RE: BSE
Mike wrote:
> Here's a question for you Tim,
I'd like to take a crack at it too. :-D
> Let's assume that feeding ground up
> livestock to livestock is a risky
> behavior. It goes on here in the U.S.
>
> How, in an unregulated system, do you
> get people to follow immediately
> practices that are in the best interest
> of the community when those practices
> are, in the short term, likely to be
> rejected as profit killers?
First of all, your questions assume a lot of facts not in evidence. Anarchy
and regulation are not mutually exclusive, nor are the "best interests of
the community" (whatever that means) and profit.
The best way to approach any sort of "anarchy" question is to assume that
you are already in a state of anarchy and then ask the question, "what would
*I* do to protect myself and others from this health hazard?"
You should really do the head-work for yourself, but I can throw out a
couple of ideas to show how I'd approach the problem.
1) To protect myself, I'd only eat beef that had been certified as okay by
someone I trusted. I'd be comfortable if it carried the Kosher mark, the
Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, Underwriters Laboratories "UL" logo,
Consumers Report rating or maybe even a "no-mad-cow" assurance from the Beef
Council ("It's What's for Dinner"). All of these are forms of voluntary
"regulation."
2) To protect everyone else, I might start a business that tested and
certified beef. It could either use the Consumer Report business model
(consumer directly bears the cost of certification) or the Kosher model
(producers bears the cost). Hopefully, I'd do well by doing good.
In any case, selling bad products is not consistent with short or long-term
profit. Businesses don't submit to voluntary rating/certification because
they are nice guys, but because it enhances their ultimate profit by
quelling consumer fears. And if you don't believe this simple truth, just
try to buy a can of "Bon Vivant" vichyssoise soup.
S a n d y
Re: Undermining government power and authority
At 12:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, John Young wrote: > >Podesta noted that the 125th anniversary of the gummed-envelope >was approaching. That that technology is trusted for privacy because >of custom and law backing the custom. He stated that any privacy >technology is going to be workable only if backed by law enforcemcent, >and, not least custom. > >He added that the fact that gummed envelopes can be easily opened >by intelligence agencies and law enforcement did not bother people. >Sub rosa, implied: people with nothing to hide. Yes, by hand. Keyboard bugging black bag jobs can be installed, by hand. By hand, not machine.
Re: FT editorial: "When Theft is Justified"
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Faustine wrote: >When theft is justified >The limited abuse of copyright is a spur to scholarship, innovation and >democracy >Published: April 25 2001 19:36GMT | Last Updated: April 25 2001 19:48GMT >Financial Times > > >http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3RFUPBZLC > The point the author does not make in so many words, and IMO should, is that fair use is not by any stretch of the imagination theft. Bear
FT editorial: "When Theft is Justified"
When theft is justified The limited abuse of copyright is a spur to scholarship, innovation and democracy Published: April 25 2001 19:36GMT | Last Updated: April 25 2001 19:48GMT Financial Times http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3RFUPBZLC 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
BSE
Here's a question for you Tim, I'm sure you've read about BSE, scrapie, kuru, Creutzfeld-Jakob et al. Generally they seem to be species-specific but there is some crossover. Let's assume that feeding ground up livestock to livestock is a risky behavior. It goes on here in the U.S. How, in an unregulated system, do you get people to follow immediately practices that are in the best interest of the community when those practices are, in the short term, likely to be rejected as profit killers? We've seen how disclosure works - c.f. Monsanto, BST, the press, and various state labeling laws. We want to avoid government regulation and invasions of privacy but we want the health interests of the community to be served today rather than twenty years from now. How come I have the feeling that the beef industry will chant about lack of proof like the tobacco industry did. Not that I think the recent tobacco lawsuits make a great deal of sense. Let's not get into that one just now. The problem is that when there is doubt we err on the side of profit rather than caution and responsibility is generally avoided by those who should bear it. Mike PS, probably if those ground up beastie parts are fed to animals that are not so closely related the risk would be less. Aquaculture is my favorite.
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
Quoting "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is > who in economics: No need to get personal. I know how well-regarded Friedman is in Libertarian circles. Ignorant in many respects, certainly; about economics in general no. Unless you meant to imply you equate knowledge of Friedman with knowledge of economics in general. Instead of hurling insults why don't you point me to a paper of his that you consider top-rate. I already said I'm willing to read more. > > > > [David Friedman has published . . .] Nothing good enough to get > > > > mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard > > William Vogt > > > AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in > > > everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second > > > behind AER. > > > Faustine demonstrating his (SIC) confident ignorance once again. No, you're the one in error assuming Vogt was correct in his belief that I didn't know about economic journals. I didn't take it personally, no reason to turn this into an ego issue. > > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply > > to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research > > published there. > You are grasping at straws. No, I was explaining why I don't find his publications list impressive. >In any case David Friedman has had at > least one piece of his own research published in the AER. For a professional economist, his list of publications doesn't strike me as being particularly impressive. You want an example of what impresses me? http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/wolfjr.html Now THAT is one impressive man. And this doesn't even BEGIN to list all his publications! Check out online essays like "Markets, Not Architects, Will Solve Economic Crises"; "A Theory of Non-market Failure," etc: anyone can understand them, and he has the analytic rigor and methodology to back him up. Brilliant. Remember I was talking about the idea of the Super Analyst? This is everything a modern Super Analyst should look like. I don't have to always agree with him to RESPECT him right down to the bottom of my shoes. Which I most certainly do. > > I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far > > unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing > > for people who already agree with him. > > > Or perhaps as if he is writing for people who have some familiarity > with the arguments, evidence, and issues, in particular the politically > incorrect public choice questions that Posner deals with, and that > your beloved Samuelson tends to cover rather briefly and glibly. I already said the only reason I brought up Samuelson was in the context of recommending an econ 101 text. Sheesh. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Review? Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?
Did anyone attend the event: Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete? If so, would you be willing to post a summary? Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com
Re: [Fwd: YOU ARE INVITED: "Will Encryption Protect Privacy and Make Government Obsolete?" -- Next Independent Policy Forum (4/24/01)]
-- Faustine demonstrating his cheerful ignorance of economics, and who is who in economics: > > > [David Friedman has published . . .] Nothing good enough to get > > > mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard William Vogt > > AER is usually considered the top economics journal. JPE is in > > everyone's top 5 and it would be reasonable to rank it second > > behind AER. Faustine demonstrating his confident ignorance once again. > I'm sure you know that writing a tiny response or comment in reply > to someone else's article isn't the same as having your own research > published there. You are grasping at straws. In any case David Friedman has had at least one piece of his own research published in the AER. > I still find it unimpressive. I also find what I've read so far > unimpressive: the tone is just a tad too slack, as if he's writing > for people who already agree with him. Or perhaps as if he is writing for people who have some familiarity with the arguments, evidence, and issues, in particular the politically incorrect public choice questions that Posner deals with, and that your beloved Samuelson tends to cover rather briefly and glibly. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG piPPWSbmQ4xY0hfL7KWr9T6irsvItXFpWsqjmfzx 4nuIFKzQ3EZppLPT167WA9LkWwZBMoNkmaAiTnoig - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Faustine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not about central planning at all. Making any policy without using
> rigorous data-based research to get a sense of the way things really are
> (through analysis and measurement) rather than the way your theory tells you
> they OUGHT to be, is a dangerous prospect no matter what your politics are. The
> goal is more clear thinking and less bias.
This is naive empiricism -- the idea that "theory follows facts".
How do you know which "facts" of the multitude available to follow
without some prior existing theory about which facts are important?
Economics is a theoretical social science ("political economy") and
your view of it depends on your starting axioms and whether they
favour the individual or not.
Do do you measure human behaviour?
You can't. We aren't electrons that can be measured or reduced to
Excel spreadsheets rather we are rational thinking, acting agents.
The methodology of the physical sciences isn't suitable for the social
sciences. Further it leads to a fallacy amongst engineers and the
technically minded that you can "engineer" society in a "scientific"
way.
--
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. -- mark twain
RE: Amtrak & The War On Drugs (gray travel)
Alan Olsen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > > > I wrote, and to curb offlist replies, flames and comparisons to > John Young, > > I write again: > > > > > BTW, I need a gray travel consultant. Lemme know if anybody > knows of one. > > > Will accept salt-and-pepper gray. > > > > = low-key/anonymous travel, increasingly critical to execs in > certain parts > > of the world, as they are often the recipients of 'involuntary > invitations > > to parties they do not wish to attend.' (Kidnapping) > > The reason that the mega-corps are not complaining about the heavy handed > search and seizure at airports in the states is that they have been > chartering jets to get around the regs. > > The San Diego Jet center has no metal detectors, no searchs, no nosey > questions. > > Intel used to have regular flights between Portland and San Diego through > there. Probably still do. Executive kidnappings are always in hotspots, so cushy corporate travel is not always option. In some places... you want a tricked copta. Anyway, this is an old cpunk topic and there are some asses here, so I thought I could get clue. Thanks to those that responded, I did find out some things...wild. ~Aimee
