December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

newscolumn1.html
by damaged justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]Microsoft Small Business [2]Business First [3]Kemper Insurance Companies [4][ISMAP]-[5][USEMAP] December 29, 1997 Tech Watch Groups line up in support for Internet commerce taxes ______________________________________________________________ John Frees Rumblings on the horizon suggest that tax-free Internet commerce could be coming to an end. State governments, already losing as much as $3 billion annually in taxes on direct-mail purchases, are taking a strong look at the growing market for online purchases. The Federation of Tax Administrators, the National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities and the National Governors' Association all want Congress to let states tax such purchases. But problems involved in deciding how states could collect those taxes could delay any foreseeable solution. Advocacy groups favoring the collection have created an electronic commerce project to decide how states can obtain their share of taxes. But even advocates have wide differences of opinion, says Harley Duncan, executive director of Washington D.C.-based Federation of Tax Administrators. "People in the project run the gamut from those who want to apply taxes responsibly to everyone to those who argue that electronic commerce deserve special consideration, while others say we ought to say it should be treated the same as mail order," he says. There are some similarities -- and some differences -- between mail order and Internet commerce, says tax attorney Harvey Dunn of law firm Schottenstein Zox & Dunn. If a company has some presence in Ohio, say a store or a trucking company, then sales tax could be charged. But an out-of-state mail-order company that ships a product via common carrier doesn't have to charge sales tax. However, buyers should pay a "use tax" on items once they receive them, he says. "But no one does," Dunn says. Cars bought out of state are charged a use tax because they are titled, which gives the state control. The difficulty comes in determining how to collect such a tax, says Julie Carpenter, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Taxation. Right now, there's no way for the state to police all the goods that are bought elsewhere but used here. "An Ohio taxpayer's obligation is to pay the tax," she says. "Realistically, is this going to happen? Probably not, without guidelines and some oversight." Online purchases are even murkier because the Net's unique nature allows some products such as music, software or electronic magazines, to be downloaded, Duncan says. While a CD purchased in a store can be taxed, how can a government collect on a few megabytes sent over the Internet? The electronic commerce project is looking at a billing address approach, Duncan says. If the commerce terminates in a state and is billed to someone in that state, then that state could make a strong case for collecting taxes on the commerce. Another issue states face is the different taxation rates among states. If a product made in New Hampshire is sold online to someone in Ohio, should Ohio collect a sales tax even though New Hampshire doesn't have a state sales tax? And how should sales from other countries be factored? Because of these and other issues, Duncan doesn't expect project members to have a grasp of the issue until sometime next summer. Meanwhile, Everen Securities estimates general, apparel, furniture and other sales nationwide are expected to hit $795 billion by 2000. As much as $79 billion of that will be sold online. At an average sales tax of 5 percent, nearly $4 billion in taxes will go uncollected unless the states can convince the federal government to figure out a way to give them a share. Got a tip for Tech Watch? Reach reporter John Frees at columbus(a)amcity.com or by phone at 461-4040, ext. 143. © 1997, Business First [6]More News Columns References 1. http://www.microsoft.com/smallbiz 2. http://www.amcity.com/columbus/ 3. http://www.KemperInsurance.com/ 4. http://www.amcity.com/columbus/maps/new_topbar.map 5. LYNXIMGMAP:http://www.amcity.com/columbus/stories/current/newscolumn1.html#… 6. http://www.amcity.com/columbus/stories/current/newscolumns.html

3 2

Anonymous IRC (was "Cypherpunks IRC Christmas Eve Party")
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We found IRC users to be so involved in petty information wars -- ping floods, malicious prank hacking, and the like -- that we directed policy against use of IRC from the anonymous shell accounts at CyberPass. If IRC users weren't so easily lulled by the tempation to crash a server or run malicious bots or just plain irritate other people for fun, and if they would gang up and kick out people who did that, then perhaps we'd switch that back on. They were just too much overhead. Everyone else seems pretty nice, really, as far as the system goes. They're all self-interested in keeping the anonymous publishing and so on going, so the peace keeps itself. Mark Hedges Infonex and Anonymizer

1 0

thomas.html (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From ravage(a)ssz.com Mon Dec 29 20:38:05 1997 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:38:04 -0600 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199712300238.UAA04509(a)einstein.ssz.com> X-within-URL: http://www.courttv.com/library/rights/thomas.html To: friends(a)ssz.com Subject: thomas.html Court TV Library Justice Thomas on 'Heroes and Victims' Legal Times Clarence Thomas may keep a lower profile than many of his colleagues on the Supreme Court bench. But when he does speak out, he almost always makes an impact. That was the case late last month, when Thomas made headlines with a speech excoriating what he termed "the modern ideology of victimhood." In his remarks, delivered to the Federalist Society's Ninth Annual Lawyers Convention, Thomas criticized contemporary society for exalting victims -- in not only the political realm, but in the courts as well. He marveled at the breadth and depth of the victim mentality, finding irony in the white men today who, "preoccupied with oppression," have "fallen prey to the very aspects of the modern ideology of victimology that they deplore." And, sounding a classic conservative theme, Thomas concluded that "the idea that government can be the primary instrument for the elimination of misfortune is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition." The full text of Thomas' speech, delivered Sept. 22 in Washington, D.C., follows. It is reprinted with permission. _________________________________________________________________ I would like thank my friends here at the Federalist Society for once again inviting me to be a part of an important and timely conference. And I would like to begin by returning to a topic I touched upon in my last speech at a conference co-sponsored by this organization: personal responsibility. It says something about the current state of affairs in our society that a conference on victims -- that is, a conference on the rise of the practice of blaming circumstances for one's situation rather than taking responsibility for changing things for the better -- is even necessary. As many of you have heard me say before, the very notion of submitting to one's circumstances was unthinkable in the household in which I was raised. The mere suggestion that difficult circumstances could prevail over individual effort would evoke a response that my brother and I could lip-sync on cue: "Old man 'can't' is dead; I helped bury him." Or, another favorite response: "Where there is a will, there is a way." Under this philosophy -- the essential truth of which we all recognize in our hearts -- victims have no refuge. It may have seemed harsh at the time to be told that failure was one's own fault. Indeed, there may have been many circumstances beyond our control. But there was much that my family and my community did to reinforce this message of self-determination and self-worth, thereby inoculating us against the victim plague that was highly contagious in the hot, humid climate of segregation. What has become clear to me over the years, as I have witnessed the transformation of our society into one based upon victims rather than heroes, is that there is a more positive message to be gained from adversity: Success (as well as failure) is the result of one's own talents, morals, decisions, and actions. Accepting personal responsibility for victory as well as for defeat is as liberating and empowering as it is unpopular today. Overcoming adversity not only gives us our measure as individuals, but it also reinforces those basic principles and rules without which a society based upon freedom and liberty cannot function. In those years of my youth, there was a deep appreciation of heroes and heroic virtue. Art, literature, and even popular culture (unlike today) often focused on people who demonstrated heroic virtues -- courage, persistence, discipline, hard work, humility, triumph in the face of adversity, just to mention a few. These building blocks of self-reliance were replicated and reinforced at home, school, and church. The "rags to riches" Horatio Alger stories were powerful messages of hope and inspiration to those struggling for a better life. And many of us used to read and dream about heroes -- not to mention our favorite television heroes, something perhaps unbelievable these days. I am certain that many of you who attended grammar school in the 1950s or earlier probably remember reading a favorite account of the integrity and work ethic of George Washington, or of Abraham Lincoln, or of George Washington Carver, or even of some baseball or football legend. It seemed that we all had heroes (not role models, a term of far more recent vintage). Indeed, it would have been odd for a child of several decades ago not to have had a hero. But today, our culture is far less likely to raise up heroes than it is to exalt victims -- individuals who are overcome by the sting of oppression, injustice, adversity, neglect, or misfortune. Today, victims of discrimination, racism, poverty, sickness, and societal neglect abound in the popular press. Today, there are few (if any) heroes. Often, it seems that those who have succumbed to their circumstances are more likely to be singled out than those who have overcome them. What caused this cultural shift -- from an emphasis on heroes to a preoccupation with victims? Why are there more victims and virtually no heroes recognized today? Why in years past was there much less of an emphasis on victimage? I think two things contributed to this change in the state of affairs. The first is that our political and legal systems now actively encourage people to claim victim status and to make demands on society for reparations and recompense. The second is that our culture actually seeks to denigrate or deconstruct heroes. Why would a civilized society travel down two such destructive paths? Why has it become no more admirable to rise valiantly above one's circumstances than it is to submit to them -- all the while aggressively transferring responsibility for one's condition to others? Let's begin with our political and legal systems -- how have they contributed to this state of affairs? The classical conception was that government and the law were meant to ensure freedom and equality of opportunity by giving people the most room possible for self-provision and self-determination. James Madison made this point in The Federalist Papers when he observed that the "protection" of the "diversity of faculties in men" was the "first object" of government. And, in more recent times, the great political economist Friedrich von Hayek -- who witnessed totalitarianism first-hand -- made a similar point when he observed that "the chief aim of freedom is to provide both the opportunity and the inducement to insure the maximum use of the knowledge that an individual can acquire." Between the New Deal and the 1960s, a far different view began to hold sway -- namely, that the role of the state was to eliminate want, suffering, and adversity. Freedom was no longer simply a right to self-provision and self-determination, but was instead a right to make demands on government and society for one's well-being and happiness. That is the import of Franklin Roosevelt's "Citizen Bill of Rights," which spoke of freedom from want -- rights to minimum income, housing, and other "adequate protections from economic fears." And, I think it is axiomatic that the call for such new rights (if not claims) became ever more prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s. No doubt, this gradual transformation in ideas took root and flourished (at least in part) because of the aggregate growth in wealth and resources we were witnessing in this country during the course of the 20th century. Against the background of this prosperity, poverty stood out in bold relief and in uncomfortably stark contrast -- even as the number of people suffering from it shrank. It is not surprising that people began to think that, in a world of seemingly unlimited resources, adversity could be eliminated, or, at the very least, remedied. The ideal of the "benevolent state" took hold. In our "enlightened" society, neglect, misfortune, and injustice did not have to be accepted as inevitable facts of life. Good government and laws could step in when necessary, as many believed they had successfully done during two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the civil rights movement. If one assumes that suffering and adversity can be eliminated, but sees a number of people continuing to suffer from adversity or misfortune, then there must be some forces in society that relegate the "have nots" to this fate. Or, at the very least, the less fortunate are being ignored. Those facing adversity, hence, are victims of a society that is not doing as much as it could (if it so desired), and these victims can (and should) stake a legitimate claim against the political and legal systems for recompense. In this view, neglect or selfishness on the part of society and government is responsible for the sting of oppression, injustice, and misfortune that the unfortunate and "have nots" feel today. In light of this modern ideology, is it any surprise that people identify themselves as victims and make demands on the political systems for special status and entitlements? Our culture expects (and, indeed, encourages) people to do exactly that. Consider, for example, the creation and continued expansion of the welfare state and other social programs in this country. How often have we heard proponents of these programs lull the poor into thinking that they are hopeless victims, incapable of triumphing over adversity without "benevolent intervention" by the state? How often have we heard these proponents encouraging the less fortunate in our society to become indignant about their situation in life and more demanding on the political system to find solution to their problems? It is not only in the political system, though, that we see our society and its leaders succumbing to the modern ideology of victimhood. As with the political system, people today also are strongly encouraged to make demands on the legal system by claiming victim status. Indeed, the legal system has, in many ways, become a significant driving force behind the modern ideology of victimhood. Courts are viewed as an effective means of forcing (or at least pressuring) political institutions into meeting demands for protected status and new rights or entitlements. Pointing to perceived "victimization" by "the system" or by others in society, our legal culture has often told the least fortunate in our society that their last hope is to claim special legal rights and benefits, or to seek exoneration for the harmful, criminal consequences of their acts. The least fortunate are encouraged to turn to legal arguments that admit defeat and that challenge the moral authority of society. In these ways, courts are called upon to solve social problems -- by creating special rules, and by crafting remedies that will satisfy the claims and demands of victim groups but that do not apply to all of us. Appealing to the legal system, though, was not as easy a task as making demands on the political system. Our legal system has traditionally required that redress for grievances only be granted after very exacting standards have been met. There had to be, for example, very distinct, individualized harm. And, the definition of harm was circumscribed by a traditional understanding of adjudication under the common law, where narrow disputes regarding traditional property rights were resolved among private parties who could not settle matters on their own. Very generalized claims of misfortune or oppression or neglect -- the kinds of assertions made in the political system -- would not easily fit into this common mold of court activity. It would not be enough for people to be indignant, angry, and demanding about their situation in life. There would have to be an assertion of a legal wrong and a persuasive argument that a legal remedy was available. The pressure of victimology "revolutionized" -- and that word does not always have positive connotations -- the courts and the law. For those in our culture seeking to use the courts as agents of social change, poverty, unemployment, social deviancy, and criminal behavior were not just unfair conditions in our society that could be eliminated if only people or politicians cared. Instead, these abstract problems were personified as the direct actions of local schools, churches, businesses, and other social institutions so that they could be sued for causing individualized harm to the victims. Based on this new kind of harm -- a kind of legalistic understanding of "victimage" -- the courts were said to be obligated to recognize special rights and protected status under the law. Take, for example, welfare rights and due process. Beginning with Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), our cases underscored the importance of welfare as a means of preventing social malaise, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for all Americans. The rights to life, liberty, and property were, in effect, transformed from freedom from government interference into a right to welfare payments. There are countless other examples in legal literature and judicial opinions -- some have argued that inner city minorities and the poor should not be held responsible for the consequences of their criminal acts because of oppression and misfortune; and, of course, there is the debate now raging about preferences based on sex, race, and ethnicity. This change in our political and legal systems has been accompanied by the rise of the "victim group." These groups are quite useful to public officials for building coalitions for future political support and legitimacy, as well. And, for the courts, "victim groups" provide useful justification or cover for energizing the legislative process, changing the legislative agenda, forcing reconsideration of spending priorities, and transforming public debate. But the rise of victimhood, and its perpetuation by government and the law, is only part of the modern tragedy. There is also the dearth of heroes in our culture. Significantly, as the number of these "victim groups" has escalated, there has been a corresponding decline in the amount of attention that our culture has paid to heroes or, even worse, a conscious attempt to cheapen their achievements. Today, success or a commitment to fighting for noble ideas is attributed to self-interest, revenge, self-aggrandizement, insecurity, or some psychological idiosyncrasy. Just thumb through recently published biographies in the library or bookstore -- in many of them, it is not a conscious effort to be virtuous or to do good, but instead a series of unforeseeable and external forces, that lead to greatness or success. And, in many of these biographies, we are introduced to the uncut, "never before seen" foibles, mistakes, and transgressions of people our culture idealized for centuries. The message: that these so-called heroes are really just regular people capable of folly and vice who happened to have a few good breaks. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated this state of affairs when he said: "Historians who live in democratic times do not only refuse to admit that some citizens may influence the destiny of a people, but also take away from the people themselves the faculty of modifying their own lot and make them depend on an inflexible providence or a kind of blind fatality." Now, the problem these days is not that there are no people who should be singled out as heroes. Rather, as Daniel Boorstin suggests in his book, The Image, society is preoccupied with celebrities. And heroism and celebrity status are two very different things. The word "hero" refers to people of great strength, integrity, or courage who are recognized and admired for their accomplishments and achievements. The word "celebrity," on the other hand, refers to a condition -- the condition of being much talked about. It is a state of notoriety or famousness. As Boorstin says, "A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness." Thus, while a hero is distinguished by his achievement, celebrities are created by the media and are simply a trademark. Celebrities are, in short, neither good nor bad -- they are just a big name. Publicity is the defining feature of a celebrity's existence, and, unlike a hero who will become greater as time passes, time destroys celebrities. Over time the glare of publicity, as Boorstin notes, melts away the celebrity by shedding light and heat on his vices and commonplaceness. This pattern of ignoring and deconstructing heroes -- and focusing instead on the ephemeral celebrity who is known for his well-knownness rather than character or individual worth -- stems from the rise of radical egalitarianism. In the 1960s, many of the cultural elite saw a need to ensure absolute equality. On this view, differences in ability and level of achievement are random or uncontrolled; and to permit these characteristics to dictate human happiness and well-being would therefore be unfair. Celebrity status, in contrast, is not a problem for egalitarians, for as Boorstin notes, "anyone can become a celebrity, if only he can get into the news and stay there." Certainly, real achievement is not necessarily required. It should surprise no one that our culture now has far less difficulty recognizing celebrities than it does those who achieve success as a result of personal effort and character traits that we traditionally would consider heroic. Denigrating heroic virtue -- in other words, chalking heroism up to circumstance -- fits quite well with the notion that we must all be the same and that there can be no significant differences in our achievement, social standing, or wealth. Anyone can see what these intellectual currents have done to the ideals of human dignity, personal responsibility, and self-determination. Preoccupation with victim status has caused people to focus covetously on what they do not have in comparison to others, or on what has happened to them in the past. Many fail to see the freedom they do have and the talents and resources that are at their disposal. Our culture today discourages, and even at times stifles, heroic virtues -- fortitude, character, courage, a sense of self-worth. For so many, the will, the spirit, and a firm sense of self-respect and self-worth have been suffocated. Many in today's society do not expect the less fortunate to accept responsibility for (and overcome) their present circumstances. Because they are given no chance to overcome their circumstances, they will not have the chance to savor the triumph over adversity. They are instead given the right to fret and complain, and are encouraged to avoid responsibility and self-help. This is a poor substitute for the empowering rewards of true victory over adversity. One of my favorite memories of my grandfather is how he would walk slowly by the cornfield, admiring the fruits of his labor. I have often thought that just the sight of a tall stand of corn must have been more nourishing to his spirit than the corn itself was to his body. But the culture of victimology -- with its emphasis on the so-called benevolent state -- delivers an additional (and perhaps worse) blow to dignity and self-worth. When the less fortunate do accomplish something, they are often denied the sense of achievement which is so very important for strengthening and empowering the human spirit. They owe all their achievements to the "anointed" in society who supposedly changed the circumstances -- not to their own efforts. Long hours, hard work, discipline, and sacrifice are all irrelevant. In a world where the less fortunate are given special treatment and benefits -- and, significantly, where they are told that whatever gains or successes they have realized would not be possible without protected status and special benefits -- the so-called beneficiaries of state-sponsored benevolence are denied the opportunity to derive any sense of satisfaction from their hard work and self-help. There is not a one among us who views what others do for us the same way we view what we do for ourselves. No matter how much we appreciate the help, it is still just that -- help, not achievement. It also bears noting that our culture's preoccupation with grouping victims has balkanized society. The "we/they" mentality of calling oneself a victim of society breeds social conflict and calls into question the moral authority of society. The idea that whole groups or classes are victims robs individuals of an independent spirit -- they are just moving along with the "herd" of other victims. Such individuals also lack any incentive to be independent, because they know that as part of an oppressed group they will neither be singled out for the life choices they make nor capable of distinguishing themselves by their own efforts. As victim ideology flourishes and people are demoralized by its grip, more and more people begin to think that they must claim victim status to get anywhere in this world. Indeed, is it any surprise that anyone and everyone can claim to be a victim of something these days? In his book The Abuse Excuse, Alan Dershowitz criticizes countless examples of conditions that "victimize" people and thereby release them from responsibility for their actions. Here are just a few examples: x The "black rage defense," which asserts that blacks who are constantly subjected to oppression and racial injustice will become uncontrollably violent; x "Urban survival syndrome," which claims that violent living conditions justify acts of aggression in the community; x "Self-victimization syndrome," which maintains that people become less productive and creative, and become severely depressed, as a result of societal neglect and discrimination. Most significantly, there is the backlash against affirmative action by "angry white males." I do not question a person's belief that affirmative action is unjust because it judges people based on their sex or the color of their skin. But something far more insidious is afoot. For some white men, preoccupation with oppression has become the defining feature of their existence. They have fallen prey to the very aspects of the modern ideology of victimology that they deplore. Some critics of affirmative action, for example, fault today's civil rights movement for demanding equality yet supporting policies that discriminate based on race. These critics expect the intended beneficiaries of the civil rights regime to break away from the ideology of victimhood: to cherish freedom, to accept responsibility, and, where necessary, to demonstrate fortitude in the face of unfairness. I do not quarrel with this. But these critics should hold themselves to the same standards, resisting the temptation to allow resentment over what they consider reverse discrimination to take hold of their lives and to get the best of them. They must remember that if we are to play the victim game, the very people they decry have the better claim to victim status. Of course, de-emphasizing heroism exacerbates all these problems. Human beings have always faced the temptation to permit adversity or hate to dominate and destroy their lives. To counter this tendency, society had heroes -- people capable of overcoming the very adversity or injustice that currently affects today's victims. They rose above their circumstances and inherent imperfections. Heroes cherished freedom, and tried to accomplish much with what little they had. Heroes demonstrated perseverance in the face of adversity and used hardship as a means to strive for greater virtue. And heroes accepted responsibility -- they did what they did despite fear and temptation, and tried to do the right thing when presented with a choice between good and evil. It is awfully hard for society to inculcate these values without some useful models from the past and present. I may not have realized it as a child, but my grandfather was a hero who had a tremendous impact on my life. He certainly would not be a celebrity by today's standards. Though barely able to read and saddled with the burdens of segregation, he worked hard to provide for his family. He was a deeply religious man who lived by the Christian virtues. He was a man who believed in responsibility and self-help. And though this could not bring him freedom in a segregated society, it at least gave him independence from its daily demeaning clutches. In all the years I spent in my grandparents' house, I never heard them complain that they were victims. Now, they did not like segregation or think that it was right. In fact, there was no question that it was immoral and that anyone who promoted it was morally reprehensible. But there was work to be done. I assure you that I did not enjoy the demands he placed on us. I saw no value in rising with the chicken, and, unlike him, I was not obsessed with what I will call the "reverse Dracula syndrome": that is, fear that the rising sun would catch me in bed. It would not be until I was exposed to the most fortunate and best educated in our society that I would be informed that all this time I had been a victim. I am sure you can imagine what it was like when I returned home to Savannah, and informed my grandparents that with the education I had received because of their tremendous foresight and sacrifice, I had discovered our oppressed and victimized status in society. Needless to say, relations were quite strained and our vacation visits were somewhat difficult. My grandfather was no victim and he didn't send me to school to become one. There are many people like my grandfather alive today. The cultural elite does not honor them as the heroes they are, but instead views them as people who are sadly ignorant of their victim status or who have forgotten where they came from. Our social institutions do not train today's young to view such people as heroes and do not urge them to emulate their virtues. In idealizing heroic virtue and criticizing the victim ideology of our day, I am not saying that society is free from intractable and very saddening injustice and harm. That would not be true. But the idea that government can be the primary instrument for the elimination of misfortune is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. There has always been bad and suffering in the world, and we must admit that wrongs have been and will continue to be committed. People will always be treated unfairly -- we can never eliminate oppression or adversity completely, though we can and should fight injustice as best we can. But keep in mind that all of us are easily tempted to think of ourselves as victims and thereby permit adversity to be the defining feature of our lives. In so doing, we deny the very attributes that are at the core of human dignity -- freedom of will, the capacity to choose between good and bad, and the ability to endure adversity and to use it for gain. Victimhood destroys the human spirit. I also am not saying that we should expect everyone to be a hero all of the time. We humans are weak by our very nature; all of us at times will permit hardship to get the very best of us. But having a set of norms to guide us and to push us along -- the stuff of heroes -- can be a source of great strength. If we do not have a society that honors people who make the right choices in the face of adversity -- and reject the bad choices -- far fewer people will make the right choices. Ultimately, without a celebration of heroic virtue, we throw ourselves into the current state of affairs, where man is a passive victim incapable of triumphing over adversity and where aggression, resentment, envy, and other vice thwart progress and true happiness. What I am saying is that it requires the leadership of heroes and the best efforts of all to advance civilization and to ensure that its people follow the path of virtue. And, because of the role law has played in perpetuating victim ideology and because of the influence law can have in teaching people about right and wrong, lawyers have a special obligation here. We should seek to pare back the victimology that pervades our law, and thereby encourage a new generation of heroes to flourish. I am reminded of what Saint Thomas Kempis wrote more than 500 years ago about the human spirit. His standard is a useful one for thinking about the instruction that our law should be offering: "Take care to ensure that in every place, action, and outward occupation you remain inwardly free and your own master. Control circumstances, and do not allow them to control you. Only so can you be a master and ruler of your actions, not their servant or slave; a free man. . . ." Legal Times is an affiliate publication of Court TV. Copyright © 1995, American Lawyer Media L.P. _________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 by American Lawyer Media, L.P. All Rights Reserved. No parts of this site may be reproduced without permission of American Lawyer Media. Nothing in this site is intended to constitute legal advice.

2 1

Hayek Quotes (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From ravage(a)ssz.com Mon Dec 29 22:37:18 1997 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199712300437.WAA04871(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Hayek Quotes To: users(a)ssz.com (SSZ User Mail List) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:37:16 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 11676 Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.freedomsnest.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?ref=hayfa > > > [IMAGE] > > Quotes from F.A. Hayek > > [IMAGE] > > 1. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual > assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to > defend them by refusing to acknowledge the facts. > > > > 2. Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have > recognized that "the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow > with the advance of science." Unfortunately, the popular effect of > this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by > many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily > diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive > and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this > reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often > become the enemies of freedom. > > > > 3. Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that > the advance and even the preservation of civilization are > dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen. > [The Constitution of Liberty, ch. 2.4 > > > > 4. All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals > are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the > rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as > the wisest. > > > > 5. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually > utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the > difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that which > the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is > comparatively insignificant. > > > > 6. Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the > only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality > which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has > liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is > even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the > necessary result and part of the justification of individual > liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate > that some manners of living are more successful than others, much > of the case for it would vanish. > > > > 7. From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if > we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their > actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal > position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the > law and material equality are therefore not only different but are > in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the > other, but not both at the same time. > > > > 8. However human, envy is certainly not one of the sources of > discontent that a free society can eliminate. It is probably one > of the essential conditions for the preservation of such a society > that we do not countenance envy, not sanction its demands by > camouflaging it as social justice, but treat it, in the words of > John Stuart Mill, as "the most anti-social and evil of all > passions. > > > > 9. Justice, like liberty and coercion, is a concept which, for the > sake of clarity, ought to be confined to the deliberate treatment > of men by other men. > > > > 10. ...whenever it is necessary that one of several conflicting > opinions should prevail and when one would have to be made to > prevail by force if need be, it is less wasteful to determine > which has the stronger support by counting numbers than by > fighting. Democracy is the only method of peaceful change that man > has yet been discovered. > > > > 11. The conception that government should be guided by majority > opinion makes sense only if that opinion is independent of > government. The ideal of democracy rests on the belief that the > view which will direct government emerges from an independent and > spontaneous process. It requires, therefore, the existence of a > large sphere independent of majority control in which the opinions > of the individuals are formed. > > > > 12. It is only because the majority opinion will always be opposed by > some that our knowledge and understanding progress. In the process > by which opinion is formed, it is very probable that, by the time > any view becomes a majority view, it is no longer the best view: > somebody will already have advanced beyond the point which the > majority have reached. It is because we do not yet which of the > many competing new opinions will prove itself the best that we > wait until it has gained sufficient support. > > > > 13. ...it is always from a minority acting in ways different from what > the majority would prescribe that the majority in the end learns > to do better. > > > > 14. The successful politician owes his power to the fact that he moves > within the accepted framework of thought, that he thinks and talks > conventionally. It would be almost a contradiction in terms for a > politician to be a leader in the field of ideas. His task in a > democracy is to find out what the opinions held by the largest > number are, not to give currency to new opinions which may become > the majority view in some distant future. > > > > 15. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than > what he would be able to do if only he were free. > > > > 16. Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into > complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand > that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure > freedom. > > > > 17. Human reason can neither predict nor deliberately shape its own > future. Its advances consist in finding out where it has been > wrong. > > > > 18. A society that does not recognize that each individual has values > of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for > the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom. > > > > 19. Liberty is an opportunity for doing good, but this is only so when > it is also an opportunity for doing wrong. > > > > 20. ...if we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we > recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not > sufficient justification for the use of coercion. > > > > 21. ...it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to > profit from knowledge which we individually do not possess and > because each individual's use of his particular knowledge may > serve to assist others unknown to him in achieving their ends that > men as members of civilized society can pursue their individual > ends so much more successfully than they could alone. > > > > 22. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. > > > > 23. Every change in conditions will make necessary some change in the > use of resources, in the direction and kind of human activities, > in habits and practices. And each change in the actions of those > affected in the first instance will require further adjustments > that will gradually extend through the whole of society. Every > change thus in a sense creates a "problem" for society, even > though no single individual perceives it as such; it is gradually > "solved" by the establishment of a new overall adjustment. > > > > 24. ...the case for individual freedom rests largely on the > recognition of the inevitable and universal ignorance of all of us > concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievements > of our ends and welfare depend. > > > > 25. ...the ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong > will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the > disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" > beliefs. > > > > 26. ...the argument for liberty is not an argument against > organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason > can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, > monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent > others from doing better. > > > > 27. Even more significant of the inherent weakness of the collectivist > theories is the extraordinary paradox that from the assertion that > society is in some sense more than merely the aggregate of all > individuals their adherents regularly pass by a sort of > intellectual somersault to the thesis that in order that the > coherence of this larger entity be safeguarded it must be > subjected to conscious control, that is, to the control of what in > the last resort must be an individual mind. It thus comes about > that in practice it is regularly the theoretical collectivist who > extols individual reason and demands that all forces of society be > made subject to the direction of a single mastermind, while it is > the individualist who recognizes the limitations of the powers of > individual reason and consequently advocates freedom as a means > for the fullest development of the powers of the interindividual > process. > > > > 28. It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least > important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own > limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as > individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we > cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even > the preservation of civilization depend. > > > > 29. The discussions of every age are filled with the issues on which > its leading schools of thought differ. But the general > intellectual atmosphere of the time is always determined by the > views on which the opposing schools agree. They become the > unspoken presuppositions of all thought, and common and > unquestioningly accepted foundations on which all discussion > proceeds. > > > > 30. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is > often but a step. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > [LINK] > > [Home][Authors][Subjects][Quotes][Books][Email] >

1 0

porno is good for kids
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pornography is good for children! It helps them acknowledge the reality of sexual identity in the world of human beings. Most of the people I knew even into high school had sex with their friends before they were ten. Lots and lots of people -- meaning a lot -- took lots and lots of LSD. The world was good because everyone was going someplace peaceful eventually and neopaganism's many useful features brought widespread happiness. We tracked down Playboys and Playgirls too and looked at them and wondered at the novelty of the experience. Tell children about the penis and the vagina and how they can make you shiver and convulse with pleasure when you rub them together! Tell them about the forgetfulness of being which comes with orgasm. Sex is a wonderful part of life. Don't ruin it for children with fear and associations of violence and evil. GEEK NAKED

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. ( )( )________ Timmy May /00 \ _ O_\\--mm---mm /_______)

2 1

Advertise On the Internet For Free
by benoi＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Business Owners and Marketing Managers: I am writing to invite you to have a free listing for your business in the new National Direct Internet Yellow Pages. Even if you already have your business listed or advertise somewhere else, you will want to take advantage of this opportunity to extend your marketing and reach more of your local customers and prospects. Over 5.5 million hits were received on the National Direct site last month alone. Today many of your local prospects are going online to browse--and buy, and to reach as many potential customers as National Direct you would have to advertise in over 6500 yellow page books. Here's how the system works: When someone wants your type of service, they simply go online to http://www.ndiyp.com Then they type in the area code for the location they want. Finally, they type in what they are looking for. As long as you are listed, your business will come up on their screen. Larger ads get more attention, of course, and cost little. But your basic listing in the National Direct Internet Yellow Pages is yours free. To claim your listing. simply fill out the form and return it via e-mail to us asap. We'll see your business gets listed right away. Our e-mail address is toppy15(a)hotmail.com If you have any questions, please feel free to call (405) 942-5811 Monday - Friday 8-5. Please Complete Entire Form: Your Name: Your Title: Company Name: Company Address: City/State/Zip: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Type of Business: e-mail address: Web site address: Would you like information on larger classified or display ads? Return to<A HREF="mailto:toppy15@hotmail.com">CLICK HERE

1 0

TDC: Sci-Tek ...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Check out Sci-Tek on The Discovery Channel. The current episode is really pretty full of grins and giggles, not to mention a lot of half-truths and plain techno-fantasy. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Season's Greetings from HOLLYWOOD...................................
by ccxt＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Let Your Creative Efforts for '97 Compound into Prosperity for '98 An Award Winning Team of Hollywood Producers and Directors is pleased to Invite the Submission of Your Entries in Computer Animation, Photography and Illustration for the World (WWW) Premiere of the 1997 Annual International "CAPI" Awards Be included in the "CAPI" Awards First CD-ROM "Library of Excellence" Distributed to Top Motion Picture Studios...Television Networks... and Advertising Agencies in Hollywood and around the World! PARTICIPATE in the World Wide Web's first competition organized by Top Hollywood Producers dedicated to discovering and honoring the very best new talent in the world...directly throughout the Internet! ENTRIES ARE JUDGED by an International Award-Winning Team of Industry Professionals currently participating in some of Hollywood's most prestigious Entertainment and Communications Productions! AWARDS ARE PRESENTED for the excellence and merit of each individual entry. ENTRANTS DO NOT COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER! There are equal opportunities for multiple GOLD, SILVER, and BRONZE "CAPI" Awards to be presented in all categories, to numerous qualifying entrants! RECEIVE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION and publicity that can assist you in creating new marketing and promotional opportunities for your career...potentially having your work Licensed by Leading Producers in the Hollywood & International Entertainment and Communications Industries! For more information visit us at: http://www.capiawards.com/ Copyright 1997 "CAPI" Awards "CAPI" AWARDS, PUBLIC RELATIONS 11247 Acama Ave., Studio City, CA, USA 91602 Our research indicates the preceeding information is of interest to you. If you prefer not to be on this private mailing list, please let us know and you will be promptly removed. Email:<A HREF="mailto:CAPIMAIL@AOL.COM> with Subject: REMOVE

1 0

Re: Word Processors and GUIs (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 97 03:40:31 -0600 > Subject: Re: Word Processors and GUIs > While some standardization is good it is not the be all to end all. While > standardization of cut, paste, open, close, print makes perfect sense most > commands do not fall into this catagory. Perhaps not, but 90% of what people *do* does fall into those operations. Ever hear of macro's? Ever use a Sun where the menu pull-down pops up under the pointer when you click a button? Both of these will increase the use of a GUI to way more than a straight CLI interface (and I type at nearly 80 words a minute with a slightly crippled L. hand). I suggest you get a GUI macro utility and something like PopUpMenu on the Amiga that makes the menu's appear both at the command bar *and* under the mouse. Using this technique I can execute a file save via GUI in about 1/3 the time I can in the CLI. > The inherent benefit of this > standardization decrease the more specialized an application becomes. With > a program like Autocad or MathCad or even Lotus 1-2-3 where one has a > steep learning curve of specialized commands the benefits of standardized > basic commands boarders on insignificant. You are confusing learning the commands with learning the 'model' that the program impliments. The learning curve comes from the user learning the model the programmer(s) had in their head(s) while writing the program and learning to solve problems with the black box functions the programmer/developer uses to solve those problems. > Once we get past the standardization issue to the one of textmode vs GUI > (which was the topic of my original post) I doubt that one can make the > case that a draftsman running a graphics program under a textmode OS is > less efficient as his counterpart who is saddled with a bloated GUI OS. In I use both POVRay as well as LightWave, one text and one GUI. The GUI program is *much* easier to develop 3d renderings in because things like boundary violations, control path anomolies, and such are *much* easier to see and deal with in the GUI interface. I also use Scientific Notebook, I can't imagine doing the same sort of things I do with that GUI text-processor with say a textual Postscript or Tex program. Just try making a nice nifty graphical output using Postscript (say) using a GUI and a editor working in Postscript directly. > fact if both are operating on the same hardware I would venture a guess > that the textmode user will be more efficient by the simple fact that his > resources are not being consumed by the GUI. This assumption is *very* dependant upon the model of the software. It depends upon whether the process takes the command sequence and executes it in parallel or in series with the command entry sequence. In other words, if the program renders while you are entering new commands will obviously be much slower than a program that takes the sequence of commands in toto and *then* executes them. The efficiency to a large part depends upon the model of the software, not the particular command and control interface. If you expect to execute processes in parallel (ie edit & execute in parallel) then a GUI is much quicker (not taking into account the added overhead of the GUI, which in and of itself is not a condemnation of the GUI but rather the poor processors we have to run them on) because you can see you errors as they occur and it keeps them from propogating through the design or use process. If sequential is your goal then it really doesn't matter because in both cases (ie GUI v CLI) becuase while it's executing your commands you can't do anything anyway. Of course, these models *only* apply if we are single-tasking programs. If we allow multi-tasking then GUI wins hands down because graphical information content is *much* higher than CLI in every case. This allows us to display more information on a GUI than a CLI. Personaly, this is a non-argument from the technical perspective. It is more indicative of the mental flexibility of the holders of the various positions. I wouldn't use an OS that wouldn't let me do both at the same time (and I don't) and use them as I need them. > The same case can be made for the accounting staff using spreadsheets or > the secretaries typing letters. I'll take an accounting department using > Lotus 1-2-3 3.x up against a similar group running MS Office and Win95/NT > any day of the week. I'll get the same work done faster and *cheaper*. Excuse me but the user interface of your example, 123, *has* GUI elements even in a text mode display. > This brings up another issue of decreased performance with the GUI's. It > is the notion that every document must be type-set. I can't even start to > imagine the millions of man hours wasted in the office because every > insignificant memo, report, and letter has to be formatted "just right" This is a condemnation of human nature, not GUI's. I use a plain old text editor when I'm making simple edits. A perfect example is from work where we recently have taken on a group of office 'helpers' to take care of the more mundane office needs. They discovered they could add graphics and attachments to their email and ever since we have suffered from the abuse, emails with a dozen attachments of pretty pictures that I have to specificaly work through. Considering I get somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 emails a day that can be a real time sink (thank god for procmail!). But whattcha gonna do, shoot 'em? > Another contention I have with the GUI's is the use of icons. One of the > most misused and time wasting "features" of the GUI's. It makes absolutely > no sense for someone who is working on the keyboard to stop what they are > doing, go over to the mouse, and then point and click to execute a > command. Then quit using the mouse on the wrong damn side of the keyboard. If you're right handed the mouse goes on the left, not the right. That way you don't have to quit typing to deal with the GUI. It takes a couple of days to over come the 'handedness' that is built into our brain, but the long term benefit is that your wrist load goes *way* down on the right *and* your left hand fine motor control improves significantly. If you happen to be left handed then you need a reversed keyboard with the return key and such on the L. and the mouse on the right. Try it for 3 days - you'll like it. > Well I guess I will rap this up with a final note. With the GUI OS's (and > the applications that run on them) as size and complexity increases > performance and reliability decreases. Without a doubt I can get more work > done on cheaper hardware running *nix or os/2 using only text mode > applications than I can running a GUI with it's associated bloated > applications. That's interesting, I use Linux (x86 & PPC) , WinNT, AmigaDos, AIX, & Solaris at home on my personal machines (11 of them not counting the TI explorer, , Atari 800, SX-64 and C-128) and don't find a significant difference in reliability. They all stay up for weeks and weeks. OS/2 is a sucky os, it's unstable and calling it reliable is a joke. It's user interface is inconsistent, it's task swapper is weird and stalls at strange times for no apparent reason, etc., etc. Note that this is a personal opinion and not a function of my working for IBM and being required to use OS/2 everyday (I don't like that requirement either). It is a function of my using OS/2 since the 1.0 days. It's interesting to note that IBM is moving OS/2 from the general OS area to specialized applications... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0