Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Steve Thompson]

 --- "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > Steve Thompson wrote:
> 
> >That's too logical,
> >
> No, it's not. Logical actors dominate in the economy
> because those prone 
> to excessive irrationality end up with little money
> to play  with.

Perhaps you aren't joking...  I would be forced to
agree with you is you defined `logical' in this
context to mean actors following the logic of the
current economic status quo.  Obviously, our present
economic order resists (strongly!) fundamental change;
and there is a logical consistency to it.   Concerning
irrationality in the sense that applies above, well, I
think that's a difficult one.  Some are irrational in
their expectations of returns from the economy; others
are irrational in their assessment of its very
structure.  Obviously there are many ways of going
wrong and losing.
 
> >and as you state below mere economic incentive does
> not cover the case where organised bigotry drives an
> agenda of exclusion.
> >
> No, I do not state this; I merely answered a
> "what-if" question.

So you weren't suggesting that organised bigotry in
any way drives an economic agenda?  Fine.  You could
say that, but you would be ignoring the obvious
exclusion of the poor/uneducated from many areas of
the economy by way of a conscious set of policies. 
But perhaps you don't notice that sort of thing?
 
> >Your much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of
> Rights are
> >supposed to address this issue, since the
> principles
> >in question govern the overall social fabric,
> >
> What in the world is "overall social fabric"
> supposed to mean? The only 
> thing the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant
> to govern is the 
> U.S. Federal Government itself (and, to some extent,
> the states 
> comprising this federation).

I suppose I could have merely said `social fabric' and
it would have been better English, but I am not
perfect.  Otherwise, I understand the scope of
authority imputed to be the sole domain of said
documents.  I don't believe that my comments are
completely beyond the scope of the philosophy that
was, or at least should have been, the motive for
their creation.
 
> >which is supposed to provide for a measure of
> equality in `the
> >commons',
> >
> You won't find any trace of any notion of "equality
> in the commons" -- 
> whatever the phrase is supposed to mean -- in the
> U.S. Constitution, 
> Bill of Rights, nor any of the discussions involved
> in the drafting and 
> ratification of these documents.

I would think that the idea of `equality in the
commons' is implicit in the motivation for such
documents, whether or not it is stated in so many
words.  It seems rather obvious to me, but of course
that may not be the case.  I wasn't there when they
were written, and I do not really know anything about
the people involved, their personalities, beliefs, and
motives.  Perhaps I'm projecting what I *think* should
be a part of the principles behind such documents.  
 
> >I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort
> of
> >like your Constitution
> >
> Why in the world are you bringing the U.S.
> Constitution into this 
> anyway?  I never even mentioned it, and it wasn't
> mentioned in the 
> material to which I was responding.  My answers are
> meant to be 
> normative, addressing fundamental issues of rights
> that are entirely 
> independent of the decrees or scribblings of any
> group who styles 
> themselves a "government."

I mentioned them because they are not only a
frequently occurring subject of debate in this forum,
but they are pertinent to the subject of this thread,
and because they have seen mention recently in other
messages.

> >>Anybody for whom this is not blindingly
> >>obvious still hasn't 
> >>grasped the fundamental concept that most children
> >>acquire by the age of 
> >>three or four: the difference between MINE and
> >>YOURS.
> >>
> >This has always been something of a peeve of mine;
> >that certain people consistently fail to make this
> >distinction.  [...]
> >
> Well, we seem to be in violent agreement w.r.t. the
> rest of what you 
> have written...
 
Perhaps that is so.  I'll ask that you excuse my
tangential comments, but that said, I was merely using
your reply as a foil for my comments and wasn't
intending to stick exclusively to the nominal focus of
your post.  I expect you'll understand that while I
was indeed spawning a subthread, that sort of thing
does happen from time-to-time in this forum.


Regards,

Steve

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

Tom Veil wrote...

Otherwise, if the company really wanted such a dickheaded policy, then 
>yes, it would be their right. Of course, it would also be your right >to 
organize a boycott, take an alternate route, or build your own spur >route.
This is the general gist of the arguments and so far I'm not convinced. 
Here's my play-by-play:

Of course, it would also be your right to organize a boycott,
Seems impossible. Only a boycott with a nationwide information campaign 
would likely have much of an impact: trucks come from all over the country 
to cross the George Washington Bridge via the turnpike. Also, there are 
large numbers of individuals and busses that MUST cross the GWB to get 
people to work. I really doubt people are going to stop going to work for 
this boycott.

(And this is assuming the operating company gives a damn about the boycott. 
If there's no toll on the road, then the private company gets paid by the 
state even if no one rides it. So actually, a boycott lowers the maintenance 
expenses on the road.)

take an alternate route,
Well, let's assume there IS no alternate route. And in this case that is 
partly true. Or at least, any alternate routes would be quickly jammed if 
the boycott was even remotely successful, with the result being that there 
are still large numbers of people using that road.

(And of course, like above the operating company might actually LIKE people 
not using their road. Hell, maybe they engineered this whole event for that 
purpose...)

or build your own spur route.
Assuming I could amass the capital, there's the strong likelihood I wouldn't 
be able to get the zoning permits and whatnot. People are getting tired of 
perpetual roadwork in some towns. (This of course could headway into the 
traditional Libertarian handwaving arguments with respect to natural 
resources..."What Global Warming? Prove it!")

Sorry. Lotsa easy answers and big holes in logic with these arguments.

-TD



_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Tom Veil]

Tyler Durden wrote on March 7, 2003 at 12:46:35 -0500:

> Tom Veil wrote...
>
> "These fuckards really need to learn what private property is."
>
> ('Fuckards'. I like that. GIMMEE.)
>
> Alright. There's something I'm not getting here, so the Libertarians on the
> board are free to enlighten me.
>
> Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of the New
> Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which now owns and
> operates this section.
>
> So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue eyed,
> and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his wife's been
> bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off the freeway just
> because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or
> whatever.)

That's not a very good way to keep customers. I wonder what the patroller's
boss, the company that operates the turnpike, would think of his actions?

If I was the company, I'd fire the guy.

Otherwise, if the company really wanted such a dickheaded policy, then yes,
it would be their right. Of course, it would also be your right to organize
a boycott, take an alternate route, or build your own spur route.

James brought up an interesting point; that if the road system had been
developed privately, your scenario would not be as big a hassle, as the
road system would more closely resemble the multiple redundant routes of
the Internet.

--
Tom Veil

Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Steve Thompson]

"Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tyler Durden wrote:
> > Let's take one of my famous extreme examples.
> > Let's say a section of 
> > the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a
> > private company, which 
> > now owns and operates this section.
> >
> > So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm
> > blond-haired and blue 
> > eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't
> > like that, because his 
> > wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he should be
> > able to toss me off 
> > the freeway just because of the way I look? (Or
> > the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or
whatever.)
> 
> Not if he wants to keep his job.  This is supposed
> to be a profit-making 
> operation, remember? Pissing off or outright
> throwing out paying 
> customers is a good way to make the company lose
> money, which is bound 
> to get the owners quite upset.

That's too logical, and as you state below mere
economic incentive does not cover the case where
organised bigotry drives an agenda of exclusion.  Your
much vaunted Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
supposed to address this issue, since the principles
in question govern the overall social fabric, which
is supposed to provide for a measure of equality in
`the commons', but in practice that is not so.

I'll note that as a practical matter it looks sort
of like your Constitution (and the Charter up here in
Canukistan) have become of little more use than as
bog-roll, so while these discussion are nice to have
in theory, there is no practical application to be
made in this environment.
  
> Let's suppose, however, that the owners are such
> extreme bigots that 
> they prefer nursing their prejudices over making
> money. Should the 
> owners be able to arbitrarily deny certain people
> access to their 
> property?  In the absence of a valid contract to the
> contrary, OF 
> COURSE.  Anybody for whom this is not blindingly
> obvious still hasn't 
> grasped the fundamental concept that most children
> acquire by the age of 
> three or four: the difference between MINE and
> YOURS.

This has always been something of a peeve of mine;
that certain people consistently fail to make this
distinction.  If I were more knowledgeable in the
fields of genetics and human neurophysiology I might
suggest that the widespread nature of this moral
failure results from a common psychological artifact
that is manifest from some bizarre recessive gene. 
But the simpler explanation is that it is learned
behaviour, which implicates bad parenting.

Whatever the cause, its prevalence has resulted in
norms coded in law which agents of the state surely
appreciate.
 
> > The way I see it is there's private property,
> > there's public property, 
> > and then there's reality with lots of stuff in
> > between. 
> 
> No, there's private property, there are unowned
> (unclaimed) resources, 
> and that's it. I don't consider the State to have
> any valid property 
> rights at all, as everything which it claims as its
> property was 
> obtained by theft, violence, or both.  Your "stuff
> in between" is just a 
> bunch of hooey invented in order to justify
> violations of property 
> rights.  Sort of like this "compelling state
> interest" test invented by 
> the frauds in the Supreme Court to weasel their way
> past the clear and 
> unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; no trace
> of the concept exists in the Constitution.

I agree.  The state should not be able to own
property.  But again, as a practical and historical
matter, states  own the planet; government employees
have parceled much of it out to corporations, or sold
bits to private individuals.  Supposedly, property of
the government is held in trust for the population,
but that fiction is of course quite laughable.
 
I would say that some tuning of government is
indicated given the current mess, but these days that
sort of talk is bound to get one thrown into a gulag. 
Though, perhaps this state of affairs isn't quite as
much of a problem.  Crypto-anarchy and the march of
science are tending towards the obsolescence of the
nation-state, so no-one may need to do much of
anything radical at all to effect changes in this
regard.


Regards,

Steve

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[James A. Donald]

--
On 7 Mar 2003 at 12:46, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a
> section of the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a
> private company, which now owns and operates this section.
>
> So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired
> and blue eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like
> that, because his wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he
> should be able to toss me off the freeway just because of the
> way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or
> whatever.)

The turnpike is a hard problem, sincve you have a clash between
two legitimate rights -- the right to wall people out, against
the right not to be walled in.

The mall is not a hard problem, any more than the nightclub is
a problem.  Do you have a problem with a night club turning
away those it feels would clash with the theme?

Let us suppose, instead of a small number of big roads (where
such a thing as "the new Jersey Turnpike" is the sole vital way
of getting from A to B), a rather illogical stitched together
maze of small roads -- much like the internet, where paths tend
to ramble in not very direct fashion, the kind of road system
an anarchic society, where roads were not made according to any
central plan, would produce.

Then, there would be no problem with one particular turnpike
operator turning away blacks, or turning away whites. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 j6r53OQ7j4k1SqdtDWsWdOebG2XED5sN/423GSxD
 4tlIUPZ+1lsAuFtEOwpEqrbUmzsGZVc9i4A6Rpm9E

Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Kevin S. Van Horn]

Tyler Durden wrote:

Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of 
the New Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which 
now owns and operates this section.

So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue 
eyed, and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his 
wife's been bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off 
the freeway just because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or 
the car I drive or whatever.)
Not if he wants to keep his job.  This is supposed to be a profit-making 
operation, remember? Pissing off or outright throwing out paying 
customers is a good way to make the company lose money, which is bound 
to get the owners quite upset.

Let's suppose, however, that the owners are such extreme bigots that 
they prefer nursing their prejudices over making money. Should the 
owners be able to arbitrarily deny certain people access to their 
property?  In the absence of a valid contract to the contrary, OF 
COURSE.  Anybody for whom this is not blindingly obvious still hasn't 
grasped the fundamental concept that most children acquire by the age of 
three or four: the difference between MINE and YOURS.

The way I see it is there's private property, there's public property, 
and then there's reality with lots of stuff in between. 
No, there's private property, there are unowned (unclaimed) resources, 
and that's it. I don't consider the State to have any valid property 
rights at all, as everything which it claims as its property was 
obtained by theft, violence, or both.  Your "stuff in between" is just a 
bunch of hooey invented in order to justify violations of property 
rights.  Sort of like this "compelling state interest" test invented by 
the frauds in the Supreme Court to weasel their way past the clear and 
unambiguous wording of the First Amendment; no trace of the concept 
exists in the Constitution.

Someone explain...Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

Tom Veil wrote...

"These fuckards really need to learn what private property is."

('Fuckards'. I like that. GIMMEE.)

Alright. There's something I'm not getting here, so the Libertarians on the 
board are free to enlighten me.

Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of the New 
Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which now owns and 
operates this section.

So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue eyed, 
and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his wife's been 
bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off the freeway just 
because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or 
whatever.)

The way I see it is there's private property, there's public property, and 
then there's reality with lots of stuff in between.

-TD

PS: And don't get all huffy. I'm actually asking a question, not trying to 
make some huge point...yet.







_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail