>>All it claims to be is a system that allows private/corporate ownership
of goods where decisions are made by private (versus government) decision
and of course "free market." <<
Why is AP frowned on? It seems to fit the paradigm. Along with
slavery,overfishing,overlogging,drugdealing and so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I knew this would happen, I just knew it...
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 08:02 pm, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> > Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form
> > of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms o
It's not worth the effort. It's not worth the effort. It won't make a
damn bit of difference.
Oh, fuckit.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:57:15PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
>
> > Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat;
>
> That is certainly a goo
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
> Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat;
That is certainly a good definition of 'commerce', it is not accurate for
'capitalism'. Capitalism represents the belief that $$$ is the primary
goal in life. That he who collects the most is the best. T
That question was not posed to you. Unless you are Jim Bell, fuck off.
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
>
> > So from your reply, I'll assume the answer to my "So are you finally
> > evolving?" question is still No.
>
> Sorry, you can't imply anything other than what is openly stated in my
> commentary. Implicatives wil
So from your reply, I'll assume the answer to my "So are you finally
evolving?" question is still No.
I, and everyone in the world, is aware that commerce != capitalism, and
that you are avoiding the question. As there are no CACL promoters
(except in Choate') it is not possible for them to sup
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 12/13/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a
> >problem with, greed <> good.
>
> Is the basic human drive to better one's circumstances bad, Jim?
And your point is?
There is a dis
At 09:40 PM 12/13/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a
>problem with, greed <> good.
Is the basic human drive to better one's circumstances bad, Jim?
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
> So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past
> with because it's capitalism is now a good thing.
I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a
problem with, greed <> good.
Commerce <> Capitalism (which will
Oh, you mean like the parable of the ants and the grasshopper? Where the
ants get the results of the work they put into it, and the grasshopper who
didn't do any work starves and freezes in the winter?
So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past
with because it's cap
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy
> of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social.
Yes, but someone somewhere is in charge of making the decision that
something is more or less efficient. H
At 06:27 AM 12/12/01 +1100, mattd wrote: >.>..regarding Assassination
Politics: > > Just keep in mind that AP is a >joke among knowledgeable > >
technologists for >its unworkability, but a >wonderful joke > > on those
who believe it's anything more than a taunt. > >Total bullshit again. Yes,
b
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, mattd wrote:
> Jim says in the essay,It doesnt have to be,"wild in the streets"He doesn't
> miss a trick.He talks of the possibility of minarchy.Does anyone actually
> read the fucking essay?
Yeah, I read the fucking essay. It's flawed in a variety of ways. It's
understa
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 12:13 AM 12/11/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >No, I'm not. 'discrimination' requires(!) 'prejudice'. Prejudice is the
>
> In Choate prime, perhaps. For the rest of us, measurement (e.g.,
> the redness vs greenness of a fruit) lets us discriminate u
.>..regarding Assassination Politics: > > Just keep in mind that AP is a
joke among knowledgeable > > technologists for >its unworkability, but a
wonderful joke > > on those who believe it's anything more than a taunt. >
Total bullshit again. Yes, but the reason it's bullshit is that shooting
At 10:17 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote:
>Jim seems to have missed out on teenagerhood.CJ seems not to have left
>teenagerhood.The boiling pot is like darwins discovery of evolution,It
The personal flaws of an author do not detract from his ideas. We even
tolerate your unmedicated rants for the
At 12:13 AM 12/11/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>No, I'm not. 'discrimination' requires(!) 'prejudice'. Prejudice is the
In Choate prime, perhaps. For the rest of us, measurement (e.g.,
the redness vs greenness of a fruit) lets us discriminate useful from not.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
> But who is the judge of the value of various measures?
The persons who are looking for solutions to their problems of course.
It isn't a 'who' but a 'whom'.
> >Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in
> >direct odds wit
At 11:33 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
>> Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating
>> on the basis of merit is tautologically discriminatory.
>
>Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy
>of
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 11:16 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it,
> >not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
>
> Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating
> on the basis
At 11:16 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it,
>not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating
on the basis of merit is tautologically discriminatory.
D'oh.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 09:53 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote:
> >Tim said its an openly elitist list
> >once.
>
> Yes, so is an university. A meritocracy is necessarily discriminatory.
>
> Deal with it.
Don't confuse having a high standard of excellence with simple egot
At 09:53 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote:
>Tim said its an openly elitist list
>once.
Yes, so is an university. A meritocracy is necessarily discriminatory.
Deal with it.
AOL has plenty of groups for folks who find this list too abrasive..
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, mattd wrote:
> There are checks and balances,get a grip.Read the essay.
No, there are not.
> Its self limiting.No one who is anonymous has anything to fear from AP.
The only way that AP would be harmless to an anonymous person is if they
were anonymous to EVERYONE. The en
"Rather, the problem with AP is that it is mob rule at its worst. There are
no checks and balances. It is the height of folly to suppose that AP would
be used only against those whom cypherpunks themselves oppose, like corrupt
government agents. AP could be used against anyone who has a high pr
I hope tech tv does a story on this that enlightens the victorian police
and they return the dell cs latitude they stole from me.If AP is illegal I
want my day in court.I mantain,with bell,that 'AP' comes with the territory
and cant be outlawed without 1984 type totalitarianism.Some type of AP
27 matches
Mail list logo
