December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:35:16 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > No, the intent *is* to make the system better and more equitable. It's > just that we don't favor the socialist definition of "equitable". Taxation doesn't imply socialism, socialism is the state ownership of property. In case you didn't know it, Russians didn't pay taxes because they dind't have to. The Chinese still don't pay taxes (except for businesses that are licensed by the state). > We support voluntary systems, not coercive ones. The US is a voluntary system, you can always leave. > Except that it's personal improvement for *everyone* (except for tyrants > and other politicans, but we didn't like them much anyway). And those who are stolen from, killed in petty disputes, wronged in business deals gone bad with no legal recourse and no hope of future legal ramifications for the perps, starve to death because some asshole who values a dollar more than a human life won't give somebody a meal, those who can't start businesses because the existing markets have locked up the necessary resources, etc. > Our proposals do not leave things up to chance any more than the current > system does. In fact, it can be argued that our system leaves less up > to chance than yours does. Lets do a comparative analysis. It leave a lot up to chance, the chance of making a profit in the market with no regulations or other mechanism to stop abuse or other wrongs. The implication is that the vast majority of participants won't be the one making the profit and will as a consequence suffer because of it. > 1: Social Ill exists. > 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. > 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, and lobbies the state to supply > money to finance the correction of the Social Ill. This is done by > convincing a majority of voters in some election or other, which may not > take place for at least a year, that this Social Ill is very important > --more important than all the other Social Ills. No, it simply says that the current society has recognized a need, determined that it can be addressed and chooses to do so. > 4: Someone who wants the Social Ill corrected gets into power, and > proceeds to try to correct the Social Ill with a huge rumbling > centralized governmental machine. This often excacerbates the Social > Ill, rather than correcting it. Well actualy the huge rumbling centralized government is a result of the economic impact of business on government, not the folks who want to address social ills. The vast majority (well over half of each tax dollar) goes to military or military related issues, not social ills. This is a strawman. > The net result: The Social Ill is not likely to be corrected until the > next election, and will be paid for by taking more money away from > everyone else (since the state gets its money from taxpayers, and cannot > create value out of thin air). Even worse, the person lobbying for the > correction of the Social Ill may not get into power, since he may have > lost the election to someone who used lots of money to make him look > bad. Thus, the Social Ill may not get corrected for some time, if ever. > Under a truly free system: > > 1: Social Ill exists. And in spades. > 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. > 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, alerting everyone else to the > existance of this Social Ill. Those who agree with the first someone > will contribute time, money, and resources to correcting this Social > Ill. And what if that noise is contrary to the interest of a the business that is perpetrating it. Since there are no protections of speech and press under your system what keeps somebody from simply shooting the loud-mouthed trouble maker? Historicaly there is plenty of evidence for this sort of behaviour in un-regulated markets. Why would a business allow such a vociferous display? > 4: Social Ill is dealt with in the most effective manner possible, since > people will be free to try to correct it in any number of ways, and will > of course prefer to contribute their money to an effort that has the > best effect. The most effective manner is to never have it happen in the first place. While it's clear it isn't possible to legislate individual behaviour past a grossly crude point it is possible to put breaks on the sorts of laws that a given government can pass and enforce. At least with a bill of rights we have a guide that we can use to measure extant and future legislation against. This can occur now under the present system, why doesn't it happen more? There is absolutely no regulations that would prevent such activity; hell the currrent system will even allow you to be exempt from taxes and give you loans, will yours? But to address the point, given that there are no courts, laws, etc. How does one go about addressing the social ill? Buy the company out? How realistic is it to expect the human slave to have the resources to buy themselves out? Not very damn likely. > This is an improvement upon today's system. Only if you believe your smarter and faster on the draw than everyone who is alive and will be alive during your life. Ain't gonna happen, there is always a bigger fish, and they're hungry. We no longer need to have > the majority of voters approval to start correcting the Social Ill. All No, you simply need to have the majority of social participants (I don't think we should call them citizens) involved first person. The time drain alone of that is enough to guarantee that nothing will be done. > of the Social Ill. This makes the most sense, since we obviously don't > need to draw on *everyone'* resources to correct every Social Ill. (of > course, some rare Social Ills will be that large, but the larger the > Social Ill, the more people wil recognize it as such.) They will? Historicaly the majority of social ills have been recognized as such by a minority and were corrected by a political mechanism that recognizes things like civil liberties and limits on government purvue a priori. > Better yet, frivilous problems (i.e. those invented for the advancement > of some politician's career, or out of sheer stupidity) will not have > large amounts of resources wasted upon them. And what makes you think that under your system a silver tongued devil won't be able to garner the same sorts of support? People are social animals and will follow the leader they believe will get them to where they need to be. Whether that is government or a marketing puke is irrelevant. > So, is it now clear to you why your above statement was somewhat > premature? It is clear to me that you neither understand human psychology, politics, economics (macro or micro), or what freedom means. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:09:38 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > One barrier to such an enterprise is the domain name recognition, > people want wired, they type wired.com; what do they type if they want > the lower priced mirrors? The same question can be asked of the shopper who wants the lowest priced tomato's. It isn't the vendors responsibility to provide those sorts of mechanism for the consumer (or user of a system). The interpretation of what lowest price means is so varied that trying to talk of it as some sort of universal given is like talking about rational consumers. It's a non-sequitar. If the consumer wants the lowest price (in their personal estimation) goods then they have several choices (at least): - They can look for it themselves - They can ask a friend - They can pay somebody else to look for them - Or they can sit back and wait for the relevant production sites to contact them (eg Wed's glob of shiney adverts) There is also the very real question of why would wired allow a 3rd party sell their product at a lower cost than they can sell it themselves? Not a rational or good business practice anyway you look at it. > service. Therefore one might (somewhat weakly) argue that they > deprive wired (and others) of click through revenue and they charge > you thus diverting funds wired et al might otherwise have got. Yeah, so? Just because I window shop in HEB down the street doesn't mean I am required to buy anything. And if I walk past a shop and don't register their window display doesn't mean the store lost anything from me - the very fact that I ignored it means they weren't going to get my money at that point. Now if they follow me down the sidewalk and bellow at me I can guarantee that I (and most other folks) won't buy there even if the price is lower. I'd say "quit your whinning". ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:05:08 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd) > > Explain how the system works. Explain how the various systems operate, how > > the costs are calculated, and how they're paid. I want to see the same level > > of *specificity* that I and others have agreed to provide you in our > > examples. > > Do you have any idea what you're asking for? More than you can produce apparently. > Quite frankly, I do not have the time (nor the space) to explain to you, > in detail, how an entire civilization operates. In fact, any attempt by > me to explain such a system would fail, since there are doubtless many > innovations which specialists in the respective fields would make, and > there are many more which have already been made, which I am not > necessarilly aware of. If you can't explain your system to me in sufficient detail then perhaps it's because you don't understand it. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Your Web Site location
by poc＠searchengine-secrets.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would you like to improve your web site's position on the Search Engines? Over the past two years we've been acknowledged by Internet Experts as the definitive source for information on how to obtain top placement on the major search engines. My name is Stephen Mahaney. I am the president of Planet Ocean Communications. My web marketing company has literally "written the book" on how to position your website on the front page -- the Top Ten -- of each of the major search engines... and we guarantee your satisfaction! The "UnFair Advantage Book on Winning the Search Engine Wars" is an 85 page manual that identifies every known trick & technique being used on the Internet to gain top search engine positioning -- right where you need to be so that potential customers who are seeking your services or products can find you. Our monthly "Search Engine Wars Update Newsletter" keeps you informed of the latest techniques and frequent changes that take place in the dynamic world of "search engine" positioning. However, understanding the process does not require a degree in "rocket" science -- nor do you need to be "technically oriented". Whether your website is a "do-it-yourself" project or you are paying someone to maintain your site, you (or your webmaster) need to know the tricks in this book in order to compete with the professionals who are dominating the front pages of the various search categories. To learn more about how you can obtain this essential information and receive a free subscription to our monthly update Newsletter, go to.... http://www.search-engine-secrets.com/se_help/ Sincerely, Stephen Mahaney - President Planet Ocean Communications *************************************************** Note: We have contacted you based on information that we gathered while visiting your website - If you would prefer not to receive mail from us in the future, simply reply with the word "remove" in the subject line and you will be automatically excluded from future correspondence. ***************************************************

1 0

Re: charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:28:11 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: charity at the point of a gun (Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone) (fwd) > (1) Social transfer payments at the point of a gun are involuntary > compassion. > > (2) Involutary compassion is usually called rape. No, thats' lust not compassion. Involuntary lust is called rape. > Combine this with the US Govt defining a sex life as a "right" > (witness free Viagra) and you come up with some pretty > chilling scenarios. > > (do people have the "right" to a sex partner?) Read the 9th Amendment. I'd say so. > Whats to stop rape of selected human beings by agents of > the federal government? (ok, maybe thats going a little > too far The 4th Amendment among others. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:57:04 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd) > > Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. > > It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If > > they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's > > best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. > > Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel > > no need to placate the masses. > > If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them > in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long > term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting > them in self defense). If they have that kind of power they will have the shooter shot, look at the history of leaders and assassinations. The reality is that the vast majority of them fail. There is the other aspect that if one is willing to assassinate (murder in plain english) simply because somebody else murdered then we are in fact trading one tyrant for another. > And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done? Every un-fair market practice he could get away with (why is it that anarcho-whatever types always leave that 'fair competition' out of their discussion?). Why do you believe the Halloween documents are so enlightening? Because they demonstrate without a shadow of doubt that Billy wanted to exist as the sole market force, not a force limited by fair competition. The concept of fair-competition is anti-thematic to the world-domination memes that are currently making the rounds. > Excluding those > actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved. Hell, if we just look at the business practices within the context of a market with fair competition it's clear he's so far out in left field he's playing by himself. > Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and > goes Bang, Bang, he's dead (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta > like scorpions). That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without > being shot himself. Well I'd say if you're running around shooting people for any reason other than immediate self defence you deserve what you get. > > Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at > > least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting > > anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure > > it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then > > come back and tell us. > > It hasn't happened yet. But then, neither had the USA, before 1776. > The above is not a reasonable argument. It is at least a start, there was ample evidence historicaly that democracy (you ever hear of the Dutch?) was tried to varying degrees. It seems to work out better than any other system we've developed. If you want to see a discussion of democracy prior to the US check out: On the improvement of the understanding; The Ethics; Correspondence Benedict de Spinoza ISBN 0-486-20250-x $7.95 (Dover) They were written in the mid to late 1600's (shortly before the birth of the founding fathers). > You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen. And unfortunately, > you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions. > The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone > is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual. So, in your mind the only way to defend oneself is to have a bigger dick..um I mean gun than the other guy.... I've a couple of quotes for you to ponder: Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation. T.E. Edison If Mr. Edison had though smarter he wouldn't have had to perspire as much. N. Tesla ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: most of what govts do can be done by business, and done (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:00:44 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: most of what govts do can be done by business, and done > better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force) > Roads are the easiest (assuming a government model) things to apply > road use taxes to, simply tax gasoline, oil, and tires. Scale your tire tax > based on weight and apply it to bicycles as well, then everyone (execpt > peds) who uses pays. Screw that, tax the shoes. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

most of what govts do can be done by business, and done better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:39:05 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: most of what govts do can be done by business, and done better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force) > Even when government does sub-contract, the inefficiency is usually I > think pretty horrendous by industry standards: The same can be said for business in general as well (especialy if there is no competition). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:33:04 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd) > Theft, violence and extortion are already legitimate, not only does > the government use them all the time, but corporations and indivuduals do > as well. True, at least under a democratic system we can prevent some of the more gross abuses by government and can address the inter-personal issues with something besides a nylon jacketed .357. Your anarcho-whatever doesn't even provide that. > There is no (or little) justice under the current system. When was > the last time a cop went to jail for a murder that he/she committed while > on duty. Is OJ behind bars? Several cops in Houston were fired (they got no-billed by the Grand Jury) just last week because of a similar issue. There are two cops here in Austin who went to jail because of a murder (they held a kid down on a water bed and he suffocated) charge. The current public overwatch group was the result of a police call that got out of hand last year and the police had two choices - either give the people what they asked for or end loose the civil rights case. The two cops who beat Rodney King ended up doing time. Nobody proved to the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt he was guilty. It is far better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to imprison a single innocent one. Our legal system may have its problem but I guarantee that a lot more guilty people get off scott free than innocent people end up in jail. There is more than a little justice under the current system (OJ being the perfect example - like it or not). > We have courts of Law, Justice is ashamed to show her face. Somehow I doubt that. If justice is ashamed of anything its that citizens of this country don't participate more and express their views with more conviction. > We recognize that these interactions exist, but guess what, for any > sort of anarchy to exist, it has to happen globally. We are as concerned > about the people on the other side of the planet as we are about the people > in the next city over. Just not much. Which, considering that anarchic systems permit murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc. without reprisal or limits, means that the vast majority of people are probably going to sleep a sounder sleep knowing they don't have to go out and buy a tank tomorrow just to make sure they have a home to come to in the evening. > No, we assume the opposite, that nothing works for large numbers of > people, and everyone should be free to find their own level. If nothing works for large numbers of people then why should this? Anarchy isn't freedom, it's opportunity to make huge profits with no responsiblity and at the expence of others (who are treated as a market commodity and not human beings). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Off Topic But Truly Beautiful (fwd )
by Petro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:11 PM -0500 11/10/98, Michael Motyka wrote: >> In the summer of 1984, 10th-grader Irwin Nanofsky and a >> friend were driving down the Apalachee Parkway on the way >> home from baseball practice when they were pulled over by >> a police officer for a minor traffic infraction. ... >> As policy analysts and hemp advocates alike have been >> quick to point out, the apparent legality (for now) of >> Nanofsky's "pot orange" may render debates over the >> legalization of marijuana moot. In fact, Florida's top >> law enforcement officials admit that even if the >> cultivation of Nanofsky's orange were to be outlawed, it >> would be exceedingly difficult to identify the presence >> of outlawed fruit among the state's largest agricultural >> crop. Once again technology makes the laws irrelevant. Gotta love it. -- "To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust" http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

1 0