HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Burning cats ... was Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.220529.21715@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>gs > Gary Strand
>pbd> Paul Barton-Davis
>
>pbd> The nasty thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it takes a
>     very complex system of interdependency between independently complex
>     biological systems and reduces it to a set of conscious choices
>     covering only explicit and immediate interactions between empowered
>     individuals. 
>
>gs > The nastiest thing about "statism" and its ilk (socialism, fascism, the 
>     Republicans, Democrats, &c) is that they take a very complex system of 
>     human interaction and interdependency and reduce it to a boot-stomp on 
>     the face and a mace to the head, unless these individuals OBEY.

I don't know if its the atypical background in computers that leads
Libertarians to think in such binary terms or not. Since when was the
only alternative to Libertarianism "statism" ?

Continuing with the metaphor, however, my wife notes that the problem
with Libertarianism is that everyone has their boots on.

-- paul

-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:26:45 GMT

In article <9211091205.12@rgm.com> root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}>In article <9211071042.03@rgm.com> root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
}>}This is true, there is a certain quality about Objectivist writing and
}>}discussion that lends an excessive certainty to its own conclusions.
}>}Anyone touting any philosophy must understand that their basic metaphysical
}>}assumptions ARE IN DISPUTE.  No one can ever agree or approve as fact the
}>}basic assumptions of the philosophy.
}
}>That's an anti-foundationalist position.  Foundationalists disagree.
}
}Fogive my lack of familiarity with "foundationalism", but I'm curious about
}how they can believe that everyone must/will agree with their own premises?
}Anyone can (and many do) assert that the supernatural has 'leapt into their
}hearts and shown them the truth'.  Arguing against that assertion is impossible
}and a futile effort.  One is forced to merely request not be held accountable
}for the revelations of others.

I don't think you're leaving room for a sort of foundationalist position that
accepts the law of non-contradiction and perceptual realism.  By this, it
wouldn't be expected that others necessarily would agree, but that if they
disagree, they're contradicting the truth, and thus wrong.


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
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Burning cats ... was Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:33:26 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov10.201520.28510@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>>gs > The nastiest thing about "statism" and its ilk (socialism, fascism, the 
>>     Republicans, Democrats, &c) is that they take a very complex system of 
>>     human interaction and interdependency and reduce it to a boot-stomp on 
>>     the face and a mace to the head, unless these individuals OBEY.
>
>I don't know if its the atypical background in computers that leads
>Libertarians to think in such binary terms or not. Since when was the
>only alternative to Libertarianism "statism" ?

The only alternative to allowing the individual to live his life
by his own judgement is NOT allowing the individual to live his life
by his own judgement. There really is no middle ground.

It is amazing to me that people just don't want others to be free.
Of course, I guess its a little more understandable when you 
realize that this means that these people don't want to be responsible
for their own lives.

Oh well,

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


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,comp.society.futures
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Subject: Re: FAR future programs
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:35:34 EST


Well, even if all production is automated, unless we have mastered
energy->matter AND have limitless energy supply, there's still going to
be limited resources.. Can you imagine a billion bad artists making
hand-crafts.. and a billion film/video/?? directeurs pumping out info-sludge
into what passes for public networks... and a billion bad whatevers
swamping some other field..  How, in this, dollar-less society, do you
allocate limted resources between the good and bad artists. (I spent almost
a grand on raw material this year.. Will I have the same access or have to
limit my talented output because some talentless fool is consuming resources
to make stuff his own mother woudn't like??

  While Utopia sounds nice, it can't happen without limitless resources,
or at least enough so there's no competition..

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4830 talk.philosophy.misc:2369 rec.arts.books:19800
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:39:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.1992Nov10.023924.2795
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

Brian Yoder writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>Peter Nelson (I think):
>>But
>>many parents teach their children rather impractical ideas,
>>including the idea that selfishness is evil, others
>>(especially the parents, or a favored sibling) come first, 
>>and so forth.  There may also be some kind of biological 
>>programing towards altruism.  
>
>Such as?  Where's your evidence that there are ANY innate ideas, altruistic
>or othrwise?  If anything, the biological basis of pleasure would seem to
>be the foundation for a natural selfishness.

I don't claim to be conversant with the details of this work, but there
is work in sociobiology which suggests that it may be evolutionarily
advantageous to be "altruistic" (in some sense) towards people you are
related to.  This idea makes some sense biologically on the face of
it.  As for evidence of any innate ideas at all, I don't see that the
burden of proof is on either side of the argument in this case.  Some
sort of innate disposition towards altruism might help explain why
ANYONE is altruistic IN DEFIANCE of logic.

>>The only thing I really see
>>"wrong" with it -- from my point of view -- is that the
>>deterministic performance of the logical engine, along 
>>with the strong emotional need for it, produce a kind of
>>totalitarianism in many of its adherents.  
>
>Totalitarianism?  I don't think that word means what you think.
>
>If you mean that a lot of people get very excited about her ideas, I agree.
>Do you think that's bad?  Are you excited about your ideas?

I can tell you from experience that there are many people walking
around calling themselves "Objectivists" who can't reproduce the
arguments for Objectivism's moral principles, but who quote those
principles the way religious people quote the Bible, and who speak
about Ayn Rand in almost the way religious people speak about Jesus
Christ.  I think Ayn Rand would be disgusted by these people if she
were alive, but the fact remains that many people interested in
Objectivism are very dogmatic about it.  I don't think I'd call it
totalitarianism, but it certainly goes way beyond "being excited about
[Rand's] ideas".

Actually, I'd say the causality is the opposite of that proposed by
Mr.  Fitch (or whoever the hell said it).  Objectivism doesn't CAUSE
this dogmatism in people.  Rather, Objectivism tends to ATTRACT people
who want to be able to assert their principles with a great deal of
certainty, but who are repelled by traditional religious morality (and
so cannot simply assert their principles based on divine origin).
Those who are truly rational will do this in a nondogmatic way.  Note
that I do not consider the dogmatic assertion of the moral principles
of Objectivism to be in keeping with the philosophy.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: RE: Weighted Suffrage
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:32:23 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <ritter.720367686@claude> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com
(Roger Ritter) writes:

>}If not that, then how about:  each person gets one vote on attaining
>}voting age.  If a person serves in the military, they get another vote.
>}Graduating from college gets yet another vote.  And finally, performing
>}a great service to the country gets a fourth (and final) vote.  The great
>}service should be roughly equivalent in uniqueness to the valor needed to
>}win a Medal of Honor.

>I read the book years ago and always liked the idea, in principle.
>Unfortunately, I don't think you could get it implemented short of bloody
>revolution.

Even if it was allowed in, how would it be run? There would have to be
some sort of massive electronic database to hold all the records. Even
today's biggest databases only hold a few million reccords so how is the
election database going to hold all that data?
And what about privacy and all that?

How are we going to go about voting - as it is with typists out the
back diligently plunking away or introduce electronic voting? Then
what about security?

Yeah, I agree with you that its absolutely great *in theory* but I
think it would end up being more trouble than it's worth.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4832 sci.philosophy.tech:4001 sci.philosophy.meta:2461 sci.classics:955
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:09:21 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Distribution: inet
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <ISBELL.92Nov9074042@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>|No.  I think that those who advocated such views were wrong.  Perhaps you 
>|would like to continue to apply that reasoning and advocate "slave philosophy"
>|and "serf philosophy".  What kinds of deep philosophical insights do you
>|think one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf?  
>
>A basic and personal understanding of what it means to be oppressed.
>I suspect that many of those who have been homeless, for example, have
>had their worldview shaped by such an experience.
>
>And real, hands-on experience--as opposed to simple theoretical
>understanding--should not be underestimated.  I think being pulled
>over by a police officer and beaten near to death by a flashlight
>provides a "deep philosophical insight" as it were that might not be
>arrived at by other more cerebral means.

	Depends on how you organize that experience. You may be merely
reinforcing prejudices you held before *it* happened, or, on the contrary,
such an event might result in a significant change in how you deal with 
reality. Perhaps for physiological as well as psychological reasons, but we're 
primarily dealing with the psyche here, not how efficiently and logically
one processes information.

	What am I claiming here ? Nothing more than that a person can
give more than one interpretation to an event. 

	More controversially, I might also claim that a person has some
control as to how he/she interprets events. If so, the credibility of
"feminist" philosophy is lessened, if such an assertion is true.

>
>
>
>--
>Peace.
>                    "We don't necessarily discriminate.  
>                     We simply exclude certain types of people."
>                             -Lt Col. Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor 
>                              at M.I.T., on D.O.D. 1332.14

	Case in point. What, in fact, did the speaker say ? Was it what
he MEANT to say ? Does one need a filter to see any light here ?


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: RGM *nix - Sacramento, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:58:14 GMT

pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>In article <9211071042.03@rgm.com> root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
>>The neat thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it makes minimum
>>assumptions or demands on the individuals within the world view.  

>The nasty thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it takes a
>very complex system of interdependency between independently complex
>biological systems and reduces it to a set of conscious choices
>covering only explicit and immediate interractions between empowered
>individuals. 

And naturally you have philosophized somehow that artificially empowered
individuals in government are better suited to make these decisions?
Duh. . . <-- ad hominem can be fun sometimes, but only if you recognize it as
such. . .
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------->
Ray Mendonsa ---- root@rgm.com ---- Admin., rgm.com --------->
916/923-5013 8n1,HST -- login: new -- Public access Usenet -->
"I've voted and I can't get up!"
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:40:48 EST
From: <TSMITH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Term Limits Alternative

An Alternative to Term Limits

     It has been suggested that congressional term limits be
implemented as a way to alleviate government gridlock.  Those in
favor of term limits argue that this would eliminate career
politicians and keep "new blood" constantly flowing through
congress.  Others counter that term limits already exist in the
form of the ballot box (if you don't like 'em, vote against 'em)
and that artificial limits would amount to nothing more than a
quickie bandaid fix to a much bigger problem.

     An alternative is suggested.  This is a theoretical plan that
would have to be implemented by constitutional amendment and is
offered for discussion.

Step 1:

     Freeze all of the salaries levels for congressmen and senators
at their current levels.  Under this law they would not be entitled
to another pay raise while in congress.  Even if they leave office
and get re-elected, they would still be entitled to no more than
their original frozen salary level.  Whether they stay in office
for one more or ten more terms they get no more raises for any
reason, period.  Zero, Zilch, Nada.

Step 2:

     These frozen pay levels (one for the Senate, one for the
House), would be established as the Congressional Pay Baselines,
hereafter referred to as the "going rate".

Step 3:

     Every year, the "going rate" would be adjusted, up or down,
according to the government's consumer price index.  If the CPI
goes up 5%, then the "going rate" would increase 5%.  If the CPI
goes down 5%, then so would the "going rate".

Step 4:

     Henceforth, whenever a new person is elected to congress
he/she would be paid the "going rate" for their respective office.
This would be the only salary level they get, regardless of time of
service.  They would get no raises ever.


     This proposal would accomplish two goals.  First, it would
take away from congress the privilege of granting itself pay
raises; something that has been always a sore subject with the
constituents.  More importantly though, it would force turnover in
congress for economic reasons.  Sooner or later, the elected
official would have to step down because trying to live in
Washington DC would, with inflation, eventually become
prohibitively expensive.  The new people coming in would not have
this problem initially, thanks to the built-in cost of living
adjustment driven by the CPI.  Eventually they too would have to
step aside on economic grounds.


     This plan is offered for debate and discussion.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: mps1@cec1.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah)
Subject: Re: What am I? fascist, leftwing loon or what?
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:50:14 GMT

Very interesting proposals you have made. Some are pleasingly logical, some are
common, and some may be quirky but interesting.

Overall, you seem to be economically on the liberal side, but it is a 
pragmatic liberalism and not radical liberalism.  You want a little more
government spending in many areas but not defense.  I would point out
the the United States spends more money per pupil on education than any
other nation in the world.  This, of course, reflects a horrendous
problem in America.  The same goes for health care.  We spend more money on
it than any other nation.  In both education and health care, we have
bureacratic red tape, both by the government and the private sector.
I would try to REDUCE the education spending, but we must RADICALLY change
the education system from a STRUCTURAL point of view, not a BUDGETARY or
SPENDING  point of view.  We need some very different approaches in education.

Your "quirky" ideas include your "wage-derived" tariff plan.  It may not
work, but it's worth investigating.  Who knows? It may be better than what
we have.

Because you have traditionally liberal views on abortion and religion, this
still puts you in the liberal column.  May I say that while conservatives
would have much to disagree with you, I as a moderate see you as 
acceptably liberal.  You do not address things like over-spending overall
and balancing the budget, which may be attributed to both liberal spenders
and conservative supply-siders.

Again, I think pragmatic liberal or maybe even moderately liberal.

Hope this helps.

Peace...Mihir

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 19:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.211826.28701@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.160125.2792@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.211811.11331@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>In article <JTURNER.92Nov4145031@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>>>>	You're adding words recklessly.  It may be true that,
>>>>"I like cauliflower".  To say that it is objectively true is
>>>>to remove all meaning from the word objective.  The statement
>>>>"I like cauliflower" is obviously (and you admit it) subjective.
>>
>>The *liking* is subjective. The *truth* of the sentence is objective.
>>Use and mention....
>
>Alas, no. The sentence, with all implications made explicit, is "I
>believe that I like cauliflower". Since liking cauliflower is in
>itself a belief about cauliflower, we can subject this to endless
>regress.

With Wittgenstein, I would argue that it's wrong to say that "I like
cauliflower" is just an abbreviated way of saying "I believe I like
cauliflower."  For one, as you note, this easily leads to an infinite
regress.  More importantly, the sentences are used in different ways.  I
would not ever say  "I believe I like cauliflower" if what I really
meant was just that I liked cauliflower.  I would only use it if either
had some doubt as to whether I really liked it, or if someone was asking
me to list my beliefs concerning cauliflower.  

As to whether "I like cauliflower" is objectively true, obviously not.
I don't like cauliflower.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.anarchy,alt.cyberpunk,alt.industrial,alt.postmodern
From: spent@milton.u.washington.edu (Spencer mullen)
Subject: Re: Singularity (was Re: Industrial Culture (or, Why...))
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:04:10 GMT

  what exactly is meant by "singularity" in this context?  Is this some sort 
of technological eschaton?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books