Re: BSE
I think where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimististic about human nature. It's not that I don't like the idealistic picture, I just don't see that it can work out that way. Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > > The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create > > something substantially better than what exists. > > You mean like human beings have been doing for 10,000 years? Even in my > mere 54 years I have seen amazing advances. I expect to see many many more > before I'm through. > Advances of what sort? In the way we treat each other? In that part of human nature that seeks dominance over others? In that part of human nature that resorts to violence when negotiation fails to satisfy? I think there are some fundamental behaviors that have not changed and will not change. Entertaining as it is, beneficial as it can be, Technology != advance, Technology == change. > Belief in progress has been the hallmark of human endeavor ever since at > least the Industrial Revolution. Where's your historical perspective. My > guess is that you are not very old, is that correct? > I suppose that's part of a belief system that helps keep things going. The big picture doesn't seem to change a whole lot. > > > Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic > > > systems--non-coercion is. > > > > > Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. > > Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. > > You already do. 98% of what you do every day is based on non-coercive, > voluntary interactions. Excluding natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, > hurricanes, etc.), the remaining 2% (i.e., government/coercion) is > responsible for essentially all of the rest of humankind's miseries. Over > 120,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone... > Coercive and non-coercive interactions have always been coexistent. I suspect you're missing some underlying conservation principles and incorrectly interpreting the existing situation at face value. > By it's nature coercion fights against freedom (e.g., when the subsidized post >office was still > unable to compete against Lysander Spooner, it didn't improve its efficiency, it >just got the > government to make it a coercive monopoly). > How do you distinguish the two states ( coercive, free ) unless they are both in evidence? I doubt they can even exist separately. > We'll win in the long run, but it's not a fair fight. > > S a n d y > Win what? You patch the floodwalls in Iowa and Missouri and the flood will be worse in Louisiana. That does not mean that you shouldn't try but the prognosis is not for anything but localized victories.
RE: BSE
> Mike wrote: > > > The level of idealism is amazing. > > Do you mean in those who continue to believe in coercive solutions (i.e., > government)? Especially in the face of the fact that government has been > responsible for 120+ million deaths in the 20th century alone? :-D > The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. We should all have a touch of this idealism but reality doesn't fit the model so well. > > The corrective forces of free markets > > and anarchy usually discussed here > > are certainly in operation in varying > > degrees throughout our economic > > "system." > > Yes, we live in a mixed economy. The countries with the most government, > though have the least responsive economies and vice versa. > A bit overbroad. > > I think the confidence level is naive > > and the damage that can result from > > unfettered profit seeking is > > underestimated. > > You have fallen for the Inchoate fallacy. Profit seeking is not the sine > qua non of literal anarchistic systems--non-coercion is. > Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. > > I also doubt that anyone here has the > > bandwidth to handle the information > > required to do it all yourself. Hence > > the evolution of collective systems to > > perform the tasks... > > You're generalization is correct, but your underlying assumption is flawed. > Yes, groups of people collectively address problems that they cannot solve > on their own. However, this does NOT imply or require coercive collective > solutions. Voluntary cooperation is totally consistent with literal > anarchic systems. > > S a n d y > And to bring the topic full-circle - both behaviors exists in parallel now, today. Let the best one win. That would seem to fit the underlying Darwinian bent to the anarchistic whoozywhatzits. Mike
Re: BSE
The level of idealism is amazing. The corrective forces of free markets
and anarchy usually discussed here are certainly in operation in varying
degrees throughout our economic "system." I think the confidence level
is naive and the damage that can result from unfettered profit seeking
is underestimated. I also doubt that anyone here has the bandwidth to
handle the information required to do it all yourself. Hence the
evolution of collective systems to perform the tasks with all of the
imperfections ( and some new ones to boot ) of the component parts that
go into them.
LOL,
Mike
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> If people are concerned about scrapie, they will demand meat that has never
> been fed cannibalistically, just as some people demand pestified free fruit.
>
> By and large, most people make better choices for themselves than
> government officials make for other people.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
>
>From Sandy Sandfort
>
> 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
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.
Trolling
>Well, suffice it to say that there are a lot of "clearly special cases." > And suffice it to say that if we drop probation, financial exchanges and corporate topics and stick with conversations ( information exchanges ) between ordinary individuals all is well but keep pushing the technology since the bad guys will never give up.
Comm
AF Wrote: > > Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as to > > the participants, form, content or retention of private communications. > > Recognizing that the law does not agree with you, that's a valid opinion. > I don't think that the law requires me to make all communications comprehensible or trackable or to get approval prior to creating the contents or keep copies for later use. Please explain where the law does not agree. Let's avoid the mess that comes along with calling some sort of active material a "communication" or the regulation that goes along with certain RF channels and stick with conventional text, voice, image sorts of communications. Break a communication into three phases : 1. Composition 2. Transfer 3. Receipt #1 is certainly legally unfettered - I can write, draw, speak whatever the hell I please. I can record it on paper, on a hard drive or yell it to the crowd at an A's game. #2 is more subject to attack than #1 but is legally unencumbered - I can address and transfer my data wherever I want to. I do not need to notify anyone, keep any records, nor am I obliged to make the transfer or contents observable. #3 it's when someone takes offense that the consequences of speech may be felt. This is where the fight is. It also happens to be, in the case of adequate precautions having been observed in 1&2, too damn late to object. I'm sure the law here in the US will try to adapt via a RIP-like approach. Technology won't stand still and wait for the law to catch up. Mike
RE: Right to anon. speech online upheld in US district court
> Tim said, talking about 3rd party subpoena vulnerability: > > > We need to do our part to stop this kind of confusion. More people > > might be using *technological* means to protect their identity and > > privacy if they had less misplaced faith in the law protecting them. > > Wellthis sentiment goes DITTO FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL WAYS & MEANS DEPT. > > First, the law can be used to the advantage of aforesaid 'technological > means,' often giving hints. For example, somewhat in the context of this > discussion, it seems possible to have electronic communication that does not > imply third-party permission to record. > It sounds to me like you are suggesting gutting the threat models that should be used during the design phase of any communication system. You are implying that if there's a legal way of saying that something may not be recorded then being recorded is no longer a threat. That is not and never will be the case no matter what the court du jour may have to say about it. Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as to the participants, form, content or retention of private communications. I don't see how the law can improve upon this opportunity for privacy. In fact, based on past performance, I would expect exactly the opposite effect. [..] > Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to >'crypto-anarchy.' > > ~Aimee > I think an even more impressive track record is how people manage to create and operate economies and communications under any number of oppressive systems. Systems come and go and still people trade and communicate. I suppose they have no choice... Mike
