HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: gold standard
Keywords: gold money keynes
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:55:54 GMT

In <1671@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:

>>   (well, as long as Inflation = fn(time) can be predicted), its NO BIG
>>   DEAL.

>That is exactly the problem.  With our Federal Reserve System alternately
>expanding and contracting the rate of money supply growth, the inflation
>rate has become unpredictable.

If this is correct, couldn't we legislate a constant increase in the growth
rate, rather than leaving the power with the Fed?  Why would this be inferior
to a gold standard?  There seems to be a goal of keeping our currency stable,
but I'm unclear as to what it should be stable relative to.  Gold?  A
commodity basket?  Other countrys' currencies?  What *is* the goal here?

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 "A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other,
  if they don't destroy their knees first, or start sleeping with 
  each other's girlfriends." - Rigler, about Indiana Ultimate
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5685 talk.politics.theory:4454 alt.politics.elections:15414
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:56:33 GMT
 <1992Sep26.180517.16004@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1992Oct6.202310.13186@anasazi.com>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct6.202310.13186@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.180517.16004@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <tal691.717389416@huxley> tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald) writes:
>>>Why have electoral colleges at all. Why not just count the votes?
>>
>>Because direct democracy is extremely dangerous.
> 
> Yes!
>>>It seems pretty galling to me that an election where one candidate has
>>>a 10-21% lead in the polls may lose because of the distribution of
>>>electoral colleges -- were everyone to vote as expected TODAY. Isn't
>>>franchise more important than an obsolete gesture to state's rights?
>>
>>Where did state's rights come from? It has nothing to do with the 
>>issue. Your real objection seems to be with the "winner take all"
>>system of selecting electors. But this has _nothing_ to do with
>>constitutional structure of the electoral college, it is just the
>>result of state election laws. Any state can change to a district-by-
>>district system whenever it wants.
>>
>>(By the way, there _are_ many things more important than the franchise:
>>Protecting individual rights and preventing tyranny, even tyranny of
>>the majority, are some of them)

	I quite agree.
> 
> Right on and I would add that the process produces better candidates 
> due to the requirement that they appeal to a broad cross section of
> the country in order to win.  This process simply produces moderate
> candidates.

	However, some modifications are possible without disrupting the 
broad-sectioning advantage of an electoral college. Modifications such as, 
for instance, proportional representation. In other words, giving 
candidates electors in proportion to how well they did _in that state_. 
Another modification which is possible is approval rather than majority 
voting. According to various studies I've seen, approval voting better 
reflects what people actually want (with, when combined with a 
proportional electoral college system, other safeguards) than majority 
voting, and isn't as manipulatable as single transferrable vote systems. 
Institution of it would admittedly lead to third party candidates having 
much more of a chance; given the way in which the Demopublican candidates 
are so alike in all the ways that matter (as evidenced by Perot's support; 
he offers something unlike them), I don't see this as a bad thing.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5746 alt.activism.d:3790 talk.environment:4167
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:28:26
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Oct6.142701.19789@yang.earlham.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Summary: EF! Misrepresented Again
In-reply-to: allens@yang.earlham.edu's message of 6 Oct 92 19:27:01 GMT

> in the case of organizations such as Earth First, they have
> gone too far. Trees are not sentient beings, and do not have
> rights; attempting to kill lumberjacks (by tree spiking) is
> not within what I, at least, would call permissible behavior.

=o= Point of information:  Tree-spiking is not an attempt to
kill or injure lumberjacks.  No lumberjack has been killed or
injured by tree-spiking, because (1) EF! only spikes trees that
are not being actively logged, (2) EF! places spikes high in
the trees, where chainsaws won't go near them, and (3) chainsaws
are designed to withstand hitting cruft, because they hit cruft
all the time.

=o= Also, the non-sentience of trees is not the point (ditto for
the Spotted Owl and the Marbeled Murrelet).  The idea is to save
the *forest*.  While one faction of EF! does not bring this up,
saving forests has demonstrable benefits for human beings.

> First of all, Libertarianism is not conservative.

=o= So I've heard.  But on the point of conservative dogma that
conflates private institutions with individuals, they are hard
to tell apart.
    <_Jym_>
__
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
and democracy --- but that could change.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle.
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:10:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Oct9.083135.10589@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> 
> My understanding is that Oregon banned private sector job discrimination
> on the criterion of sexual orientation, then the OCA got this repealed, then
> put this alleged "No Special Rights" measure on the ballot.
>
> Thus far, it seems to be the sort of tyrannical backlash that banning
> private sector job discrimination tends to result in.

  Actually, I think you are wrong. My understanding is that the governor
signed an executive order forbidding job discrimination based on sexual
orientation for state hiring alone -- not private sector job discrimination.
  The governor was completely correct in this respect which makes the
OCA all the worse. Nobody deserves the OCA.
-- 

		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 alt.individualism:5747 alt.activism.d:3791
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:44:34
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wbg@mtek.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:04:52 GMT

> it seems clear to me that most of the solution/response
> profile of greens to ecological "problems" seems to focus on
> devolving more power to government, as if that is the only way
> to "solve" the particular problem. This attitude appears to be
> so pervasive in the environmental movement generally as to
> constitute grounds for a belief that much of the environmental
> drum-beating is yet another way to expand the role of "the
> state" in our lives.

=\= I don't find environmentalism to be very politically homo-
genous.  Most Americans call themselves environmentalists --
George Bush included.  I recognize, though, that a good number
are political liberals, with a penchant for regulations.

=\= I share your concerns about the expanded role of the state
in our lives, but I'm also very concerned about the expanded
role of powerful private institutions in our lives.  My own
emphasis has been on local and individual empowerment so folks
can counter or free themselves from powerful institutions of
any stripe.
    <_Jym_>
__
On the surface, selling arms to a country that sponsors terrorism, of
 course, clearly, you'd have to argue it's wrong, but it's the
 exception sometimes that proves the rule.
                -- Vice President George Bush, August 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:00:42 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct11.163407.16772@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>>The issue is one of a subspecies of owl vs. a subspecies of logger.
>>However, the owls have more lawyers and more movie stars than the
>>loggers do.
>>--
>>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>>*
>
>They apparently let just about any simpleton teach down at Stanford
>these days, huh?  Does the phrase "indicator species" mean anything to
>you, or shall we look it up for you?  You might take into consideration
>the fact that that particular subspecies of logger is doomed at any
>rate, since the forest products industry has lied for decades about the
>effectiveness of their replanting efforts, since they insist on shipping
>logs overseas, and since they are rapidly -- and irreplaceably --
>cutting down the old growth timber the subspecies of logger relies on
>for its livelihood. 

Does the phrase "sham abuse of the legal process" mean anything to you?

"irreplaceably"?  When does new growth become old growth? How long
*does* it take for forest products to reach marketability? Old growth
could also be called "mature", "market ready", or even "senile". The
"old growth" either decays or burns, or is harvested. Which is the
least waste?

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Subject: Re: gold standard
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:47 GMT

In article <BvrAt6.DB4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
> In <1671@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
> 
>>>   (well, as long as Inflation = fn(time) can be predicted), its NO BIG
>>>   DEAL.
> 
>>That is exactly the problem.  With our Federal Reserve System alternately
>>expanding and contracting the rate of money supply growth, the inflation
>>rate has become unpredictable.
> 
> If this is correct, couldn't we legislate a constant increase in the growth
> rate, rather than leaving the power with the Fed?  Why would this be inferior
> to a gold standard?  There seems to be a goal of keeping our currency stable,
> but I'm unclear as to what it should be stable relative to.  Gold?  A
> commodity basket?  Other countrys' currencies?  What *is* the goal here?
> 

   I think the answer to that is yes, we can legislate an  increase, a
   decrease or a fixed supply. I have argued that any of these
   alternatives would be superior to the gold standard, and
   unfortunately I seem to have chased off everyone who was taking the
   contrary position.

   In turn, the gold standard is superior to our existing system, where
   the money supply expansions and contractions are decided according
   to political whim, and we only find out about them later.

   I would suggest that the goal of a good currency should be to try
   to achieve zero inflation, and to try to be a neutral factor in
   influencing financial transactions. The former for simplicity in
   accounting (capital gains tax {if you must have it} becomes what is
   it supposed to be) and in factoring out human psychology (spend it
   while it is still worth the paper it is written on); the latter
   because of my preference for even-handedness in human interactions,
   following libertarian principles.

   Both of these goals are approached by linking money supply linearly
   to the size of the economy.

   Free trade in the currency so designed (with other world
   currencies) is necessary so that the market can constantly test the
   algorithms upon which it is based.

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.


Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:34:07 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>The issue is one of a subspecies of owl vs. a subspecies of logger.
>However, the owls have more lawyers and more movie stars than the
>loggers do.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*

They apparently let just about any simpleton teach down at Stanford
these days, huh?  Does the phrase "indicator species" mean anything to
you, or shall we look it up for you?  You might take into consideration
the fact that that particular subspecies of logger is doomed at any
rate, since the forest products industry has lied for decades about the
effectiveness of their replanting efforts, since they insist on shipping
logs overseas, and since they are rapidly -- and irreplaceably --
cutting down the old growth timber the subspecies of logger relies on
for its livelihood. 

Conservatives are willing to cut it all down and then will undoubtedly
shed a few crocodile tears for the workers who will then definitely be
out of work.  They (conservatives) are also unwilling to provide funds
to retrain those same workers, but will abandon them as soon as they
stop doing the grunt work for the big corporations -- the same
corporations that will simply move on to some other business when the
trees are all gone.

Jeff Frane


-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400) 


Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:14:42 GMT

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
: In article <1992Oct9.083135.10589@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
: > 
: > My understanding is that Oregon banned private sector job discrimination
: > on the criterion of sexual orientation, then the OCA got this repealed, then
: > put this alleged "No Special Rights" measure on the ballot.
: >
: > Thus far, it seems to be the sort of tyrannical backlash that banning
: > private sector job discrimination tends to result in.
: 
:   Actually, I think you are wrong. My understanding is that the governor
: signed an executive order forbidding job discrimination based on sexual
: orientation for state hiring alone -- not private sector job discrimination.
:   The governor was completely correct in this respect which makes the
: OCA all the worse. Nobody deserves the OCA.

Correct. It was the executive order by the governor that was overridden. 

Measure 9 is ambiguous enough that there is no way to tell exactly what
the implications would be. For example, would books about homosexuals have
to be removed from public libraries? Would the government have to fire
any homosexuals on their payroll? Could homosexuals rent public facilities
that are available to others?

The lawyers must be drooling over the hundreds of millions of dollars to
be made arguing both sides of the issue in court.

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5724 alt.activism.d:3712
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:55:22 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>
>=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
>the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
>"Green" movements abroad).  Environmentalists are doing more
>real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
>of power than anybody else.

I cannot agree with that statement.  Environmentalists have been the driving
force behind the destruction of property rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting
the usage of properties that are defined as "wetlands").

>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>on human individuals.

I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).

By the way, I am grateful for your civil response to my original posting,
which really bordered on being flamebait, though I thought it made a good
point. :-)  Furthermore, I am pleased with the other responses to your reply --
the discussion has been flame-free so far.  Let's hope this starts a trend!

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Crises (was Re: Boot camp?)
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:08:06 -0500


I agree that there always seems to be a "crisis" that arises and
requires that government intervene to correct it.  In many cases
the cause of the "crisis" is, in whole or in part, the result of
government actions.  Once the crisis has been identified, the public is
mobilized to cede power to government to deal with it.  Most times,
this is probably driven by systemic factors but in some cases it
is clearly a deliberate ploy by particular government institutions
to gain more power.

The "drug crisis" began nearly 80 years ago when the feds decided
to move in the direction of drug prohibition.  Instead of admitting
failure, ever more draconian laws have been enacted which have had 
the effect of exacerbating the problem and making the "crisis" more
urgent.  This crisis has served the interest of a growing enforcement
bureaucracy and, in recent years, has also benefited the instrumentalities
of the national security state.

Clinton may actually believe that his half-brother was "saved" by the
criminal justice system and that "boot camps" are needed to prosecute
the drug war.  The fact that Clinton and many politicians and bureaucrats
are "sincere" in believing in the "drug crisis" is significant only
insofar as it helps to explain the functional fictions that maintain
bureaucracies and institutions that need the "drug crisis" for their
continued existence.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu
"Run 'em down, Fred!  They don't belong here!  Run 'em down!"
-- Bobby Fischer to Fred Cramer, who was driving him through a
a crowd of spectators after Fischer adjourned game 1 in his
1972 match with Spassky.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:13:18 GMT

In <1992Oct9.145958.1775@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>The inevitablilty of
>the concentration of economic power in a Laissez faire system will
>eventually leave most people with far less control over their lives
>than the current (and imperfect) democracy that we have.

This is unproven, and, IMHO, incorrect.  However, currently we have very
little control over our lives and are losing more every day.  I would
rather we regain our liberties now and take the chance on losing them
later, than continue to lose them now.

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 "A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other,
  if they don't destroy their knees first, or start sleeping with 
  each other's girlfriends." - Rigler, about Indiana Ultimate
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Fuzzy logic.  Was: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:15:57 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <37253@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
>Subject: Re: Fuzzy logic.  Was: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria
>Date: 3 Oct 92 21:45:57 GMT

>In article <BvB6Ap.3y4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <lcc1p4INN3d@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>>In article 8nI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
>>>>     Could you please explain what "fuzzy logic" is?  Note that any
>>>>assumptions which must be made for a fuzzy logic solution to be "valid"
>>>>should be enumerated now rather than when someone catches a contradiction
>>>>and someone has to say, "But it's understood from the fuzzy logic model
>>>>that...."

>Is fuzzy logic really a form of logic? True logic rests on using the process
>of elimination to find an answer which contains no contradictions, right?

>Isn't fuzzy logic merely an attempt to represent the degrees in value
>judgements which can be made by humans?

>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Is "fuzzy logic" just another confused attempt to find a way around the
bivalence principle and the law of excluded middle in multi-valued logic
systems?  I know these were tried out in the late middle ages by Peter de 
Rivo, e.g., in an attempt to avoid problems about divine foreknowledge 
and human freedom.  There is a modern Polish logician whose name escapes 
me at the moment who has apparently worked out such a system extensively.  

The idea, the best I can make out, is that between the values ["truth-
values" as they are called] there is some third value or range of 
values--truth-functionally indeterminate or undecidable.  Susan Stebbing's 
brief discussion in her book on Logic [read years ago] convinced me of the 
inherent failure of attempts to make this notion significant.  Her arguments 
are informal, but to me conclusive.  But I am not a serious student of 
formal logic or logic systems. I would like to see this whole topic hashed 
out in alt.philosophy.tech or somewhere though.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.individualism