HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:25:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov11.104245.3953@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <BxGCxI.tx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>}  Well, I've been quite clear what my criteria are:  testability, 
>}  falsifiability, operational definitions, objective metrics, etc.
>}  Rand's theories meet none of these criteria, so yes, they are
>}  false.  
>
>So, supposing we put it this way: ethics must be testable, falsifiable, have
>operational definitions, and objective metrics.
>
>Is this statement testable?  Is it falsifiable?  It doesn't seem to contain
>any operational definitions or objective metrics :-).

  Nor does it contain an assertion or claim about objective reality, idjit!

  I am merely stating MY epistemology.    You are welcome to define what
  you mean by "true" and explain why you think your standards are better
  than anyone else's.   As I've said, I'm a pragmatist.   I look for 
  what seems to work.  The epistemology that I've chosen has an excellent
  track record ever since the Enlightenment and is the basis of all modern
  science.   No other epistemology can show such a large and continuous
  track record of improvements, refinements, and applicability of its
  theoretical models.  Note that the ethical issues Rand discusses are
  precisely the same ones the Greeks debated 2500 years ago and we are
  no closer to closure today.   Thus epistemology based on subjectivism
  doesn't work.  


>Seriously, though, Peter, you should read Mario Rizzo's critique of positivism
>in "Austrian Economics: A Reader," edited by Richard Ebeling and published
>by Hillsdale College Press.  He argues that positivism is simply incoherent.

  There are many "positivisms"; what exactly was he criticizing?  Try
  summarizing it here for those of us who don't have access to it.

  The bottom line is that logical empiricism works better than anything
  else.   What people don't like about it is that it's "messy", it leaves
  loose ends, they are more like engineering than pure theoretics.
  In logical empiricism I can't really have the infinite lines and dimen-
  sionless points of geometry without caveats:  having to always point
  out that such geometry is artificial but we keep it around because it
  has practical applicability.    This irritates some people no end;
  they WANT nice neat simple theories (a la Randianism) and insist
  that the real world match their theories.    Note that you don't 
  have to be a theoretician to be irritated by logical empiricism:
  a pure empiricist could poke holes in it in his sleep!   The 
  only thing that saves us is that he has to spend all his time
  checking to see if gravity still works and the air is still
  breathable (just because these things were true a millisecond
  ago doesn't mean they're true now) so he never gets around to it!



---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Subject: Term Limits Alternative                                                
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:38:12 GMT

In article <92311.134048TSMITH@auvm.american.edu> <TSMITH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>An Alternative to Term Limits

[stuff deleted]

>     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.

Of course, the big hole here would be the lack of effect on those who
don't need their Congressional salary as income to live on.

Read George Will's new book. The problem in Congress, and the primary
motivation for term limits, is this: by allowing people to serve entire
30 and 40-year careers in Congress, we have created an incentive structure
in which the Congressperson's main motivation is the prolongation of
their career, and not the national interest. This is greatly exacerbated
by the need to raise huge amounts of money - mostly from special interests -
in order to mount a modern media-oriented campaign.

By imposing term limits, we remove the possibility of a lifetime career
in Congress, and thereby fundamentally alter the incentive structure
under which Congresspeople operate.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4828 talk.philosophy.misc:2365 rec.arts.books:19792
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: Term Limits Alternative
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:57:54 GMT

In article <92311.134048TSMITH@auvm.american.edu> TSMITH@auvm.american.edu writes:


>t has been suggested that congressional term limits be
> implemented as a way to alleviate government gridlock.
[...]
> An alternative is suggested.  This is a theoretical plan that
> would have to be implemented by constitutional amendment and is
> offered for discussion.

> 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.

	Except that many Congresspersons (especially Senators)
make much more money from speaking engagements and the like than
from salary.  This plan would merely entrench those Solons most
in the favor of the lobbyists/special interests.  Especially
those favorable to the richest special interests.  Do you really
want the country being run by the oil, gas, tobacco, medical,
insurance, etc. lobbies?  I thought not.

					--Jeff Turner

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4872 talk.philosophy.misc:2414 rec.arts.books:19948
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:46:12
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<9211071042.03@rgm.com> <1992Nov9.174553.5647@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<9211101256.56@rgm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: root@rgm.com's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:58:14 GMT

root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
|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. . .

And *this* is why Libertarians all over the net are so against judges
and lawyers (and suing and all that): they are artificially empowered
individuals in government.
--
Peace.
       "I not going to focus on what I have done in the past
        what I stand for, what I articulate to the American people.
        The American people will judge me on what I am saying and what I
        have done in the last 12 years in the Congress."
                        -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4883 talk.philosophy.misc:2421 rec.arts.books:19989
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Theory?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:24:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov8142430
	<1992Nov5.211826.28701@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1992Nov7.195153.23385@galois.mit.edu>
	<1992Nov8.022007.14425@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU's message of 8 Nov 92 02:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.022007.14425@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   Natural logic is fun to speculate on but hard to study.  A naive
   approach to formalizing a logic of belief amenable to study is to model
   belief as one deductively closed theory per individual of a community,
   and to define the interpretation of "P" to be the set of individuals
   that believe P.  

I suspect that the problem underlying this is that the properties of
one's "personal theory" need to be examined using an empirical-science
model ala Popper.  "I don't like cauliflower" isn't a deductive fact, as
you and the previous poster note: it may mean you've never, for example,
tried ukranian fried cauliflower (or, for that matter, that you've
*only* tried ukranian fried cauliflower!)  It's rather an empirical
observation, following from some number of experiments and capable of
falsification.

As such, "natural logic" is something that can be examined for
consistency with a deductive system, but not something that can be the
basis for a fully deductive system.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.anarchy,alt.cyberpunk,alt.industrial,alt.postmodern
From: toad@nmt.edu (Tod Landis)
Subject: Re: Singularity (was Re: Industrial Culture (or, Why...))
Organization: Electrical Eng. Dept. - New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.040924.14454@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

The main problem of calling information capital is that unlike a mass produced 
product, you can only sell the information once and then the liquid assets
must be set against finding more information, or the enterprise fails. This 
would appear to be self limiting, not to mention the fact that having knowlege 
isnt the same as using it. Want that Lincoln Towne car? Just send to the patent
office, get the patents and build it your self! Perfectly legal. So what if you
dont have a press plant in your backyard. 

Having knowlege is great
being able to use it is power

TOAD

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4746 talk.politics.misc:58352 misc.legal:19598
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Libernet: a libertarian/classical-liberal digest and forum
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:04:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu


This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:10:12 GMT

I Kant stand it!

Conan the Libertarian
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:17:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov4.173117.1688@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>
>Hold your horses.  I never made "such claims".  I was simply stating that
>it is possible to have knowledge about yourself, what you like, don't like,
>etc.  I know what I like (in some areas, anyhow).  Does that sound like
>a leap of faith?  I did not attempt to make a universal law about individual
>tastes.  You're getting confused about the subject matter: it's an objectively
>true statement for one to say, "I like cauliflower" if they aren't lying, etc.

  WHY do you say it's objectively true?   How should I distinguish
  a objective claim that I like peas from a subjective one?   How
  do you know that you're not fooling yourself due to some deep seated
  psychological condition?    I say you're statemtn is only *subjectively*
  true until you are able to state it in falsifiable and testable
  terms.   



>I don't agree with your definition of "objective" because that would mean
>that simply SEEING something would require your eyes, and therefore make
>the knowledge non-objective.

  The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's a slippery
  slope.  The logical conclusion is that ALL personal beliefs that
  are held sincerely are true.  The guy at the State Refuge for the 
  Psychiatrically Challenged who sincerely believes he is Jesus
  H Christ is just as "right" as the guy in the next room who
  thinks that HE is Jesus H Christ.


>  who knowledge that is It's over-simplified to only say "independant
> of the observer", since human beings are observers and a human
>can't get knowledge independant of itself.

  (see the above)  Technically I suppose you're right that we could
  all just be sharing a group hallucination and NONE of this is
  objectively real.   So, science has adopted the axiom that what
  we all agree we are observing we are really observing.  Nota VERY
  bene: what this means is that if we all observe that the digital
  voltmeter reads "5.25 volts" then it is an objective fact that it
  really does read "5.25 volts", not necessarily that the voltage
  really IS 5.25 volts.   


---peter





Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4759 talk.philosophy.misc:2298 rec.arts.books:19620
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:46:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1jPnzX#6ZgjKk1F5fHB2DO4Tc1JKfHk=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>formulated the Non-Aggression Principle and mercilessly dissected the sham of
>altruism.  When the first truly free society dawns, *that* Rand will be
>remembered as a saint.

   I'm not sure what to make of this.   Jesus, the Buddha, Moses, 
   and several others are regarded as "saints" in the catholic, 
   as opposed to Catholic, sense of the word, today.  But the 
   world, or even the world of their followers, bears scant
   resemblance to their teachings.

   _If_ a truly free society (whatever we regard this to mean)
   dawns and Rand is regarded as a saint, it is not clear that
   it will bear any resemblance to her teachings, either (what-
   ever we regard them to to be).


---peter


   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4860 talk.philosophy.misc:2409 rec.arts.books:19918
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:07:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory

Dani Zweig writes:

>>First of all, let's dispense with the notion...that one philsophical text 
>>can be determined in some objective or absolute way to be better or truer 
>>than another. 

>Of course there are objective criteria for comparing philosophical texts.
>We think less of one that is self-contradictory.  We think less of one that
>is implicitly self-contradictory, by virtue of not having worked through the
>implications of its arguments.  We think less of one whose premises accord
>poorly with our observations of the world around us.

The problem in this is the word "we".  I defy you to find me a text which
someone doesn't disagree with.

The fact that the same arguments appear month after month in these groups is
indicative of more than just that waves of new college students and
programmer types get new accounts each year.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
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: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:51:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}
}The function which Rand's philosophy admirably serves is
}the extrusion of guilt.

That's funny, I've seen Randian egoism attacked on this very newsgroup on the
grounds that it's a means for making people feel guilty for not really acting
in their interests.  It seems to me that both of these are false, and that
Objectivism merely proposes a different standard of guilt which rejects the
deterinistic notion of Original Sin that altruism bases itself in.

}In order to extrude guilt, Rand sets up a logical engine
}which can operate only in a solid, mechanical universe with
}well-defined components.  Hence, Objectivism.  Once the
}premises (the worldview) are set up, the engine can be run
}and the guilt can be extruded -- can be shown to be not only
}irrelevant, but evil.

Are we talking about the same woman?  Rand rejected mechanism, although she
was a bit too rationalistic at times.


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
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What am I? fascist, leftwing loon or what?
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:49:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <19224.2afa642c@levels.unisa.edu.au> 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon) writes:
>I want to know, in American politicospeak, what I am and who I
>would be most likely to vote for etc. We have different terms for
>different political persuasions, so when I am talking to an
>American I want to know exactly what they are calling me;
>I am right wing, conervative or left radical or what?

   The smart thing to do is dispense with these idiotic labels
   altogether.   

   Despite what you may have heard, there is no simple chart or
   "spectrum" that can be used to assign political persuasion.
   One axis ("liberal-conservative") or two axis ("economic liberty",
   "personal liberty") are purely arbitrary and one could just as 
   easily construct n-axis charts where n is the number of different
   political topics that the individual has views on.   Suggesting,
   for instance, that being pro-gun-control and anti-abortion is
   somehow contradictory is making a lot of arbitrary assumptions
   about what's relevant for determining consistency.  Ditto on just
   about any two (- through n) issues you can name.

   Besides why care what Americans call you?   Call them something
   back in 'strine so they don't even know they've been insulted.


---peter

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4783 alt.society.anarchy:687 alt.cyberpunk:5489 alt.industrial:586 alt.postmodern:2658
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.anarchy,alt.cyberpunk,alt.industrial,alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: Singularity (was Re: Industrial Culture (or, Why...))
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:33:25 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Nov7.030410.9108@u.washington.edu> spent@milton.u.washington.edu (Spencer mullen) writes:
|   what exactly is meant by "singularity" in this context?  Is this some sort 
| of technological eschaton?

Not exactly.  The original meaning of _eschaton_, subsequently
colored by theological imaginings, is "last, furthest, uttermost."
There could be only one.  While a singularity is evidently
thought of as the last of a certain arrangement of things, there
could be more than one of them.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books