Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Kevin Elliott]

At 21:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>I don't think your Hitler example applies, because he could not prove
>that the Jews were causing pain.  In any case, my formulation of act
>utilitarianism seems to suffer from those sorts of attacks less than
>the normal formulation, and I have yet to find a moral theory as
>coherant as utilitarianism.

He had certainly managed to convince himself.  And unfortunately if 
your using act utilitarianism, he's the only one who has to be 
convinced.  I'm not sure your 10,000 screaming sadists was terribly 
likely either but I didn't whine about it...
-- 

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both 
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly 
unchanged.  And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware 
of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting 
victims of the darkness."
-- Justice William O. Douglas

Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott 
 ICQ#23758827 

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 05:15:06PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote, quoting me:
> > For instance, what are the economic effects? 
> 
> Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.

Nope. You don't get it. Economics is in part hte study of people
acting in their own rational self-interest, which can't be denied by
government fiat.

> > What are the
> > black markets that arise?  
> 
> I don't know, what black markets would arise?  If people were housed,
> clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable
> income to buy what they wanted.

Are you clueless? You were talking in this hypothetical about a tax
rate of 95 percent. That's not a whole lot of disposable income to buy
widescreen TVs.

> I'm not sure.  However, if all housing and food was provided by the
> government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed
> your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people
> would pay their taxes.

Have you ever looked at government housing? If I could escape it and
my tax obligations by the simple expedient of deciding not to pay, I
would. You've just made taxes voluntary, twit. 

-Declan

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Tim May]

At 5:02 PM -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:41:49AM -0700, Rev. Parker Bright wrote:
>>  If you truly believe this why not take a hint from Camus and kill yourself.
>>  You could one, lose nothing due to inherent lack of value, two, exercise
>>  the one undeniable right, three, the secession of personal pain and four,
>>  free up resources to reduce the pain of others.
>>  Not taking shots, just offering options.
>>
>
>I've thought about it many times.  I guess the reason I haven't is
>that, every once in a while, I actually do have fun.

Nevertheless, _our_ happiness demands that you off yourself...soonest.

As you have so convincingly articulated, it's simple majority rule.


--Tim May
-- 
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Nathan Saper]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:09:53AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
> to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that 
> arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
> 
> Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
> considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?
> 

I guess it depends on the country.  In the U.S., I'm not sure what
would happen.

> I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a
> hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the
> positive. 

You are correct.  Just so it's clear, I did say "IF raising taxes to
95%..."  I'm not sure that it would. 

> For instance, what are the economic effects? 

Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.

> What are the
> black markets that arise?  

I don't know, what black markets would arise?  If people were housed,
clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable
income to buy what they wanted.

> What punitive measures must nations adopt
> to enforce tax collection?  

I'm not sure.  However, if all housing and food was provided by the
government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed
your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people
would pay their taxes.

Not that I'm advocating government being the sole distributor of food
or anything.  I'm just illustrating that it depends on the exact situation.

> What about revolt and the ensuing
> bloodshed? 

Who would revolt?  The rich?  Too few in numbers.  The middle class?
They're apathetic, and they'd still get access to everything they had
under our system in the new system.  The poor?  They'd be better off,
so they wouldn't revolt.  Cypherpunks?  Sorry, guys, but there aren't
that many of you. ;-)

> What about public choice theory?

I'm not familiar with this.  Want to explain it to me?  Probably not,
seeing as both you and T.C. seem to think that I'm not worth speaking
to.  Ah, well.

> 
> Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."
> 
> -Declan
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
> >least pain."  I guess this is basically pragmatism.  For
> >example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
> >world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
> 
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK  | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard 

iD8DBQE593dy2FWyBZrQ84IRAqWqAKCb7gKuqtNzXqjP/BKY92wQ/ZZQ1gCdEWS0
U7yPhPvI/n+/49eq1x3lHgQ=
=P4CJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Nathan Saper]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:24:35PM -0500, Kevin Elliott V wrote:
> > 
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going
> > nowhere:
> > 
> > My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this
> > list.  Here's the way I view the world:
> > 
> >1) Life has no inherent value.  Our being here is random, and
> >there is no purpose to our lives.
> > 
> >2) "Human progress" is bullshit.  We are no further along as a
> >species now than we were in Plato's time.  Basically, we're
> >going nowhere fast.
> > 
> >3) People have no essential "rights."  Rights don't exist.
> >This is a theme often found in the work of many modern
> >philosophers, such as Foucault.
> > 
> >5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to
> >evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the
> >least pain."  I guess this is basically pragmatism.  For
> >example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
> >world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
> >this, because this would lead to less pain in the world.  (And
> >I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris
> >"pain." ;-)  Someone here said that each time taxes are raised,
> >we lose freedom.  So what?  First of all, what is "freedom"?
> >Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be
> >evaluated before everything else?
> 
> The best answer I can give to this is to suggest you read "On Liberty" by 
> John Stuart Mill.  The theory you espouse in five, by the way, is
> utilitarianism though it is normally phrased in the positive "the greatest
> happiness for the greatest number" rather than the negative as you have
> expressed it.  

I am fairly familar with utilitarian thought.  My specific form of
utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which means that each individual
action is evaulated, instead of using utilitarian ideas to form a
complete system of moral thought.

The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of
"the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter
justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism.  Consider
this example:

 There is going to be a Sado-Masachism (sp?) convention, which
 will be attended by 10,000 S&M-ers.  They kidnap a poor person,
 bring him to their convention, and electrically shock him.  This
 delights the crowd, but devastates the poor person.  Under the
 common definition of utilitarianism, this act is justified
 because it pleasures 10,000, while hurting only 1.  However,
 under my definition, this act is not justified because it creates
 a lot of pain, whereas not doing it does not create any pain.

> It was originally formulated by a gentleman by the name of
> Jeremy Bentham, but is most associated with Mill who studied under Bentham
> and is responsible for a number of works on the subject.  Mill is also
> most responsible for clarifying and revising it counter the easy arguments
> against it.  Most interesting however for your interest, however, is "On
> Liberty" which clearly and concisely explains why the greatest happiness
> for the greatest number results from a society where government
> intervention (and thievery) is minimized and people are left to there own
> devices.  
> 

And I disagree with him.

- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK  | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard 

iD8DBQE593Mq2FWyBZrQ84IRAvwkAKCaEAI8fHh+q3ZyWPqUe8UTFdd0YQCfR5nc
MXVzyvMqF/YoUWtx+QyDbig=
=4ChW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Nathan Saper]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:41:49AM -0700, Rev. Parker Bright wrote:
> If you truly believe this why not take a hint from Camus and kill yourself.
> You could one, lose nothing due to inherent lack of value, two, exercise 
> the one undeniable right, three, the secession of personal pain and four, 
> free up resources to reduce the pain of others.
> Not taking shots, just offering options.
> 

I've thought about it many times.  I guess the reason I haven't is
that, every once in a while, I actually do have fun.

> Rev. PHB
> I like to hold the door open for people approaching the
> door behind me, especially when they're really far behind
> and they have to hustle so as not to leave me standing there.
> Then I get to hear those stupid polite bastards thank me,
> when all I did was make them run.
> - Jonathan Colan
> 
> 
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK  | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard 

iD8DBQE593R52FWyBZrQ84IRAgGaAJ4tX+IZfOx6kze39cEsC56DogeTZACaA+B8
QoHGlGaYfKF72JTOm2f//nQ=
=rrjt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[jim bell]

- Original Message - 
From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:35:53AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > It's not so much that he's "wrong" as that he's "naive." He arrives 
> > on the CP list and begins regurgitating socialist blather he heard in 
> > his poli-sci and sociology classes. Junk about mandatory health care, 
> 
> True, true. It's probably not worth our time. It's not that he's not
> educable -- although we see no indication of that yet -- it's that
> there are better uses of scare resources.

Could it be a sophisticated denial-of-service attack?  B^)

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Tim May]

At 10:09 AM -0400 10/25/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
>to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that
>arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
>
>Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
>considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?
>
>I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a
>hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the
>positive. For instance, what are the economic effects? What are the
>black markets that arise?  What punitive measures must nations adopt
>to enforce tax collection?  What about revolt and the ensuing
>bloodshed? What about public choice theory?
>
>Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."


I've seen nothing from Nathan Saper that warrants the level of 
response we've been giving him. I regret having wasted my time 
writing replies to his puerile points.

It's not so much that he's "wrong" as that he's "naive." He arrives 
on the CP list and begins regurgitating socialist blather he heard in 
his poli-sci and sociology classes. Junk about mandatory health care, 
feeding the poor, raising taxes to make the world a better place, 
government doing what it "needs to do" without regard for 
constitutional restraints, all said with utter disregard for basic 
economics.

As I have said, and as Lucky just said this morning, the list has for 
some reason attracted a whole set of such naive and puerile people. 
One theory is that it's the "fall crop" of students. Another is that 
the noise coming out of "privacy rights organizations" is 
increasingly leftist and interventionist. (We have a Canadian branch 
of the Cypherpunks which is apparently led by a neo-fascist civil 
rights crusader who wants guns banned and is distrustful of free 
market solutions.)

The Saper-Warped Hypothesis.

--Tim May
-- 
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

Re: Insurance: My Last Post

[Declan McCullagh]

It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that 
arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).

Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?

I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a
hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the
positive. For instance, what are the economic effects? What are the
black markets that arise?  What punitive measures must nations adopt
to enforce tax collection?  What about revolt and the ensuing
bloodshed? What about public choice theory?

Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."

-Declan


On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
>least pain."  I guess this is basically pragmatism.  For
>example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
>world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate