Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?
Steve Thompson wrote: 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. I mean "logical" in the sense of being able to do a reasonable job of making choices that further one's own self interest. The above is a standard justification for the "rational man" assumption of economics. It has nothing to do with whether the "big picture" is logical by some standard, only with whether an individual's choices make sense in furthering his/her self-interest, given that he/she can only control his/her own actions and not those of others. Now one could suppose that some people place such a high value on nurturing their own bigotry that they value it more than wealth, so that they are still acting logically when they sacrifice wealth in order to maintain their bigotry, but such people will also have minimal economic impact because they will have minimal wealth. For of how money trumps bigotry, look at the history of Citibank. They used to tell their recruiters to go to the top business schools and recruit the top MALE graduates. At some point in the early 70's their recruiters began to report that increasing numbers of the top graduates were female. Citibank management decided that making money was more important than humoring their own prejudices, and instructed their recruiters to go after these women. Peter Drucker ascribes a large part of Citibank's success to this choice, as for a period of time they had exclusive access to a pool of talent nobody else was tapping... until their competitors finally caught on. Obviously, our present economic order resists (strongly!) fundamental change; Don't you mean our present political order? There have been pretty drastic changes in the economy over the last twenty-five years, far dwarfing any political changes. (Hint: microcomputer revolution, the Internet, the effect of "quicksilver capital," etc.) What in the world is "overall social fabric" supposed to mean? I suppose I could have merely said `social fabric' and it would have been better English, You still haven't told me what you mean by "social fabric." I don't like to be rude, but I am highly suspicious of terms such as "social fabric"; it's one of those vague, often semantically vacuous terms that obscure more than enlighten. 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. Opinions count for nothing; facts do. We have the actual documents. We also have a pretty thorough record of the discussions that went on in the Constitutional Convention and the debates during ratification, and we have a wealth of original writings from the time indicating what the political thought of the day was. None of these, to my knowledge, contain any trace of a notion of "equality of the commons." The only notion of equality that I am aware of appearing in these is equality before the law.
Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?
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?
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?
--- "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?
"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?
-- 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?
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.