HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:06:28 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Well, I disagree about Carse; I think he's an intellectual light-
weight, and not very poetic.  Poetry in opposition can be very
effective: "From each according to his ability, to each accord-
ing to his needs," is one example.

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.anarchy,alt.postmodern,alt.cyberpunk
From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:51:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.095247.29601@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.052533.1485@hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk> chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk (Kwok Chi Wing) writes:
>}However, after a careful examination, one can find out that all the
>}statements (or, to be more precise, propositions) in logic are analytic,
>}i.e., we need not examine the real world  before we can decide whether
>}such statements is true.  It has no empirical content and hence it cannot
>}tell us anything about the structure of our mind.
>
>What is the status of the claim that all logical claims are analytic?  Is
>it analytic or synthetic?  Within this framework (which is not the one I
>think correct), mustn't it be either one or the other?
>
>If it's analytic, then wouldn't it fail to be empirical?  If it's unempirical,
>then how could it be true (i.e., correspond to the facts of reality)?
>
>

	Good question.  I would say that the staement "All logical claims
are analytic" has several interpratations:

1)  All claims of logic must be analytic.  This is a claim about the
structure of logic as a process or theroy and does not need to realy on
evidence.  Hence it is both true and analytic.

2)  No body has ever made a synthetic logical claim.  This statement is
synthetic, but equal true; though much less powerful than the first.

3)  No synthetic claim can be logical.  This is a analytic corallary of
#1.  Hence is analytic and true.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: tervio@katk.Helsinki.FI (TERVI| MARKO J)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board (...and the theory of Chaos)
Organization: University of Helsinki, Computing Centre
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:44:07 GMT

>Economics is supposed to explain economic phenomena and make
>predictions.  But many different studies (both amateur studies
>done by magazines and newspapers and academic studies) have 
>shown that economic models have little ability to predict movements
>in the stock market, so that one might as well throw darts at
>the Wall Street Journal to select stocks.  Therefore, economics is
>a total failure as a science.

Just think of a situation where stock market prices COULD be predicted.
This would make it possible for an infinite number of people to get extremely
rich by speculating in the stock market - I believe everyone understands that
this is not possible for real economic reasons. Therefore repeated and
reliable stockmarket "forecasts" are impossible by definition (I'm sorry I 
can't remember the name of this theory).

The economy is an incredibly complicated system even compared to the weather.
And it is even more unpredictable because predictions actually affect the  
outcome. There is a mathemathical theory about CHAOS in such complicated and
seemingly unpredictable systems.  It's been proven, that in such systems
any small change in any variable can make a drastic difference in the large
scale situation in the long run, this is called "the butterfly effect"(after
the conclusion that a butterflies movement here and NOW can decide wether
there is a flood or a draught in China ten years from now).  The economic 
equivalent could be called "the candy bar effect".  Any person's decision of 
wether or not to buy a certain candy bar can have an effect on wether or not 
there is a recession or a boom 30 years from now.  This all seems quite
insane and it really puzzled the scientists who accidentally discovered the 
theory.  There is an excellent book by James Gleick called Chaos in which he 
explains these phenomena in a more reassuring way. I think it's an 
invaluable book for all libertarian-minded  people. It makes one understand 
the impossibility of a centrally planned society in a different and a 
refreshing way.   


   Sorry about the very likely spelling errors - I'm used to writing in 
   Finnish.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: M22110@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Marx, Mill, and Freud
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:42:48 GMT

I am a college student and am working on a paper in which I must draw some
similarity in the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, Marx, and Freud.
 
I believe that I am going to discuss the fact that they all talk about history
being comprised of a struggle between liberty and authority.
 
Mill - struggle between liberty of individual and authority of society
Marx - struggle between proletariat and bourgeiosie.
Freud - struggle between civilization and the individual.
 
I have started the paper but wondered if anyone had ideas on how to explore thi
s.....?
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: email from Tim Starr
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:12:35 GMT

In article <Bz3Ko7.7AD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
}Is this supposed to be scandalous?
}
}Calling Peter (in private e-mail!) arbitrary and subjective is
}pretty mild.  Hell, I would love to see Tim Starr REALLY let you
}have it, out here, in public.

Now, now!  That would constitute an abusive ad hominem attack.  I try not to
stoop so low.  If I ever attack ad hominem, I try to constrain myself to
circumstantial ones.

Of course, the fascinating thing would be to try to get Petey to show that
ad hominems are somehow incorrect from within his pragmatist-positivist
framework :-).  Impossible, you say?  Yes, but think how amusing it would
be for the rest of us!

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:59:17 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec14175418@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
Ayn Rand frames the problem incorrectly I
}feel by rejecting the value of altruism.(if I am altruistic
}and others are likewise this does benefit me.)

This is a popular misunderstanding.  Objectivism upholds the PRIMACY of egoism
as opposed to that of altruism.  Recall that the positivist August Comte
coined "altruism" to mean "others above self," not the current use of it
to mean regard for others.

Egoism is merely the position that others are valuable as they're instrumental
to the achievement of one's own goals, not that they're invaluable.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:09:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec13.195223.26109@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>if you were bill clinton, what would you do?
>>
>Here's what I'm considering: in order to get the deficit down to zero within
>a few years, institute across-the-board, uniform percentage cuts to all programs
>including all entitlements, BY DEFAULT.  Then, the
>President and Congress can discuss what programs are more important than
>what others, and reach consensus as to which programs should be spared some
>cuts and what other programs must be cut deeper by the same amount as the
>"spare".  But across-the-board cuts is the DEFAULT because the debt has
>become the FIRST PRIORITY.

  Do the math and explain what effect this will have on jobs.

  If you assume a $350 billion dollar deficit, then this works out to 
  about 10 million jobs @ $35K per person, which is about the US average
  wage.   That probably would boost the unemployment rate to 16.5%,
  *not* counting multipliers (e.g., the New York Times says defense industry
  jobs have a "multiplier" of 2.5)

  That's the number of jobs that would have to disappear from the
  economy if you could wave a wand and reduce federal spending by
  that much instantly.   Remember, you're not returning this to the
  economy in lower taxes, else you'd have no deficit reduction, so
  you're not growing the private sector, while cutting the 
  deficit, at least not in the immediate term. 

  Given that every poll in recent months have shown that job
  formation is the top priority for most people out there, I
  think you'd have a tough time selling this.   If you could find
  a politically palatable way to "spread the pain" you'd have
  better luck.  For instance, instead of increasing unemployment
  by 10%, everybody gets to keep their job, but we all earn 10%
  less.   This is called "inflation" and I predict this is closer
  to how things will turn out.
                                              

---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:08:45 GMT

In article <Bz3K7v.6ry@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
}Peter is clearly under the delusion that I'm talking TO him.  I'm
}now talking to the audience, and using Peter as a 'pragmatism
}poster child'.  

"Look how pitiful this poor pragmatist, positivist, philosophically and
historically ignorant boy is.  Now how much will you give to support an
education in the liberal arts for him?"  Think Jerry Lewis will be interested?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:18:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| }It seems to me that Objectivism is more on the side of
| }idealism than realism, in that it proposes that abstract
| }entities (logic, for example) produce truth about the world 
| }-- although it does not propose that the world actually 
| }emanates from abstract ideas (or some other "higher" 
| }plane), which is my understanding of the idealist approach
| }in its pure form.  The severest realism would require one 
| }to me more of an agnostic about truths beyond immediate
| }experience.

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
| What?  Aside from some mistakes by such as Leonard Peikoff, logic isn't
| viewed as producing truth but as a means to it by any Objectivist that I
| know of.

That's what I meant.  I didn't mean that logic was supposed
by Objectivists to produce truth _ex_nihilo_, but that it was
a kind of machine like a sausage machine: you put various
things in it, turn the crank, and get a string of truths.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:10:12 GMT

In article <184619@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>Now defend your system.  Show us that science has brought about some 
>"true" kind of progress.  Prove to us that the never-ending human drama
>is now substantively different and better as a result of science.
>
>Paul Collacchi
>

I don't think that anything anyone can say will 'prove' to you that
science has made a positive difference. You seem to have made up your
mind on that point.

However, I can provide a tiny example: had the cosmologist Stephen
Hawking been born in say, 1400, he would not have lived long enough
to make any sort of contribution to cosmology. Since he was born when
he was, he did make a contribution.

This is certainly a difference. Whether it is an 'improvement' is
for you to decide.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:45:15 GMT

In article <Bz3oMF.9Ay@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <otto-101292175944@hotline.cc.fsu.edu> otto@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (John G. Otto) writes:
> 
> >>> Because Rand takes into account the context, as do all ethical systems. What
> >>> you're asking Rand to determine as good or bad is analogous to saying:
> >
> >> How does it, or any ethical system, take into account context?  The
> >> context is always different.   The closest it comes to taking into
> >> account context is on the question of initiation of force.   Randianism
> >> says its wrong to initiate force.  It doesn't attach any context to 
> >> this.
> >
> >Please, note the word "initiation".  It implies that there is a context
> >being taken into account.
> 
>    I know and that's why I say it's contextless.   Randianism doesn't
>    say it's wrong to initiate force *in certain contexts*; it says
>    its always wrong to initiate force.

   Wrong. Peter, give it up. You are only showing who utterly 
ignorant you are with respect to this subject. Try the concept 
of self defense for starters.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5417 talk.politics.misc:63989 alt.conspiracy:13071
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: 12 Dec 1992 21:54:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) says:

>In article <1gdh22INNfej@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>
>no, actually you have misinterpreted me. i am just as sick and tired
>of things as you are. i just would prefer to try to find solutions,


      I only see one solution anymore.  Sorry.  :)

>or at least discuss means of coping, rather than throwing my hands
>in the air, or spouting nonsense like someone in this group has
>recently started doing (i can just *feel* the poetry coming on in
>response to this note).


>i am not a U.S. citizen, but i consider myself more american than many
>US citizens are. i believe in the ideals upon which this country was
>founded. i moved here from canada, where they are further along the
>path to self-destruction than we are. if you want to see where the


        I've been there.  My girlfriend is Canadian.
        I have to admit, Canada is leading the way. 

>US will be in five years, look north of the border. especially anyome
>who covets canada's despicable health care system.
>
>
>anyone who thinks there is no way they can be taxed much worse than they
>are now, you are wrong. ontario has 15% sales tax. the marginal income

        Yes, I know.  While I was there, the Ontario Art Museum 
        was being closed, unemployment was 11%, and the Toronto
       Symphony was filing for bankruptcy.  I paid 7 bucks for two 
       french fries  and iced tea.  Luckily, most Canadians have
       been disarmed. :)

>estimate that ontario has lost over 20% of its manufacturing jobs just in the
>past two years. that's ok, they're going to a "service economy". right.
>sound familiar?

     Personally, I think it's pretty damn clear now that we are 
     entering a worldwide depression.  The more I watch, the more
     convinced I am -


          Bosnia, now Macedonia.  Riots in Italy over the Mafia,
    riots in Japan over welfare, riots in the US over racism, riots
    in Mexico over elections, riots in France over GATT, riots in
    Germany over immigrants.  Root cause - economics.

>
>this was not intended as an attack on canada or its people, just as
>i would not attack the US or its. it is an attack on the way things are


        Well, hey, if you left one country, you should e able to 
     leave even EASIER the second time.  My home is history now too.
       Los Angeles.  I figure moving is getting easy now.


>going. it is frustration at the way things are. it is a demonstration
>that there are others out there who are fed up and hope for better.
>
>i'm sure i will get flamed for this, but that is what i see. it is
>sickening. i have lived it too, probably worse than you have.


      Hmm.  Well, I don't know.  I was in L.A. a long time. :)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Summary: There must be some kinda way outa here... 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: One nation under God  
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:28:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.082804.15833@oracle.us.oracle.com>, 
kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes...

>They are always vicious cycles caused by the collapse of faith in some
>way and panicky action.  No one knows how long the depression and
>hyperinflation will last.  

>If the depression is severe enough we're talking about
>problems with putting food on the table.  The idea is not to take that
>risk while we can still control the situation if we try.

I would rather starve than continue to pay for corrupt government.

But I wouldn't go so far as the gent reported on the news today, who
opened up the gas in his home *before* shooting himself with a shot
gun. (Oh yeah, there was a blast and fire.) The guy had probably just
heard about how the feds had issued Santa Clause a flight permit....
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:01:30 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Dec14.202149.13257@kadsma.kodak.com>,
pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
|> 
|> I don't think Peter is criticizing Objectivist ethics in itself. What he is
|> criticizing is the statement that Objectivist ethics is 'absolute', or
|> 'provable'. Some have stated that Rand never made this claim, only
the |>claim
|> that Objectivist ethics is superior by virtue of being based on reason.
|>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Caught you in the act.  This statment *IS* self
contradictory.  One may believe that Objectivist ethics is superior 
because it is based on reason, but one cannot use reason to prove it.

Therefore, the Objectivist, like the rest of us, relies on his or her
subjective beliefs.  I'm not arguing that it's a good or bad system, just
that it's subjective, and (probably) disingenuous about its subjectivity.

Paul Collacchi

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:36:55 GMT

ch> Chris Holt
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Eliminate Objectivism and it's rule against initiation of force, and elim-
    inate pragmatism, and upon what grounds do you use to object to being kil-
    led?

ch> Welcome to the philosophical study of ethics of the past hundred years.

  Why not past 2200 years? That's part of Peter's big beef with philosophy and
  ethicists, in that they're discussing the same problems that Aristotle and
  Plato did many centuries ago. There hasn't been any "closure".

ch> The point is that the strong claims made by objectivism are unnecessary to
    resolve the problem; it merely introduces complexity that confuses the is-
    sue.

  All ethical systems have to make claims of some kind or another, whether or
  not these claims are "strong" helps to decide whether or not a given system
  is reasonable and believable. An ethical systems that says "It's wrong to
  kill, well, maybe it is OK and maybe it isn't" isn't very convincing. The
  same can be said of competing scientific models; if a given claim is made
  and is rigorously supported, then that adds to the validity of the model.

gs> Perhaps we do need abstract ethical considerations, hmmmm?

ch> But what makes objectivist ones more appealing than others?

  Because, as Rand and Objectivists claim, Objectivism is based on reason. I
  happen to agree that reason is a better basis for an ethical system than
  irrationality, so I've got to take Objectivism a little more seriously than
  other ethical systems that base their edicts on gods, effects of the plan-
  ets, mystical life-forces, or some "them" that will get you if you do wrong.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5483 talk.politics.misc:64476
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Keywords: sprung from the mind of zeus
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:00:08 GMT

In article <12DEC199206281152@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>
>I am the accuser of the prejudiced intellectualists bigots
>I am the final answer to the arrogance of the federalist Publius Caesar
>I am the `bombast,' the bomb blast, and the resurrection of Christian Anarchy

[...]

Read the _Bhagavad-Gita_ once too many times, eh?



_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy