RE: BSE
The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create something substantially better than what exists. This is the fundamental driving force of all human endeavor incl. tech., ag., etc. Make your kids' situation better than yours. Everything follows.
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
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 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. 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. 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
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
I wrote: 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. 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. We should all have a touch of this idealism but reality doesn't fit the model so well. 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? The countries with the most government, though have the least responsive economies and vice versa. A bit overbroad. Perhaps, but true nonetheless. 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... 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. Yes and no. 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). We'll win in the long run, but it's not a fair fight. S a n d y
Re: BSE
At 6:09 PM -0700 4/30/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. First, being extremely pessimistic about human nature is _precisely_ why you don't want Throgg the Strongman or Mao the Savior or Hillary the Know it All in charge. Top-down rule by strongmen _magnifies_ the negative aspects of human nature. Second, no one is claiming to know how things will work out. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
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
-- At 01:13 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? 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 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6gtwnODXv7IvjiWmHtYFBVG/SLM03DVnszvMnPRh 44nmQ9Agf69ipbjtTN7sFrE10DKQP0fEpF5xvd0XD - 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
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: 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
