobal.net
>
>:So what is YOUR opinion on these issues?
>
>Social Security should be abolished immediately. No new accounts.
>Immediate full refunds to everyone who contributed thus far. If
>widows and orphans have not yet been refunded in excess of what their
>parents and husbands (or wives) paid in, that amount should be given
>to them immediately as well.
>
>No more new accounts.
>
>Phase out Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid in 2 years.
>
>End all education spending and stop collecting tax money for
>education.
>
>Have public schools start charging full market prices for their
>services.
>
>If it costs $6,000 per pupil to educate children, then the school
>should charge parents $500 a month.
>
>Again, parents and schools should have 2 years to prepare.
>
Ok Jaffo......I was with you right up to here......How may I ask, do
you intend to ensure children get an education? If you think that all
parents will willingly shell out money they don't have to so that
their children can get an education you're rather naive. And if you
think government should require parents to send their children to
school AND pay whatever the school chooses to charge then you're
dreaming here as well. I am quite curious for you to explain your
thoughts here in more detail.
>Repeal all drug laws now. Instantly.
Does this include the legalization of what are now illegal narcotics?
>Harry Browne had an EXCELLENT list of things a Libertarian president
>could do in his first term. I would use that as a blueprint.
>
>The most difficult issue is taxation. We may never have a practical,
>voluntary system of taxation, so we should make do with a 10% National
>Sales tax until one can be devised.
Granted, no society has ever taxed itself into prosperity. However,
the reality is that for government to function..in whatever form it
may take..it must have money and i think that assuming people will
volutarily give their money to any government is silly. As a favorite
teacher of mine once said " I can spend my money a whole lot better
than the government can" So i think the attempt at finding a
voluntary tax is pointless and any such efforts should be spent
finding a fair tax. But to do this you'd have to invent a fair
government, and to my knowledge this hasn't been accomplished in the
course of human history. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.politics.jaffo, _taking him terribly out of context_,
ja...@cheerful.com (Jaffo) wrote:
>My questions to you were not, "what do you think is practical." My
>questions were, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Politics is the art of the possible"
- Probably Bismarck, because he
everything quotable (-;
>Blue sky it for me. Dream.
I want a device that defaults to being small and wearable, and
has the following features and limitations:
1. the UI and all functions are accessed and controlled by a
direct connection to the mind of the user.
2. All such devices in existence throughout the universe are
networked together using the spooky action at a distance
InfeasibleNet.
3. Directed by the thought controlled interface, the user
can capture a definition of the entire physical structure
of a object along with anything else it needs for section
6, this definition is automatically stored on the InfeasibleNet.
MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS ABILITY INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO STORE A
DEFINITION OF THE DEVICE ITSELF <--- IF IT CAN'T DO THIS IT IS
COMPLETELY USELESS POLITICALLY.
4. Nothing stored across the InfeasibleNet can be deleted from
the InfeasibleNet. The InfeasibleNet has infinite capacity.
All such devices have total access to everything stored across
the InfeasibleNet.
5. The device can instantly transform any lump of matter, that
isn't a person, into pure energy which it automatically
stores away, probably in an orthogonal dimension for added
safety, for later use. There is _no_ option for it not to
be stored it away.
6. The device can take a previously stored definition, and the
requisite amount of stored energy, and instantly create a copy
of the original object at a place the user specifies in the
immediate locality. There is an however exception however to
the ability to create objects...
6.1 If the definition is that of a person, you can't create
a copy of them. Instead you can use the definition as
a template for section 7.
7. The device also incorporates a fully scriptable body barber
facility allowing the user to transform their current body to
that of any defined template body, taken from 6.1 or that of
an animal, or scripted up themselves, or scripted up by the
many bio-hackers out there on the InfeasibleNet. The
automatic 'regenerate body on signs that it's dying' checkbox
in this facility is by default always in the 'on' position for
added safety. Any intelligence, or memories, of the user
beyond the capacity of the selected body to hold is stored
away for re-implantation when a body that does have that
capacity is transformed to.
8. We also have universal socket mode, where the device transforms
itself into a small black box, into which any plug can be
pushed [electrical, network, tv aerial, telephone etc. etc.]
and recieve the service it expects to make the thing work.
Never have another power cut. Connect your computer to the
instant access InfeasibleNet. etc. etc.
I've now just destroyed all private and public property, the
capitalist system, governments, and all physical methods of
enforcing authority [governmenta1l or otherwise], plus the
entire laws of physics, in one easy stroke. AND I'VE ENSURED
WE'RE ALL STILL ALIVE WITH LOTS OF NEAT STUFF WHILST I'VE
DONE IT.
I am open to patches to the concept.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m <--- FREE-ANARCHO-COMMUNIST-LIBERTINE SORCEROR
...or something.
Thomas R Scudder
Stefan Kapusniak (stefan...@zetnet.co.uk) asieoniezi:
: I've now just destroyed all private and public property, the
: capitalist system, governments, and all physical methods of
: enforcing authority [governmenta1l or otherwise], plus the
: entire laws of physics, in one easy stroke. AND I'VE ENSURED
: WE'RE ALL STILL ALIVE WITH LOTS OF NEAT STUFF WHILST I'VE
: DONE IT.
: I am open to patches to the concept.
I think you missed out the part where the device is rendered completely
indestructible & possessed of a security system whereby so long as its
proper owner is alive, it will only answer to him/her/it.
Not bad, though.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
Squeezing flinthead trout "I contradict myself? Very well,
in their massive jaws, sparks fly: I contra- hey, wait. No I don't!"
Bears discover fire.
Carlos Froggy May
Jaffo (ja...@cheerful.com) wondered:
[...snip, concerning Froggy's opinion of governmental
coersion:]
: You use words like "ideally" and "progressively minimized."
: How long should this process take? 10 years? 20? 30? 50? 100?
How the hell should I know?
If I had a magic wand to take care of it whenever I wished, it
would have been taken care of long before I was born.
If you're asking for a practical assesment of how long
it would take to impliment in reality, I DON'T KNOW.
And I don't see any reason why you should expect that
I would know. (When I call myself "The Information
Super Frog", it is a JOKE, okay? Froggy does NOT have
all the answers, and cannot see into the future.)
: How long are you willing to wait for a free country?
YM "more free" HTH.
All my life.
What, if I can't get it by first thing tomorrow morning I'm
supposed to give up?
If I had my druthers, of course I'd want as free a society
as possible as soon as possible.
I don't see much point in holding my breath, however.
I don't believe in just "waiting", however. I believe
in fighting (non-violently and democratically of course)
for it.
I don't expect to ever see a "totaly free" society.
I want to always push closer to one.
-- F.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.politics.jaffo, tom...@umich.edu (Thomas R Scudder) wrote:
>I think you missed out the part where the device is rendered completely
>indestructible & possessed of a security system whereby so long as its
>proper owner is alive, it will only answer to him/her/it.
Good point. I accept this patch, Lensman Scudder (-;
However, the user has to register themselves with
an unregistered device to get this facility. Mainly
because we want to be able to create ones that
don't do this by default, to plug our equipment
in, and we need to be able to give them to other
people. Also we want to be able to dispose of such
unregistered devices by turning them back into
stored energy when we've finished with them, so
they're only indestructible when registered.
We probably want the device to be implantable as
well as wearable. Hmmmmm...
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.politics.jaffo did Jaffo a stately USENET-post decree:
: Absolute knowledge is the province of religion.
Is it?
: DOGMA - corpus of doctrines set forth by a religion.
: Political principles accepted on FAITH are Dogma.
: Political principles supported with logic and evidence are TRUTH.
This is a somewhat non-traditional definition, though I'm not sure how it
applies to politics precisely. I can't answer for everyone, so I'll
answer from the Orthodox Christian perspective which I am acquiring. This
does not pretend to be an argument; it is a description.
Truth is not a proposition or set of propositions. Rather, Truth is
actually a person, Jesus Christ. As such, no statements in words can
adequately capture the nature of Truth. Now, this does not make words
useless -- indeed, they are much of the medium through which God has
chosen to make Himself known to us. Dogma, thus, is that which God has
revealed to us about Himself. These things are absolutely true (not
merely theological opinion, _theologoumena_) because they are correct
characteristics of Truth Himself. All the early battles over heresy in
the Church were Christological discussions -- the question of what was
true is wrapped up in the identity of Christ. Dogma is thus the
non-negotiable stuff about Jesus, actually observed through direct
revelation. Faith is subsequent to empirical knowledge.
Now, what impact does this have on "other" true things? In Orthodoxy, all
truth is God's truth, no matter where you happen to find it. Also, our
entire understanding of everything is based around the Incarnation -- that
is, the union of God and Man in the Theanthropos, the God-Man. This is
not merely a localized kind of event, but actually encompasses and affects
the whole of Creation, for Christ is the all in all, but He is not all
things (we are panentheists, but not pantheists). Therefore, when I
observe and contemplete the essences of created things, such as seeing
that a grasshopper has six legs and an exoskeleton, I am in a sense
learning of Christ.
Orthodoxy emphasizes the value of empirical knowledge versus deductive or
speculative knowledge -- in other words, observation always out-trumps
reason. Faith comes after this empirical knowledge, because as the Bible
itself, says, "faith cometh by hearing." "Hearing" can be expanded within
this explanation to be any observation pertaining to God -- which is
absolutely any observation of any kind, actually, if understood
appropriately.
So, dogma is knowledge -of- and -about- God, while Truth actually is God
Himself. Thus, the Orthodox line between dogma and Truth is that dogma is
-of- Truth, but it is not the Truth Himself.
: Deconstructionists love to blur the line between Dogma and Truth. Be
: careful.
This is true. Unfortunately, "dogma" has become a synonym for "something
we accept blindly," and the truth is that most of the major dogmatic
formulations in history came after heavy, heavy debate in councils about
what had really been revealed.
--Andy
--
== Andrew S. "Gurk" Damick == GURK, PROPHET OF SMERP ==
|| asda...@unity.ncsu.edu || Trust what I tell you. ||
== ncsu.soc --> ncsu.* --> == triangle.bizarre --> * ==
Andrew S. Gurk Damick
In alt.politics.jaffo did Stefan Kapusniak a stately USENET-post decree:
: "Politics is the art of the possible"
: - Probably Bismarck, because he
: everything quotable (-;
Could be. I do know that it is a lyric from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim
Rice's "Evita." One of the best worst musicals out there.
But they had Mandy Patinkin.
: -- Kapusniak, Stefan m <--- FREE-ANARCHO-COMMUNIST-LIBERTINE SORCEROR
: ...or something.
You're a Scandanavian Scotsman. I expect nothing less.
--Gurk MacDuff
--
Andrew "If a man has sinned and denies it, saying, 'I have not sinned,'
S. do not reprimand him; for that will discourage him. But say to
"Gurk" him, 'Do not lose heart, brother, but be on guard in future,'
Damick and you will stir his soul to repentance." --Abba Poemen
Carlos Froggy May
Stefan Kapusniak WINS! YAY!!!
SUBSCRIBE!
Stefan Kapusniak (stefan...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
[...edit...]
: 6. The device can take a previously stored definition, and the
: requisite amount of stored energy, and instantly create a copy
: of the original object at a place the user specifies in the
: immediate locality. There is an however exception however to
: the ability to create objects...
: 6.1 If the definition is that of a person, you can't create
: a copy of them. Instead you can use the definition as
: a template for section 7.
[...]
: I am open to patches to the concept.
Might I suggest a feature that I rather assumed would be there
but upon re-reading noticed is not: transportation.
Feel free to modify something along the lines of:
Location of all other Devices on Improbable Net (except those
that the users currently have in the "block showing location
mode") is availible to any user. User may use any Device
to convert himself to energy which is transported through
Improbable Net and can be converted back into person
form by any other Device. Each Device can be set in
a "accept any person" mode, a "check before accepting
each individual person" mode, or a "do not accept any person"
mode.
Cheers,
Froggy
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
* Headquarters: alt.fan.tito ** "Tounge Of Frog" *
http://www.angelfire.com/la/carlosmay/
Carlos Froggy May
Jaffo (ja...@cheerful.com) wrote:
: In misc.misc, on 18 Jun 1998 21:43:19 GMT, Carlos "Froggy" May said:
: :Jaffo (ja...@cheerful.com), wrote:
: :: In alt.politics.jaffo, on 9 Sep 1996 10:03:15 GMT, Carlos May said:
[...]
: :: :better publicized, many people would find their opinions agree more
: :: :with some party other than the Republican or Democratic.
: :
: :: Please list your primary disagreements with the Democratic party.
: :
: :Okay. Members of this party have advocated or caused needless wars
: Check.
: :created unnecessary and burdomsome government bueuracracy
: Like what?
: :restricted
: :the liberty of the citizenry at home
: How?
These two are closely related.
examples of both: anti-drug laws, segregation
: :and supported dictators abroad
: Check.
: :made corrupt deals with private interests that were contrary to the
: :general welfare
: Check.
: :condoned dangerous plundering and polluting
: :of the environment
: Examples please?
Placing toxic chemical plants in Louisiana's river parishes over
the objections of the citizens who live there.
Airburst nuclear weapons tests (stopped only due to citizen outcry
when radioactive particles were discovered in citizen's mothers
milk).
The poisioning and ruining of previously usefull land in Oregon
for the Hanford site, which also threatens to run toxins into the
Columbia river, potentially endangering the livelyhoods and health
of the conciderable population of citizens downstream.
: :and colluded with the other largest party
: :to propagate the lie that the electorate has only two choices
: :of political options.
: Check.
: :These are also my primary disagreements with the Republican party.
: Is there anything about the Republican Party that you think is BETTER
: than the Democratic Party? Or vice versa? Or do you really believe
: they are identical?
I do not believe that they are identical. I do not think that as
a blanket statement one could day that one or the other of these
two parties was inherently "better" than the other. Both
have major disagreements with Froggyism (my personal beleifs and
opinions), but neither is anywhere near as contrary to Froggyism
as, for example, the ruling parties in Iran today nor the USSR
in Stalin's time. So in short I would put both in category
of "could be better, could be worse... but overall I'm not
satisfied".
I do believe that certain individual politicians and certain
isolated actions taken by members of these 2 parties were
better than others, but I don't feel that this has resulted in
any tip of "better" to one party or the other.
I think they are both groups of bozos. They are not identical
types of bozos. But they are equally much bozos.
-- F.