HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:43:15 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <BvCJAK.8JB@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <qeaf1bg@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>>
>>In article <Bv6KvK.6B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>
>>> > Your behavior today is conditioned by many years of struggle, 
>>> 
>>> That sounds like so much marxist/Skinnerian abti-free will claptrap.  I
>>> have the beliefs I do because I can think and I have looked at the facts
>>> and I have drawn certain conclusions.
>>
>>In article <BvB6qr.L42@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:
>>
>>>  Ahh, the self-made-mam!   Mr. Yoder seems to think that if he were born
>>>  with different genes, in a different time, in a different culture, that
>>>  he would have reached the same conclusions about the world, or at least
>>>  reached them in the same way.   Perhas he would care to provide some 
>>>  evidence for this.
>>
>>An avoidance of the need to discuss any possible substance in the ideas
>>themselves worthy of Marx himself - only more
>  The basic substance of ANY ideas is to be found in the epistemology
>  underlying those ideas.   As a logical empiricist, I give significant
>  credence to science.  And science tells us that genes+environment 
>  are what make us and every living creature what we are.   Mr. Yoder
>  seems to be claiming that he is, somehow, above all this.  He seems
>  to think the conclusions he draws or the method by which he derives
>  them are independent of all this.  He says that an "anti-free-will"
>  position is "claptrap".  What does he base this on?   What POSSIBLE
>  justification can he provide, given all his rationality and whatnot
>  for the existence of free will?   We don't know any phenomenon in the 
>  universe that's not either deterministic or subject to quantum Uncer-
>  tainty.   Where does that leave room for free will?   This IS the
>  substance of the discussion.

While it is somewhat foolish to deny the effect of genes+environment,
it is also somewhat foolish to deny the possibility of free will, or
some such equivalent.  Humans do have the capacity for self-reflection,
to examine what they have become, and therefore have the ability
to compensate, by making their own environment, if you will.

I dont think it is an either-or situation, by any means.  


--Al Date
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:59:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <dliebman.1n00@terapin.com> dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:
>In article <19vkvsINNmtv@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)

>>The liberal wants to paddle down this path ever faster, under
>>deluded notions about the results of government programs, blind
>>to economic forces, and strangely ignorant about basic facts about
>>how children grow and learn.  As the falls roar closer, they 
>>experiment with different arrangements of the passengers in the 
>>canoe.

>my sweetie just started teaching kindergarten.  there are twenty-three
>children in her class.  given this situation there can be no contact
>whatsoever between the children or between them and her -- any
>activity that does not firmly press the children into droning
>compartments results in thorough chaos.
>
>classes are too large.  if we spend some more money to permit smaller
>classes for younger children, they will be far more likely to learn.

  I never fail to be amazed that at the way people on Usenet like to
  discuss education as though the world were created a few hours
  ago and the entire topic is theoretical because there's simply
  NO empirical data in existence!

  The conservatives say "state education doesn't work"; the liberals
  say "more money, smaller classes".

  Yet plenty of nations all over the world give the lie to both
  these claims, turning out literate, well-educated, creative
  thinking adults, with government schools, spending less money,
  and having larger class sizes than we have in the US.

  And  even in the US, how do we acount for those ethnic groups
  such as Chinese and Japanese Americans or Jews, who consistently
  excel in school and populate the graduate schools way beyond their
  portion of the population, and bring the US honor in the form
  of Nobel prizes, inventions, discoveries, patents, etc?  And
  yet they go to the same public schools as the rest of us!   

  While it is certainly the case that we need to reform and improve
  education, it is not at all obvious to me that issues like "state
  versus private" or "expenditures per pupil" or "student:teacher
  ratio" are significantly relevant.    Rather, I would look at
  issues like class discipline, academic standards, homework, 
  attention span, days of school per year, and similar issues.



---peter
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:34:25 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BvCJAK.8JB@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:
|>  
|>   The basic substance of ANY ideas is to be found in the epistemology
|>   underlying those ideas.   As a logical empiricist, I give significant
|>   credence to science.  And science tells us that genes+environment 
|>   are what make us and every living creature what we are.   Mr. Yoder
|>   seems to be claiming that he is, somehow, above all this.  He seems
|>   to think the conclusions he draws or the method by which he derives
|>   them are independent of all this.  He says that an "anti-free-will"
|>   position is "claptrap".  What does he base this on?   What POSSIBLE
|>   justification can he provide, given all his rationality and whatnot
|>   for the existence of free will?   We don't know any phenomenon in the 
|>   universe that's not either deterministic or subject to quantum Uncer-
|>   tainty.   Where does that leave room for free will?   This IS the
|>   substance of the discussion.
|> 

If you wish to follow up with this Peter, please do so in 
sci.philosophy.meta.

Also, note that I agree that Yoder deserves in some sense to be harpooned,
given the imflammatory nature of his original post, but you must speak
forself yourself when you say "'WE' don't know any phenomenon ....".
Science, reliable science, is good for what its good for, but quite
limited in scope.  Using a kind of pseudo analytical method you can quite
quickly break Science into its tools and construct the domain of what
Science can tell us.  That would be the formal system and its "theorems".

I claim that there are huge tracts of truth that lie wholly outside of 
the domain of Science.  Trivially it can proved, in virtue of Godel's
theorem -- any sufficiently expressive formal system is incomplete.
In other words, it is possible to construct a known truth which is not
a theorem in the formal system.

I claim that free will exists, but not as you understand it, and that
it lies in precisely that domain not reachable by rationality.  
Your looking with the wrong tools; you have to leave your rational mind
behind to get there.

More "reasonable" is to leave free will/determinism undecided.  I don't
think you can properly declare that it doesn't exist, only that it is
Scientifically unkown, and possibly as I have asserted, Scientifically
unknowable.

In more practical terms, I very much agree that we (I) have been
significantly influenced and accepted beliefs without examining their
worth -- conditioned, though I do claim that we can re-examine such
beliefs and choose to no longer accept them -- "practical" freedom.

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Free Will (was: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:52:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct1.043338.9659@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Ah, a little digression from political theory.
>
>Free will cannot be proven.  However, it seems to be far
>simpler and more elegant to believe in it, than not.
>
>If we hold with determinism, we have to believe in an
>eternal universe which just happens to be here in its
>enormous complexity;

  By this reasoning believing in God is "simpler and more elegant"
  than believing in messy and complex evolution.

  Anyway, as I've pointed out several times here free will and 
  determinism are not the only alternatives -- uncertainty 
  (i.e., Heisneberg's) cannot be ignored.

  *Not* assuming free will is consistent with Occam's Razor 
  because it allows us to remain consistent with our basic model
  of how the universe works, i.e., laws of physics of both the
  deterministic and non-deterministic varieties.   In other
  words you don't *need* free will to explain anything.  There
  is nothing about human behavior that is inconsistent with the
  model of human personality as "wetware" or the brain as an
  enormously complex biochemical system mechanistically obeying
  laws of physics.


---peter






Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4411 ba.politics:5783 alt.individualism:5631
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: 26 Sep 92 01:27:02 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep25.013235.25554@panix.com>, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes: 
>
>>'welfare dependency' . . . is a dependency in the psychological and
>>spiritual sense as well. they lack confidence, trust in themselves and
>>in others, a sense of community and collectivity -- in short, the
>>_capacity_ for motivation. social relationships -- love, encouragement,
>>support -- provide these things. what they lack is not, as you say
>>later in your post, in their way of living but in their way of being .
>>. . the purpose [of community centers] is to clear a space in which the
>>participants are empowered to recreate a healthy and productive social
>>milieu . . . 
>
>These seem like rather refined problems for government programs to deal
>with.  If there have been successes, then of course there's not much for
>me to say until I find out more about them.  So for the time being I
>will comment no further.

it's funny how so many people (not talking 'bout you, jim) have this notion
of the 'free market' as an organic entity, view economic society in this
way, but not social society.  'the market' will prosper and be productive
and regenerative if we permit proper 'communication' -- that is, lift
regulation -- but with respect to individuals we can only think in terms
of active intervention.

what i was saying is that if we facilitate communication, minds will heal.

-dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,ba.politics,alt.individualism
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association,  and Voting???
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.011020.23107@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >Coercion comes in too many forms to be argued as a simple
    >matter of freedom of association. My boss coerces me, I
    >coerce my kids, my wife coerces me, we all coerce each other
    >to some degree, on the freeway, in social settings. But
    >perhaps we have a semantic problem here. The definition of
    >"coerce" which seems most universal is: "to compel to an act
    >or choice." Coercion is not necessarily the use of force, in
    >other words, so it cannot automatically be classified as
    >immoral, and again, the connection to the FOA seems remote.

Do you have a choice with respect to boss and wife? Can you not
say, "Sorry, but this is not for me. Let's not associate anymore."?

You can't say that to the State now can you? Hey boss, I'm not
going to work here anymore, and you of course won't pay me anymore.

Hey State, I'm not using your services anymore (like, say, the Amish)
so let's not associate anymore ...


Ha!

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:45:41 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> BTW, don't forget that computers have solved proofs that the best human
    mathematicians were unable to solve.

  Also don't forget that computers are bumbling idiots that have to be told
  everything a step at a time in a language that they can understand, and
  have no capacity for abstraction or creativity. Computers aren't anywhere
  near the overall intellectual capacity of humans.

pn> What are you going to do when we can create a whole brain from scratch by
    putting together amino acids and other building blocks?

  Such a brain is no different than one sitting in a jar full of formaldehyde.
  Big whup.

pn> How long will it be before we can create neural nets or brain simulations
    or other complex systems that have as much intelligence and complexity as
    we do? A few generations, maybe?  Will they have free will?

  I'd say several hundred to a thousand years or more, *at least*. You sound
  like you've been reading too much sci-fi, or have become intoxicated with
  silly ideas. 

pn> Personally I think the proposition that there is something "special" about
    the human mind/brain to be the last refuge of those who cannot face what
    we have wrought with science and technology.  

  I view those who believe that science and reality are one and the same to be
  especially rigid and limited in their view of things. Science has become a
  religion to them, and they have trouble believing that there are things it
  cannot explain and will not be able to explain, period.

  BTW, just because I cannot will myself to defy gravity and float into the
  air doesn't mean I don't have free will.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:00:24 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <19vkvsINNmtv@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
>These
>problems are made worse by the fact that our schools have lost
>sight of how to teach those students who are ready, and they
>instead attempt the Sisyphean task of undoing the parent's
>influence on the children who aren't ready. 
>
>The liberal wants to paddle down this path ever faster, under
>deluded notions about the results of government programs, blind
>to economic forces, and strangely ignorant about basic facts about
>how children grow and learn.  As the falls roar closer, they 
>experiment with different arrangements of the passengers in the 
>canoe.

my sweetie just started teaching kindergarten.  there are twenty-three
children in her class.  given this situation there can be no contact
whatsoever between the children or between them and her -- any
activity that does not firmly press the children into droning
compartments results in thorough chaos.

classes are too large.  if we spend some more money to permit smaller
classes for younger children, they will be far more likely to learn.
we will ultimately save lots more of that very same money because we
will not be left to deal with the products of a pitifully inadequate
first-grade education when they show up in high school, on the streets,
and in jail.

-dave
From: waldo@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Todd J. Dicker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Clinton's Latest TV Ad
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:23:39 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

I was originally going to post a long, thought-out rebuttel to Mr. Wee's 
long, thoughtless diatribe on Clinton's economic plan.  Rather, that is, 
on Mr. Wee's distorted repetition of Bush's dusty rhetoric.  I have, 
unfortunately, too much work to develop properly an agument against Mr. 
Wee's close-minded, ignorant view of the interconnectivity of the 
economy, social welfare, and the rather Sinclairian behavior of the 
Republican party.

The issue of the economy, education, infrastructure, and the good life 
can only be properly addressed rationally/comprehensively.  These are 
long term issues that require the feeble, incremental minds of the 
president, Congress and the fifty state legislatures to expand beyond the 
scope of the next election.  I believe one way to do this is to institute 
term limitations for every elected office and return the ideal public 
service mentality of Cincinnatus and Jefferson.  This would reduce pork 
while increasing the outlook of the policymakers.  I additionally support 
the prefessionalization of the administrative agencies beyond the spoils 
system presently in place.  There is no reason for the administrative 
heads of our vital agencies to travle the country campaigning for the 
president.  There is no reason to re-appoint new heads every new term.  
The overriding criteria should be the administrative record of the agency 
head.  If you have done a good job, you keep your position, of you're 
William Bennet, you don't.  Simple.

I'll have to leave my direct criticism of Mr. Wee's inadequacy of thought 
for another time.  The foundation of my critique, though, has been laid.

Todd J. Dicker
School of Public Administration
Florida Atlantic University
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Political FTP Site On Line (and seeking contributions)
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:47:26 GMT

Progressive FTP Site Seeks Submissions

Greetings.

I manage two mirror-image ftp sites that archive materials from
progressive groups of all kinds:  newletters and journals, essays
from individuals and groups, position papers and polemics, and other
relevant documents.  Generally no breaking news stories, since they
have more limited value over time, although historically relevant
items are welcome.

If you are a member of an organization that could use archival
storage space for anonymous public access to your documents,
please send me a message and I will arrange to add a directory
for your materials.

If you are an individual wishing to submit an essay or other single
file, please just send it and I will add it to the essays directory.

Use of the site is free of charge, and regulated only inasmuch as
copyrighted items cannot be submitted without permission from the
copyright holders.

The first site is:  ftp.css.itd.umich.edu -- this server is a fast
Sun workstation, with all the political files contained in the 
/poli directory, stored as plain text.  Files may not be uploaded
to this machine, though downloading will be faster from it.

The second site is:  redspread.css.itd.umich.edu -- this server is
an experimental Unix workstation running 386BSD v0.1 on a 386/40.
All files are also in the /poli directory, compressed in the Unix
"compress" format.  There is also a directory "/incoming" to which
users can submit files via ftp.

For those of you interested in submitting files to the site, but
without access to ftp services, you may mail your submission(s)
to me at: pauls@umich.edu.  You may also direct any queries to that
address.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: doit@ihspb.ih.att.com (45261-Roeseler)
Subject: Re: Free Will (was: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...)
Reply-To: a.roeseler@att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:39:34 GMT
Originator: doit@ihspb


In article <1992Oct1.043338.9659@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
writes:
     [Thoughts on the `Free Will']
|> 
|> All of which has very little to do with the way in which
|> social reality is created, but it's nice to think about.
|> -- 
|>  )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
|> ( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

Let us define `Civilization' as the state where the objective of
integral satisfaction of (primary) needs is effectively renounced.

(Animal) Man becomes a human being only through a fundamental 
transformation of the principles that govern the attainment of aims.
Freud has defined the change in value system (from the Pleasure Principle 
to the Reality Principle) as follows:

        from:                          to:
immediate satisfaction          delayed satisfaction
pleasure                        restraint of pleasure
joy (play)                      toil (work)
receptiveness                   productiveness
absence of repression           security

As society evolves, the reality principle has to be re-established
continually in the interest of mans development; repression of the
pleasure principle is a necessary requirement.

Many forms of repressive controls are imposed on the reality principle
by man (and NOT by nature) in the interest of `civilization' (i.e.,
control and domination). Most are of economic nature, i.e., ``[Society]
has not means enough to support life for its members without work on 
their part, it must see to it that the number of these members is
restricted and their energies directed away from sexual activities on to
their work.''

What other forms of irrational beliefs do you see in what is presented
as `social reality' to us?

Armin