The ACLU and The Price of Free Speech
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Robin Hanson wrote: > But I have often wondered if we could measure willingness to pay > for various freedoms, perhaps by just directly asking people. I think we already have one good measure: the amount of donations to organizations dedicated to free speech such as the ACLU. There are two kinds of free speech whose price we can measure: freedom of one's own speech (I should be allowed to say what I want) and the freedom of others speech (other people should say what they want even if I don't like it). The evidence is that a lot of people are willing to pay quite a bit for their own free speech. Witness the fact that many are willing to die for the right to express their religion. In the US, people are willing to pay quite a bit to pursue lawsuits that allow them to proseletize (sp?) in public or quasi-public places like parks, airports and malls. The evidence I think points to the fact that extremely few people have positive prices for others free speech. The 1st amendment was joke for most of this country's history. The ACLU provides an excellent example. For the first two or three decades, the ACLU defended the speech of leftists (rightfully so, I think) and then experienced a drop in membership when they started to defend the rights of neo-nazis to have a parade in Skokie, Illinois. It seems to be the case that it relatively easy to fund an organization that defends one kind of free speech because donors are supporting their own free speech while it is difficult to fund an organization that defends others free spech. Robin, do you have other examples in mind? -fabio
Re: Why Are Courting Signals Complex?
I think an interesting side note to this entire discussion is the fact that all the people responding are male and probably academic. I think that this question needs to be looked at in the new light of brain differences between males and females. I'm not talking about differences in size but in the documented differences in cognitive patterns and perception. Woemn are more able to catch on to the subtle signs of flirting than men. We need to look at it in terms of the different mating strategies and needs taken by men and women. I would venture to say, from an evolutionary perspective, a man's verbal or emotional ability would be low on the list of priorities for women seeking mates. What they would look at in that respect would be the ability to lead, agressiveness to a proper degree, and also ability or other desireable traits. The male's verbal ability or tact would only be needed to sufficiently bring these desireable traits to the female's attention. I know that females throw subtle signs, but if the man is desirable enough, she will make the hints more obvious. Desireable males will have more successful experiences and will therefore also be at an advantage to pick up on these signals or get more "second chances." In terms of mating, we tend to equate it with "love" or "relationship" but we ignore the fact that this is not necessarily the case in primitive or animal domains. Mating could take place with "enemies" or "rival tribes." It would be in the female's interest to survival to not "show all her cards" regardless of her desire to "court" or "mate." Just imagine if your best friend's girlfriend or wife is flirting with you. Would she openly say, "I'm attracted to you," or "I want to have sex with you"? She would want the option of pretending there was nothing she was hinting at, in case you didn't bite the bait and also want the option of claiming that she wasn't the one to "initiate" it or that "it just happened." I think the issue is that courting signals are complex and not amibiguous. Sam Baron Edward Dodson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">Ed Dodson responding..Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:59:35AM -0700, Chris Rasch wrote:I think that one purpose flirting serves is to separate the verbally fluent,socially adept males from their clumsier brethren. Verbally fluent,socially adept males are more likely to succeed at [...]Yes, but this skill is only interesting to the female if she canassume it will be used for her (and her offspring's) benefit ratherthan detriment. Thus, whatever criteria will be used must be more complex.Ed Dodson here:I wonder whether observation of women who are highly educated, engaged in sometype of professional work and essentially economically self-sufficient would yieldr! ! ! esults unique to women with this set of "assets." Flirtation may be consciouslyavoided as a non-productive use of time. College students, on the other hand, aremore likely to be in receptive to non-productive uses of time, so that flirtationsthat result in casual physical relationships -- with minimal emotional demands --fulfill their particular needs at that particular time in life.
Re: Why Are Courting Signals Complex?
I think an interesting side note to this entire discussion is the fact that all the people responding are male and probably academic. I think that this question needs to be looked at in the new light of brain differences between males and females. I'm not talking about differences in size but in the documented differences in cognitive patterns and perception. Woemn are more able to catch on to the subtle signs of flirting than men. We need to look at it in terms of the different mating strategies and needs taken by men and women. I would venture to say, from an evolutionary perspective, a man's verbal or emotional ability would be low on the list of priorities for women seeking mates. What they would look at in that respect would be the ability to lead, agressiveness to a proper degree, and also ability or other desireable traits. The male's verbal ability or tact would only be needed to sufficiently bring these desireable traits to the female's attention. I know that females throw subtle signs, but if the man is desirable enough, she will make the hints more obvious. Desireable males will have more successful experiences and will therefore also be at an advantage to pick up on these signals or get more "second chances." In terms of mating, we tend to equate it with "love" or "relationship" but we ignore the fact that this is not necessarily the case in primitive or animal domains. Mating could take place with "enemies" or "rival tribes." It would be in the female's interest to survival to not "show all her cards" regardless of her desire to "court" or "mate." Just imagine if your best friend's girlfriend or wife is flirting with you. Would she openly say, "I'm attracted to you," or "I want to have sex with you"? She would want the option of pretending there was nothing she was hinting at, in case you didn't bite the bait and also want the option of claiming that she wasn't the one to "initiate" it or that "it just happened." I think the issue is that courting signals are complex and not amibiguous. Sam Baron Edward Dodson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">Ed Dodson responding..Francois-Rene Rideau wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:59:35AM -0700, Chris Rasch wrote:I think that one purpose flirting serves is to separate the verbally fluent,socially adept males from their clumsier brethren. Verbally fluent,socially adept males are more likely to succeed at [...]Yes, but this skill is only interesting to the female if she canassume it will be used for her (and her offspring's) benefit ratherthan detriment. Thus, whatever criteria will be used must be more complex. Ed Dodson here:I wonder whether observation of women who are highly educated, engaged in sometype of professional work and essentially economically self-sufficient would yieldresults unique to women with this set of "assets." Flirtation may be consciouslyavoided as a non-productive use of time. College students, on the other hand, aremore likely to be in receptive to non-productive uses of time, so that flirtationsthat result in casual physical relationships -- with minimal emotional demands --fulfill their particular needs at that particular time in life.
drug prices
Reguarding a recurrent theme for this group. As reported in today's latimes, here are a few drug prices drug u.s. canada lipitor $72 $29 (10mg,anticholesterol) plavix $123 $39 (75mg, for atheroscloerosis) prilosec $132 $39 (20mg, gastrointestinal) prozac$85 $29 (20 mg, antidepressant) adaiat $86 $27 (60 mg, blood pressure) The article suggested a few reasons 1- socialized medicine ( the reporter's words, not mine) tightly controls pharmaceutical prices. 2- u.s. pays more because of higher advertising costs 3- favorable exchange rates. I have always assumed the reason was different tort systems. But if this were so, we would have different prices in different states. I suspect there is also good old fashioned price discrimination. ( though I am not sure how much this explains)
Re: The Price of Free Speech ce of Free
Fabio wrote: >... colleges ... attracted donations ... because they offered >a place where abolitionists could argue their case freely. ... >Question: Could we use charitable donations to colleges and other >cultural organizations be used a measure of how much people >value various kinds of speech? This example sounds more like the price of advertising. But I have often wondered if we could measure willingness to pay for various freedoms, perhaps by just directly asking people. I doubt if most people would be willing to pay more than $100 per year for their own first amendment right to free speech. Probably $1/year is more the median answer for how much a person is willing to pay to have a constitutional protection against the government banning that person's speech. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
The Price of Free Speech ce of Free
Observation: Many colleges in the pre-civil war era attracted donations from abolitionists because they offered a place where abolitionists could argue their case freely. In other words, many colleges were paid forums for the abolitionist movement. Question: Could we use charitable donations to colleges and other cultural organizations be used a measure of how much people value various kinds of speech? -fabio
RE: The cost of being elected...
There is no reason ever to get insu;ting and attack a specific group (Democrats). Kieran Boylan CPA Adjunct George Mason University Fairfax Va.
Re[2]: The cost of being elected...
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:09:39 -0800 jhorsman > wrote: > > I would prefer that, though I have suggested individuals get one vote for > each tax dollar that they pay . If this was the mechanism, there wouldn't > be a democrat in sight( good riddance) How would this influence the behaviour of politicians? If a politician in such a system gives a tax break to his voters he loses votes... Krist - Krist van Besien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
