At 05:24 PM 10/19/2001 -0400, someone wrote:
Retribution will satisfy our need for justice, but it won't make us safer from terrorism.
The terrorists have told us why they attacked America. There are three reasons. Hint: it's not because we're wealthy and good.
If you read the CP archives a bit you'll see I am not clueless in this regard (e.g., the "America need therapy" thread) I fear the maxim "Pride goeth before the fall" may well be nailed to our country's headstone.
We have failed to heed George Washington's advice to avoid entangling foreign alliances. We will only be safer if we heed his advice.
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what the long term consequences will be, globalization as its now practiced has is some ways behaved similarly to welfare state income redistribution, creating dependencies, poverty and resentment.
Thanks for the link to the funny song, though.
Da nada
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me. You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created. -Declan
At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected. I've read the reports of the many low wage sweat shop jobs, mainly performed by young women, in these countries and that their alternative is worse. In a way one could portray their situations as dismal but not dire, sort of along the on-screen comments of Arthur to the prostitute is dinning with "... so you might say you're having a relatively good time?" In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese). The long-term effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.
Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by globalization will find it has been in their best interests. steve
On Saturday, October 20, 2001, at 01:17 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected. I've read the reports of the many low wage sweat shop jobs, mainly performed by young women, in these countries and that their alternative is worse. In a way one could portray their situations as dismal but not dire, sort of along the on-screen comments of Arthur to the prostitute is dinning with "... so you might say you're having a relatively good time?"
In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese). The long-term effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
Talking about "low wage sweat shop jobs" indicates profound confusion on your part. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the way it is. Henry Hazlitt wrote a good book on basic economics. I doubt I can convince you in a few paragraphs, but consider some miscellaneous points, which are all closely related: * "Low wage" compared to _what_? * Comparing the wages to U.S. wages is not meaningful, for many reasons. * To those getting paid $300 an hour, most jobs in the U.S. are "low wage sweat shops." Perhaps the U.N. can attempt to force U.S. average wages to be raised? * If the labor is being "exploited" by being paid "too little," this is an excellent opportunity for an efficient producer to enter the market and offer more. Henry Ford did this with car production early in the 20th century, Intel is doing it now with factories in Malaysia, Costa Rica, and mainlaind China. More "globalization" explotin' da peeples, I guess. --Tim May "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
Talking about "low wage sweat shop jobs" indicates profound confusion on your part.
Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the way it is. Henry Hazlitt wrote a good book on basic economics.
I doubt I can convince you in a few paragraphs, but consider some miscellaneous points, which are all closely related:
* "Low wage" compared to _what_?
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves. The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers, and that they are specifically managed to keep the workers from exploiting economic, social, and educational resources. Why? Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
* Comparing the wages to U.S. wages is not meaningful, for many reasons.
It isn't the wages, it's the human condition that is comparable. The econimics are only a single measure of a multi-variant situation.
* To those getting paid $300 an hour, most jobs in the U.S. are "low wage sweat shops." Perhaps the U.N. can attempt to force U.S. average wages to be raised?
Very(!) few people get $300/hr. However, the vast majority of peoples in N. America and Europe manage to have a substantialy higher quality of life style than in S. America, Africa, and the Middle/Far East. Why? Because they lack a fundamental belief, let alone respect for, human beings. They are seen as nothing more than another resource to be used for ones own advancement (and this implies that those used are denied their opportunities).
* If the labor is being "exploited" by being paid "too little," this is an excellent opportunity for an efficient producer to enter the market and offer more. Henry Ford did this with car production early in the 20th century, Intel is doing it now with factories in Malaysia, Costa Rica, and mainlaind China. More "globalization" explotin' da peeples, I guess.
If the market were open, it isn't. The reality is that the market is controlled in such a way as to keep the status quo. This ensures the political, social, and economics supremacy of a small minority at the expense of the many.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler
This bozo can't tell the difference between a 'socialism' (which is what he's describing) and a 'dictatorship'. Sounds more like he's begging the question. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote:
The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers...
Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead of taking a job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the opportunities were better. Maybe they aren't as smart as Jimbo and need to be told they are being exploited. :'D S a n d y
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote:
The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers...
Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead of taking a job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the opportunities were better. Maybe they aren't as smart as Jimbo and need to be told they are being exploited. :'D
Because there isn't any other jobs to be had. They take what they can get. The fact (that escapes the CACL crowd among others) is that their choices are being manipulated and aren't free. Now you can blaim that on 'big business' or 'government' or whatever convenient fantasy you like. The final irrevocable fact is that PEOPLE DO IT TO PEOPLE. The 'how' isn't the real issue. CACL handwaving that its the 'government' is nothing more than spin doctor bullshit in their attempt to be 'the man'. Why else would they on one hand blaim the 'government' and then turn around and blaim the 'individuals'. It's odd they call 'the people' sheep while at the same time stating that they are the best ones (ie do away with government, go free market) to make their own decisions. Hypocrisy, until you realize they just want to be the one to do the exploiting. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't blaim [sic] the government; I blame the economic system. Free markets are good; any form of collectivism is bad. In mixed economies, the freer the better. QED. No amount of Inchoate hand waving alters that basic economic reality. Sounds like Jimbo is in need of remedial reading, spelling AND economics courses. S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: 20 October, 2001 16:07 To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: Retribution not enough
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote:
The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers...
Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead of taking a job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the opportunities were better. Maybe they aren't as smart as Jimbo and need to be told they are being exploited. :'D
Because there isn't any other jobs to be had. They take what they can get.
The fact (that escapes the CACL crowd among others) is that their choices are being manipulated and aren't free. Now you can blaim that on 'big business' or 'government' or whatever convenient fantasy you like.
The final irrevocable fact is that PEOPLE DO IT TO PEOPLE. The 'how' isn't the real issue. CACL handwaving that its the 'government' is nothing more than spin doctor bullshit in their attempt to be 'the man'. Why else would they on one hand blaim the 'government' and then turn around and blaim the 'individuals'. It's odd they call 'the people' sheep while at the same time stating that they are the best ones (ie do away with government, go free market) to make their own decisions. Hypocrisy, until you realize they just want to be the one to do the exploiting.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke (1784)
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- On 20 Oct 2001, at 16:31, Jim Choate wrote:
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves. The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers, and that they are specifically managed to keep the workers from exploiting economic, social, and educational resources. Why? Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
Commie bullshit. They are not poor because western capitalists are hiring them. They are poor because western capitalists are prevented from hiring them. Closing down the "sweatshops" makes third world people poorer, not richer. The poorest asian countries are those that tightly controlled their economies and excluded foreign enterprises, notably India, Vietnam, Nepal, and Burma. The richest are those places that a few decades ago were supposedly being oppressed for sweatshop labor by the evil capitalists -- Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan. Today the "sweatshops" are primarily in markedly less capitalist places, notably Vietnam. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VC6rCCa/8NlTc4yknaikPeX+v1K5OpxSroJGyxsx 48B4dg+MuWTijUu6JPzC3WioXT40voLmzsMqP/Clh
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 20 Oct 2001, at 16:31, Jim Choate wrote:
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves. The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers, and that they are specifically managed to keep the workers from exploiting economic, social, and educational resources. Why? Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
Commie bullshit.
Their rational is more motivated by their own economic growth than the community, so 'commie' would hardly describe their viewpoint. Unrestrained economic masturbation might fit... -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday, October 21, 2001, at 09:03 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 20 Oct 2001, at 16:31, Jim Choate wrote:
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves. The reality is that these sweatshops do exist, that they do exploit the workers, and that they are specifically managed to keep the workers from exploiting economic, social, and educational resources. Why? Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
Commie bullshit.
They are not poor because western capitalists are hiring them. They are poor because western capitalists are prevented from hiring them.
Closing down the "sweatshops" makes third world people poorer, not richer. The poorest asian countries are those that tightly controlled their economies and excluded foreign enterprises, notably India, Vietnam, Nepal, and Burma.
We should "close down" the horrible sweatshops in Asia, India, South America, and other hellholes. (Africa is not counted because they are below sweat shop standards.) We will then see what 2.6 billion people have to eat. Things will be less crowded in Asia and South America, that's for sure. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
We should "close down" the horrible sweatshops in Asia, India, South America, and other hellholes. (Africa is not counted because they are below sweat shop standards.)
Nonsense. What we should do is bring them under rule of law and ensure that their efforts are rewarded with an equitable share of the profits their efforts created. The very basis of free market economies, one is rewarded FAIRLY for their efforts. The real question, one that is probably unanswerable, is who gets to decide what is 'fair'. Not only is there no 'fair' way to decide, but there's no one universal definition of 'fair'. So, whatever system we put in place must be based on relative methodologies and measures. The next question is who gets to decide those, followed by who gets to exercise them. So, we need a system that is equitable (with respect to access), representative (in the sense of everyone has a say in it), and limited (in that some behaviours are outside the bounds of regulation - speech, personal possession of a firearm). C-A-C-L doesn't qualify on several points. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Inchoate gets it wrong again. This is where that remedial reading course would come in handy. He wrote:
The very basis of free market economies, one is rewarded FAIRLY for their efforts.
No, quite clearly the basis of free market economies is FREEDOM. That's why they're called "FREE market economies" (not "FAIR market economies.") (Comprehension test for Jimbo: Is oral sex, sex?) S a n d y
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Inchoate gets it wrong again. This is where that remedial reading course would come in handy.
He wrote:
The very basis of free market economies, one is rewarded FAIRLY for their efforts.
No, quite clearly the basis of free market economies is FREEDOM. That's why they're called "FREE market economies" (not "FAIR market economies.")
And they can be 'free' ONLY if all parties act fairly. A player in a game most certainly does NOT have a 'free' choice if one or more players are cheating. The bottom line, a choice can only be called 'free' if it is unconstrained. That means that the party making it not only is unconstrained but is informed of all(!) potential choices and outcomes. Unfortunately the world isn't that clear, so we get constrained choices. The question then becomes are they 'internal' or 'external' constraints. If they are external then they are not 'fair' and the choices made under those constraints can't be called 'free' under any rational definition of 'free' or 'rational'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
The real question, one that is probably unanswerable, is who gets to decide what is 'fair'. Not only is there no 'fair' way to decide, but there's no one universal definition of 'fair'.
Elementary - fair is whatever the parties in interest agree to. Period. I don't know about Central or South America, but nobody has to send out armed goons to recruit people to work in offshore plants here in the Philippines. Marc de Piolenc Iligan
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Elementary - fair is whatever the parties in interest agree to. Period.
'agree' is synonymous with 'free' in this case. All you're doing is playing word games and hand waving. What does it mean to 'agree'? Is an agreement that one can backout of with no consequences the same as an agreement where they break your leg if you don't? Are those agreements the same? No. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Elementary - fair is whatever the parties in interest agree to. Period.
'agree' is synonymous with 'free' in this case. All you're doing is playing word games and hand waving.
What does it mean to 'agree'?
You are the only one here who seems to have a problem with the meaning of that word. Marc de Piolenc
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Elementary - fair is whatever the parties in interest agree to. Period.
'agree' is synonymous with 'free' in this case. All you're doing is playing word games and hand waving.
What does it mean to 'agree'?
You are the only one here who seems to have a problem with the meaning of that word.
Hardly. I just happen to be the Mongoose in a pit of snakes, so it should surprise nobody (especially the snakes) if they all hiss. The bottem line is you say 'fair' is whatever the two parties 'agree' to. All you've done is shift the focus from 'fair' to 'agree'. And that shifts the focus of the question as well. What does it mean to 'agree'. And to answer another question 'is' means 'equivalent to' or 'identical with' depending on context. Both acceptable here. This is especially enlightening coming from a group (CACL, not Cypherpunks per se) who claim that 'free markets' are the epitome of utopian strategies (and 'free' most definitely has a significant and particular meaning in this context - and it doesn't support yorur view). You're only proving my point. Thank you. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
What does it mean to 'agree'?
or, more to the point, what does "is" mean? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:35:21AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
that their efforts are rewarded with an equitable share of the profits their efforts created. The very basis of free market economies, one is
It's remarkable to see such contradictory views side-by-side and called "free market economics." Ah, Choatian beliefs are a many- splendored thing. -Declan
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 12:35:21AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
that their efforts are rewarded with an equitable share of the profits their efforts created. The very basis of free market economies, one is
It's remarkable to see such contradictory views side-by-side and called "free market economics." Ah, Choatian beliefs are a many- splendored thing.
They're not contradictory because the market they exist in now isn't 'free'. Just another example of your poor reasoning. Telling somebody 'quite taking advantage of that person' is not the same thing as 'give that that or else'. What is contradictory is to say one believes in a 'free market' and then actively support a non-free market by such commentary as you provide above. "If they don't like it, they can leave."; never mind they can't leave. Very convenient that. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
* "Low wage" compared to _what_?
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves.
Reasonable? Well, compared to dying of malnutrition, anything is "reasonable". After that, it's mostly a matter of letting economic growth do its deed.
Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
OTOH, dismal civil rights conditions make a country a hostile, high risk environment to investment capital. That gives a reasonable incentive to the government/dictator to do something about those rights violations. A similar argument holds for credit ratings and the subsequent cost of foreign loaning.
If the market were open, it isn't. The reality is that the market is controlled in such a way as to keep the status quo. This ensures the political, social, and economics supremacy of a small minority at the expense of the many.
And guess what? Part of globalization is getting the fundamental human rights and civil liberties infrastructure in place in these countries.
This bozo can't tell the difference between a 'socialism' (which is what he's describing) and a 'dictatorship'. Sounds more like he's begging the question.
Sure, they're separate. That by no means implies that socialism is stable or that it could be kept from degenerating into a dictatorship. Cf. Hayek. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
* "Low wage" compared to _what_?
What it takes to have reasonable living standards and sufficient resources to help ones children do better than themselves.
Reasonable? Well, compared to dying of malnutrition, anything is "reasonable". After that, it's mostly a matter of letting economic growth do its deed.
Then you agree that their conditions aren't reasonable. As to 'economic growth', that implies you have either the time or the place to look for alternatives. These are not universal, especially in a market where some parties act with intent to restrain other parties.
Because if the producers allow this behaviour they put themselves out of business.
OTOH, dismal civil rights conditions make a country a hostile, high risk environment to investment capital.
Read the first two para's of the DoI as to why this isn't as big an issue as you might think, provided you get out early enough.
That gives a reasonable incentive to the government/dictator to do something about those rights violations.
Yeah, like keeping them around just one more year so we can put just that much more in the treasury. Historically dictators and such have not(!) acted to improve their citizens lot in life, if the citizens get any improvement it's because the powers that be recognize the situation and are hoping to stabilize it (so that their income streams are stabalized). They're not doing it for the people, it's self-preservation.
If the market were open, it isn't. The reality is that the market is controlled in such a way as to keep the status quo. This ensures the political, social, and economics supremacy of a small minority at the expense of the many.
And guess what? Part of globalization is getting the fundamental human rights and civil liberties infrastructure in place in these countries.
No it isn't. It's about getting the fundamental government-corporate rights and civil liberties infrastructure in place in these countries. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's wrong with lne.com -- majordomo responds to info cypherpunks, but nothing's coming thru since last night, and nothing on inet.com either except from toad and ssz? -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Lne.com, at least based on what I saw, sent no outgoing messages from about 7 pm ET yesterday until 12 noon today. -Declan On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:38:29AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
So what's wrong with lne.com -- majordomo responds to info cypherpunks, but nothing's coming thru since last night, and nothing on inet.com either except from toad and ssz?
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:17:54PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Lne.com, at least based on what I saw, sent no outgoing messages from about 7 pm ET yesterday until 12 noon today.
We had a sendmail config error, and our network feed had a problem with some hardware. Eric
At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected.
So? Everyone *everywhere* is 'affected' by everyone elses' decisions. Everything you consume or make affects the global supply:demand and therefore price.
In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese). The long-term effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
The effects of unfree localized trade are well known: regular folks see higher prices. Even if trade is global but unfree, they see artificial tariffs. To say nothing of the peasant who can't *choose* a better job in a factory because of unfree trade.
You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.
Additionally, free trade leads to (purely voluntary, emergent) optimization. (If I can make X or Y, but you can make X but not Y cheaper, I'll make Y and you make X.) No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job. No one forces industrial folks to seek service jobs. Its economics and psychology.
Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by globalization will find it has been in their best interests.
Guess what: in a free society, no one is in charge of optimizing happiness. Well, each individual is responsible for their own. Since others can't tell what makes each individual happy, this is again optimal. \begin{asbestos} In a centrally-ruled (statist) society some elites decide what *should* make *others* happy. And forces everyone to pay for it. Not only doomed in reality, but immoral. \end{}
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, David Honig wrote:
\begin{asbestos} In a centrally-ruled (statist) society some elites decide what *should* make *others* happy. And forces everyone to pay for it. Not only doomed in reality, but immoral. \end{}
This isn't 'government' (statist or otherwise), it's human psychology. The bottom line is there is always some segement of any(!) human population that thinks their 'better', 'smarter', etc. And they will act, irrespective of the form of social structure they may be in. This is the fundamental failure of all CACL theory. It draws a false distinction between 'government' and 'people'. It's a simple failure of logic, imagination, and maturity. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
David Honig wrote:
No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
In general, no. But it happens now and again. Governments certainly did in (say) the old Soviet Union (until they changed tactic and starting forcing them out of the city again). And in wartime almost everybody tries it. Some bits of the British Empire used "hut taxes" which were never intended to raise significant revenue to force self-sufficient farmers into paid employment. (Also of course they hit harder on African families, used to living in small compounds of separate huts each equivalent to a room in a European house) There have been plenty of situations where are worker is not free to choose employment or to leave employment. Everything from outright slavery to various tricks with company stores and debt bondage. And if someone comes along with an army, conquers the country and says "we own the land now, work for us or starve" most people will "choose" not to starve. And if they then bring in pass cards and closed borders and internal passports. most people will be unable to leave. That was true until very recently in many places: the old Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, parts of colonial south-east Asia, and for Indians at least in some parts of Central America. Would you want to bet that it is no longer true anywhere? It's trivial that free trade is better for poor people (usual disclaimer: "on the whole, other things being equal, in the medium term" - it is easy to invent a situation in which some people, in some circumstances, will be worse off permanently, or in which almost everybody is worse of for a while. There are going to be losers as well as winners). But it is not trivial to assume that international fee trade, or free trade between corporations, is always the same as freedom for individuals. There can be "free" trade between slave-holding corporations, like an old Soviet industrial enterprise trading with the West. The bosses might be free, the slaves wouldn't. Where local arrangements confiscate land and property and pass them into the hands of states, or organised criminals, or corporations, or individuals; then someone choosing to work rather than starve is not, exactly, free. When the state makes the laws, and the state is controlled by those who are already powerful, then the laws may be written to suit the confiscators, and confiscation may be easily disguised by legality. That can be as true for a plantation in a "capitalist" country as for a collective farm in a "communist" one. Ken
At 12:21 PM 10/22/01 +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
David Honig wrote:
No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
In general, no. But it happens now and again.
When someone initiates force, they have "earned" a physical reaction. ...
There have been plenty of situations where are worker is not free to choose employment or to leave employment. Everything from outright slavery to various tricks with company stores and debt bondage.
So? That people are coerced shows only that they value coerced life more than resistance at that point. This is how the coercers exist.
And if someone comes along with an army, conquers the country and says "we own the land now, work for us or starve" most people will "choose" not to starve.
That is called losing a war. Historically, males were killed, children and women enslaved. It has nothing to do with morality, only with what the winners can get way with. You're mistaking the long and continuing history of force-based atrocities with morality. I still maintain: the transition from an dispersed agricultural to urban 'civilization' does not need central control or forceful coercion. [And this bums me out --I loathe cities.] Similarly the transition to 'service' economy, as other 'civilizations' take over industrial production because they can do so more efficiently ("cheaper"), and intercivilization trade is somewhat free, is *natural*. ----- "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are _not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- LNS
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
David Honig wrote:
No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
In general, no.
Bull, the people who don't purchase his goods at a price point he can sustain himself do in fact force him into other lines of work. 'Supply and demand' and 'Market force' are synonymous. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 05:48 PM 10/23/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Ken Brown wrote:
David Honig wrote:
No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
In general, no.
Bull, the people who don't purchase his goods at a price point he can sustain himself do in fact force him into other lines of work. 'Supply and demand' and 'Market force' are synonymous.
As the universe said to Thoreau's man, "So?" Adapt or die.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, David Honig wrote:
As the universe said to Thoreau's man, "So?"
Adapt or die.
Exactly, but pitching 'man against man' as synonymous as 'universe against man' is a disservice. They're not the same thing. One is a 'free market' and the other is the opposite. Of course this cuts right to the primary failing of all C-A-C-L philosophy. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David Honig wrote:
No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
On 22 Oct 2001, at 12:21, Ken Brown wrote:
In general, no. But it happens now and again. Governments certainly did in (say) the old Soviet Union
I do not think so. Lenin surrounded the cities to keep people and food from going in and out. This was the first step in a program to reintroduce serfdom, binding the peasant to the land. Lenin, and later Stalin, were waging war on the countryside to extort food without supplying goods. This produced a flight from the countryside, that they immediately met with terror. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DNPY/HlstuOZEMVRUtY8Fzx8ICjFn2nqiYfet8LB 4yqj5vJH5lSGh0fTn9MhNe7LOs+Lq9d6wLTmJ8/Ve
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 22 Oct 2001, at 12:21, Ken Brown wrote:
In general, no. But it happens now and again. Governments certainly did in (say) the old Soviet Union
I do not think so.
Lenin surrounded the cities to keep people and food from going in and out. This was the first step in a program to reintroduce serfdom, binding the peasant to the land.
Lenin, and later Stalin, were waging war on the countryside to extort food without supplying goods. This produced a flight from the countryside, that they immediately met with terror.
Of course. I was just pointing out that some of the time, in some places, they conscripted labour into industry. A lot of the time they did various other things. In general they both wanted to restrict movement and (later) to slowly reduce the proportion of people working on the land. And like most other countries they had industrial conscription during the war. I wasn't really trying to make a point about the Soviet Union, just the general point that a very large number of people don't get to make a choice about where they live or how they work. Most people, in practice, not being prepared, or able, to risk execution, or starve, or even drop whatever they have and run for the border - that is if we'll let them over the border. All drifting very off-topic for cypherpunks.
I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages? To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* -- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in a response. -Declan * = To the extent that there are any cypherpunk philosophies, of course. At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected. I've read the reports of the many low wage sweat shop jobs, mainly performed by young women, in these countries and that their alternative is worse. In a way one could portray their situations as dismal but not dire, sort of along the on-screen comments of Arthur to the prostitute is dinning with "... so you might say you're having a relatively good time?"
In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese). The long-term effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.
Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by globalization will find it has been in their best interests.
At 10:02 PM 10/21/2001 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?
Actually its not the wages, which may quite attractive for these workers and their skills, but the intimidation and occasional violence used to recruit and maintain employees, keep them from organizing and the government support or blind eyes which take me aback. It reminded me of the tyranny of the coal mining companies in West Virginia circa 1880's.
To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* -- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in a response.
I've actually spoken to a few Central American women who worked in these factories and the conversations left an indelible memory. I'm not ready to abandon my support of laissez-faire capitalism or globalism. Perhaps these painful personal experiences are all for the best in the long term, I certainly don't have a better solution to improving their lot, but it has caused me to think about the price some pay. steve
On Sunday, October 21, 2001, at 08:27 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:02 PM 10/21/2001 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?
Actually its not the wages, which may quite attractive for these workers and their skills, but the intimidation and occasional violence used to recruit and maintain employees, keep them from organizing and the government support or blind eyes which take me aback. It reminded me of the tyranny of the coal mining companies in West Virginia circa 1880's.
"Any employee of our Company is free to "organize." That day wlll be his last day. Good luck, and fuck you!" Free people are free to fire those who form communal organizations. Anyone who disagrees with this point has earned killing. Choose wisely, Steve Schear. --Tim May --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
"Any employee of our Company is free to "organize." That day wlll be his last day. Good luck, and fuck you!"
Free people are free to fire those who form communal organizations. Anyone who disagrees with this point has earned killing.
No, they haven't. A disagreement of view is never in and of itself justification for any physical act. Why should you mind if these individual of a like mind decide they want to re-negotiate their employment contract? Isn't that the 'free' in 'free market'? The basis of free market economics is a give and take. The point being that all parties are reasonably happy because they're reasonably certain they got a fair and equitable deal. The fact the workers don't feel that way is sufficient justification, in economic terms at least, for their actions. The reality is that as much as some skin flint might like to keep paying 1920's salaries in 1970, the reality of the market doesn't support those sorts of strategies. If the employer keeps too hard a line nobody will work for him. If in fact the company can increase productivity, lower costs, and increase profit why shouldn't the workers reap some of that benefit. They are in reality as much a part of the company, and fitting a share in the profits, as the 'board of diretors' or the 'investors'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
From Tim, Killer Cypherpunk, in a couple of posts about a half-hour apart:
:Free people are free to fire those who form communal organizations. :Anyone who disagrees with this point has earned killing. [and] :Fucking creep. Where's that sniper rifle, Bob? ----------------- Someone told me that, deep down, Tim is really a sensitive kinda guy. <giggle> .. Blanc
From Tim, Killer Cypherpunk, in a couple of posts about a half-hour apart:
Free people are free to fire those who form communal organizations. Anyone who disagrees with this point has earned killing.
.and.
Fucking creep. Where's that sniper rifle, Bob? ----------------- Someone told me that, deep down, Tim is really a sensitive kinda guy. <giggle>
.. Blanc
Any man who keeps a cat is either sensitive. Or gay. Or both. Tim keeps two. Date: 2000/10/23 ba.mountain-folk I have two cats. Raised from kittenhood. They are delightful...no scratching, no tearing up of furniture, a joy to be around. Both are males, both were fixed (neutered) at the usual age. [..]] Have you considered having him be mainly an outdoor cat? Just a little bit of food and medical care, and maybe a warm place to sleep, should be enough. Many people with "outdoor cats" let them in at night and put them out in the morning. This minimizes the "tearing up while owners are out" effect. -- Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and proff@iq.org |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
Cypherpunks generously accommodates a lot of viewpoints and is not limited to laissez-faire capitalism, nor, as far as the archives show, any particular political/social/economic world view other than a polite, wordy, dissent against authority. It is a forum where a diverse range of possibilities are expressed, exhorted, denied, ridiculed, misrepresented, lied about, screamed murder in favor of, plonked, anonymized, and bone-headededly edventured. Narcissism happily rules, not laissez-faire, a minor variation. Now and then a cpunk ever so slightly hints that a tiny change of mind, or a thoughtful consideration of another viewpoint, are in the offing. But that openmindedness is rare, not only on cpunks, which after all is not terribly different from reality in which denial of other realities is exactly what pleasures. With respect for Tim's right to say what he likes, I doubt anybody here needs killing, except, in the rhetorical reality of this poly-lingual forum. Shouting about killing, well, my experience is that stone cold killers never tell you what they are going to do to you. The silent ones are scary, not the shakespeares who generously entertain, educate, edventure with imaginary tales of what if.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* -- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in a response.
But they are not fully voluntary. The reality is that people must eat and provide for themselves or die. That is what those people are doing. If they had a realistic opportunity to change to a 8-5 job they would take it. The character of 'persistance' of this problem alone damns the 'it's their own fault' argument. These people have jobs that suck. The thesis is that they should take higher paying jobs. Assuming there are such jobs, why aren't they taking them? Now, if the jobs aren't there, why not? Either line of reasoning leads to one inescapable conslusion, there is at least one factor that is not being accounted for in your model. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Inchoate is remedial logic course fodder:
But they are not fully voluntary. The reality is that people must eat and provide for themselves or die. That is what those people are doing.
By this same Inchoate "logic," no one is free because, by our nature, we cannot fly like a bird. Political freedom means the opportunity to make choices within the context of our circumstances. Yeah, the "sweatshop" workers' choices are lousy, but they have, in fact, made their choice to improve their lives by working in the "sweatshops" as opposed to starving on their own retched little plots of land. Good for them. S a n d y
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Yeah, the "sweatshop" workers' choices are lousy, but they have, in fact, made their choice to improve their lives by working in the "sweatshops" as opposed to starving on their own retched little plots of land. Good for them.
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete. We've been thru this discussion before. All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why they should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land." Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so. The average size farm in the world is only 7 acres, and if you talk to most of those farmers, they would much rather live and work on their little subsistence farms than move into a city and work in a factory. I myself lived for many years on a very small farm and most definitely, as soon as humanly possible, am going back to doing just that. Moving from your own piece of land in the country being you own boss to living in a hovel in the city working as a wageslave in a sweatshop for peanuts is not an improvement by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who spends any time at all researching the conditions of peasant farmers in the 3rd world who leave their land and go to work in sweatshops would never come to the conclusion that they chose to do so. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete. We've been thru this discussion before. All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why they should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land." Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so. The average size farm in the world is only 7 acres, and if you talk to most of those farmers, they would much rather live and work on their little subsistence farms than move into a city and work in a factory.
... Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses. If he _isn't_ self-sufficient, then he does care about the trade going on around him. That's been the case forever, and new trade always disrupts someone who was making his living with the way things were. And if he wants to make use of metal tools, then he'll have to exchange as best he can for them. But, again, he's not self-sufficient, unless he can dig and forge his own metals. Complaining that the world isn't the way it was for Grandpa shouldn't get a sympathetic ear from anyone who uses metals, plastics, or medicine, or who eats fresh produce out of season. [1] Assuming they don't pollute him out of raising his crops or livestock, tax or regulate his farm out of existence. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
Steve Furlong wrote:
Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
What? You're talking nonsense here. Of course they make part of their living selling crops --- what's all the bs about "forging his own metals" etc. Total straw man arguement. The point was that they aren't "starving" for one thing, and, if it were up to them, they'd stay put. Look, I'll try to explain it in terms that perhaps even a city boy like you can understand. You don't have to go to the 3rd world, just go talk to small american family farmers. There are thousands of them out there who simply don't care that they aren't making lots of money -- the important thing is that they can keep their farms and do their own thing. What's wrong with that? You know what destroyed the small family farm in this country? Education -- ag schools and the county extension agent. Funded, for the most part, by large chemical companies. The old story of the country bumpkin getting conned by the city-slicker salesman. Kids went off to ag school, came home and told Dad to do things the "modern" way, factory farming with modern chemicals -- sure, go into debt, buy all those new tractors and fancy equipment and we'll be rich. And then, of course, that little trick the Fed Reserve and the banks pulled back in the 70's with manipulating the economy so that rural land prices went thru the roof, farmers who had been mortgage free for generations got duped into borrowing money on their land to buy that fancy new equipment that the ag schools and extension agents told them they needed, then bingo -- the Fed played some more tricks, land values dropped back down, and a whole lot of farmers lost their land. Is that what you call free-market economics? I call it fascism -- state and industry working in concert to whipsaw the masses and get more control over peoples lives. People who were very free and independant are suddenly wage slaves in the city because they listened to the "experts" from industry and government. And got duped. I know one heck of a lot of people who much prefer living in rural "poverty" to living in a city making big bucks. Although my wife and I have been making a whole lot more money in recent years than we ever thought we would, and live in a big fancy house in the city, we consider it a serious mistake. Money isn't everything. We were one heck of a lot happier when we earned about $4000.00 a year. We will soon rectify that. Why make a bunch money and feed the fascist machine? One of my favorite cartoons was one of Snuffy Smith and his wife --- she says "Pa, the world is passing us by." Snuffy replies, "It sure better!" Damn straight! "Tune in, turn on, and drop out." Now that's real free market economics.
If he _isn't_ self-sufficient, then he does care about the trade going on around him. That's been the case forever, and new trade always disrupts someone who was making his living with the way things were.
And if he wants to make use of metal tools, then he'll have to exchange as best he can for them. But, again, he's not self-sufficient, unless he can dig and forge his own metals. Complaining that the world isn't the way it was for Grandpa shouldn't get a sympathetic ear from anyone who uses metals, plastics, or medicine, or who eats fresh produce out of season.
[1] Assuming they don't pollute him out of raising his crops or livestock, tax or regulate his farm out of existence.
-- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Steve Furlong wrote:
Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
What? You're talking nonsense here. Of course they make part of their living selling crops --- what's all the bs about "forging his own metals" etc. Total straw man arguement.
Not at all. I evidently didn't make my point clearly enough. What follows will attempt to proceed from "second principles", since I don't want to take the time to go from first principles. Since prehistory, the only person who was able to go completely his own way, without having to worry about what anyone else was doing, was the totally self-sufficient man. (Woman, whatever.) If you don't need anything from anyone, you don't need to care if the price changes on the goods or services they want or are selling. (This post is concerned only with mutually agreeable economic dealings. Use of force, whether by government or by other bandits, changes the discussion.) As soon as you start trading, such as for metal tools to replace the wood, stone, and bone you'd have to use otherwise, you have to be able to provide something they want in order to get what you want. If you've been trading an acre's yield of corn for a metal plow, but now your blacksmith is able to get his corn cheaper by efficient trade with someone farther away, you'd better drop your price, do without the plow, or learn to make your own. Proceed with this argument and you can be guaranteed of being able to grow your crops in your own way only if you don't need anything from anyone else, a return to self-sufficiency. The argument doesn't change just because the scale changes. If a ten thousand acre corporate farm is able to produce grain more cheaply than a hundred acre family farm, the family farmers' "rights" have not been trampled just because they can't make their living as they did any longer. They can't compete in the new environment, and they can change their methods, attempt to become self-sufficient, or die. Let me emphasize, I'm still talking about pure free market here. ADM has a very effective lobbying machine, and gets handouts (gasahol) which makes them more economically competitive than they naturally are.
Look, I'll try to explain it in terms that perhaps even a city boy like you can understand.
Watch your assumptions. I've done plenty of farm work, all on family farms, from planting and weeding by hand because the ground was too soft for machines to shoveling cow shit. (And getting stepped on by the malicious animals, but that only adds to the vindictive pleasure of eating beef.) I much prefer computer consulting, thanks, and wouldn't farm again unless my life depended on it. Your theory about the ag schools and county agents and such may be right; I don't know enough to comment on them. SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
Steve Furlong wrote:
Your theory about the ag schools and county agents and such may be right; I don't know enough to comment on them.
The best example I can give is the Amish. They *don't* send their sons to ag school (don't even educate them past 7th grade actually) and don't listen to the extension agents, and make money with small, totally old fashioned, organic farms. No tractors, horses to plow with -- and make enough that when each son gets married, they buy him a farm with cash. They don't do the factory farm trip, don't get look for gov't handouts (which is what *all* the big, agri-biz farms do), and compete very well. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
My father in-law makes some extra dough by converting modern power tools
(Delta table saws, belt sanders, and lathes) to run of a central drive
shaft so the Amish in our area can build furniture. Evidently it's "kosher"
to use a centrally located diesel engine (with a battery to start it even!)
to turn line shafts, belts, and pulleys to transmit power instead of wires.
They even use pre-manufactured drawer guides and other hardware in their
furniture (and air compressor powered sprayers to apply stain and varnish).
Several Amish farms put telephones in their barns for emergency purposes (or
drive to nearby store to use a phone booth to call relatives, etc.).
So much for being "independent".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver"
Steve Furlong wrote:
Your theory about the ag schools and county agents and such may be right; I don't know enough to comment on them.
The best example I can give is the Amish. They *don't* send their sons to ag school (don't even educate them past 7th grade actually) and don't listen to the extension agents, and make money with small, totally old fashioned, organic farms. No tractors, horses to plow with -- and make enough that when each son gets married, they buy him a farm with cash. They don't do the factory farm trip, don't get look for gov't handouts (which is what *all* the big, agri-biz farms do), and compete very well.
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
At 10:24 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
My father in-law makes some extra dough by converting modern power tools (Delta table saws, belt sanders, and lathes) to run of a central drive shaft so the Amish in our area can build furniture. Evidently it's "kosher" to use a centrally located diesel engine (with a battery to start it even!)
He can get a side job pressing elevator buttons on Saturday, when its not kosher to do so. In tech kosher places (e.g., Cedar-Sinai MC) the elevators stop on every floor on Saturday. I don't make this stuff up.
Several Amish farms put telephones in their barns for emergency purposes (or drive to nearby store to use a phone booth to call relatives, etc.).
So much for being "independent".
Do they avail themselves of modern medicine when they exceed what they can do with 19th century methods? [serious question]
Do they avail themselves of modern medicine when they exceed what they can do with 19th century methods? [serious question]
The group that lives in our area will seek treatment, if absolutely necessary I guess I should probably point out that there are many Amish "sects" each with different rules regarding the use of technology. Some believe in using absolutely no "modern" technology (no electricity, use horses instead of tractors, etc.). Some will use "old" tech (seem my earlier message about using line shafts to power machines as long as no electricity is used (yeah, yeah they use electricity to heat the glow plug, go figure). Some will use tractors instead of horses (but the tractors must have steel wheels, rubber tires are a sin) "Liberal" Amish will even drive cars, but they must not have any chrome (they paint it black) and no white wall tires. All and all they are pretty friendly people (always wave when you pass their carriages, etc.). The biggest problem they face (besides attrition from younger family members leaving) is getting their carriages smashed by cars going 60+ mph with stupid drivers who don't realize how slow the carriages are. Of course the government now requires them to have slow moving vehicle signs on the back and recently, despite their objections, battery operated flashing amber lights. -Neil
Neil Johnson wrote:
Some will use "old" tech (seem my earlier message about using line shafts to power machines as long as no electricity is used (yeah, yeah they use electricity to heat the glow plug, go figure).
Again, the idea is to be disconnected from any central source by which you can be controlled, manipulated, etc. An excellent premise, BTW. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
David Honig wrote:
At 10:24 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Neil Johnson wrote:
My father in-law makes some extra dough by converting modern power tools (Delta table saws, belt sanders, and lathes) to run of a central drive shaft so the Amish in our area can build furniture. Evidently it's "kosher" to use a centrally located diesel engine (with a battery to start it even!)
Their point is be disconnected from any central control, for one thing. It's independance, not a total rejection of modern ways. They'll ride in cars, for instance, just not, for the most part, own them. And my main point was that they do very well financially, where most other small family farms are going under.
He can get a side job pressing elevator buttons on Saturday, when its not kosher to do so. In tech kosher places (e.g., Cedar-Sinai MC) the elevators stop on every floor on Saturday. I don't make this stuff up.
Several Amish farms put telephones in their barns for emergency purposes (or drive to nearby store to use a phone booth to call relatives, etc.).
So much for being "independent".
Well, what's wrong with that? If you have a phone line in your house, it makes it easy to bug you, doesn't it. I lived without a phone for about 18 years, it's not difficult. At one point, in fact, the phone company, without asking, ran a buried phone line to the quite rural house we lived in, knocked on the door and asked if they could install a phone inside. I said no, and, as soon as they left, dug up the phone line in a dozen places along the route, cutting chunks out of it. No paranoia here. 8-)
Do they avail themselves of modern medicine when they exceed what they can do with 19th century methods? [serious question]
Yes, generally, but I'm not sure about vaccinations. Can't remember. At one point we lived around a lot of Amish, really wanted to join up with them, but they weren't taking converts. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Hmm, now that is bizarre. Anybody have any idea why Netscape does that sometimes? And not others? It looks fine when I hit the send button -- then gets trashed. I've got line space set at 72, it's supposed to go text only, no html, but it's got the same trashed formatting in the copy that goes to Sent. And it seems to be only the Mac version of NS that does this, not the linux version. If it did it all the time it would be understandable. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Now if only some handy, self-effacing volunteer would come along and repost your ill-formatted message wrapped at 72 columns, perhaps with a severe admonition about the proper forms of netiquette, my day would be complete. -Declan On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:38:41PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Hmm, now that is bizarre. Anybody have any idea why Netscape does that sometimes? And not others? It looks fine when I hit the send button -- then gets trashed. I've got line space set at 72, it's supposed to go text only, no html, but it's got the same trashed formatting in the copy that goes to Sent. And it seems to be only the Mac version of NS that does this, not the linux version. If it did it all the time it would be understandable.
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 05:39:08PM -0400, Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) wrote:
Now if only some handy, self-effacing volunteer would come along and repost your ill-formatted message wrapped at 72 columns, perhaps with a severe admonition about the proper forms of netiquette, my day would be complete.
That's wishful thinking, Declan. After, all, this is a capatilist
society. What's in it for me? [1]
| Steve Furlong wrote:
|
| > Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by
| > the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a
| > neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
|
| What? You're talking nonsense here. Of course they make part of their
| living selling crops --- what's all the bs about "forging his own
| metals" etc. Total straw man arguement. The point was that they aren't
| "starving" for one thing, and, if it were up to them, they'd stay put.
|
| Look, I'll try to explain it in terms that perhaps even a city boy like
| you can understand. You don't have to go to the 3rd world, just go talk
| to small american family farmers. There are thousands of them out there
| who simply don't care that they aren't making lots of money -- the
| important thing is that they can keep their farms and do their own
| thing. What's wrong with that?
|
| You know what destroyed the small family farm in this country? Education
| -- ag schools and the county extension agent. Funded, for the most part,
| by large chemical companies. The old story of the country bumpkin
| getting conned by the city-slicker salesman. Kids went off to ag school,
| came home and told Dad to do things the "modern" way, factory farming
| with modern chemicals -- sure, go into debt, buy all those new tractors
| and fancy equipment and we'll be rich.
|
| And then, of course, that little trick the Fed Reserve and the banks
| pulled back in the 70's with manipulating the economy so that rural land
| prices went thru the roof, farmers who had been mortgage free for
| generations got duped into borrowing money on their land to buy that
| fancy new equipment that the ag schools and extension agents told them
| they needed, then bingo -- the Fed played some more tricks, land values
| dropped back down, and a whole lot of farmers lost their land.
|
| Is that what you call free-market economics? I call it fascism -- state
| and industry working in concert to whipsaw the masses and get more
| control over peoples lives. People who were very free and independant
| are suddenly wage slaves in the city because they listened to the
| "experts" from industry and government. And got duped.
|
| I know one heck of a lot of people who much prefer living in rural
| "poverty" to living in a city making big bucks. Although my wife and I
| have been making a whole lot more money in recent years than we ever
| thought we would, and live in a big fancy house in the city, we consider
| it a serious mistake. Money isn't everything. We were one heck of a lot
| happier when we earned about $4000.00 a year. We will soon rectify
| that. Why make a bunch money and feed the fascist machine?
|
| One of my favorite cartoons was one of Snuffy Smith and his wife --- she
| says "Pa, the world is passing us by." Snuffy replies, "It sure better!"
| Damn straight!
|
| "Tune in, turn on, and drop out." Now that's real free market economics.
|
| >
| >
| > If he _isn't_ self-sufficient, then he does care about the trade going
| > on around him. That's been the case forever, and new trade always
| > disrupts someone who was making his living with the way things were.
| >
| > And if he wants to make use of metal tools, then he'll have to exchange
| > as best he can for them. But, again, he's not self-sufficient, unless he
| > can dig and forge his own metals. Complaining that the world isn't the
| > way it was for Grandpa shouldn't get a sympathetic ear from anyone who
| > uses metals, plastics, or medicine, or who eats fresh produce out of
| > season.
| >
| > [1] Assuming they don't pollute him out of raising his crops or
| > livestock, tax or regulate his farm out of existence.
| >
| > --
| > Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel
| > 617-670-3793
| >
| > "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly
| > while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
|
| --
| Harmon Seaver, MLIS
| CyberShamanix
| Work 920-203-9633
| Home 920-233-5820
| hseaver@cybershamanix.com
| http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
----------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Gratuitous abuse from Tim May, of course. Back to the cornfield.
--
Karsten M. Self
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 01:38 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Hmm, now that is bizarre. Anybody have any idea why Netscape does that sometimes? And not others? It looks fine when I hit the send button
Does _what_? It would help if you gave an example of what you're talking about.
-- then gets trashed. I've got line space set at 72, it's supposed to go text only, no html, but it's got the same trashed formatting in the copy that goes to Sent. And it seems to be only the Mac version of NS that does this, not the linux version.
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is. IE 5.1 is pretty good on OS X, as is OmniWeb. --Tim May "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." --Robert A. Heinlein
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
IE 5.1 is pretty good on OS X, as is OmniWeb.
Try Opera: Fast, free if you don't mind banners (and for a small license fee, no banners at all), and *totally* customizable (right down to custom built binaries!). Available for Micro$loth, Beos, Linux, Slowlaris, OS/2, QNX - just about everything except MVS and BSD :-( http://www.opera.com -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org * Disclaimer: I have absolutely no relation to these guys in any way. *
On Mon, Oct 22, at 09:07PM, measl@mfn.org wrote: | Try Opera: Fast, free if you don't mind banners (and for a small license | fee, no banners at all), and *totally* customizable (right down to custom | built binaries!). | | Available for Micro$loth, Beos, Linux, Slowlaris, OS/2, QNX - just about | everything except MVS and BSD :-( It is in the FreeBSD ports and works wonderfully well under FreeBSD, no clue about Net or Open. | * Disclaimer: I have absolutely no relation to these guys in any way. * ditto -- Churchill, Winston Leonard Spencer --On the eve of Britain's entry into World War II: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
On 22 Oct 2001, at 18:52, Tim May wrote:
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
There never was a netscape 5, they jumped from 4.5 to 6. George
IE 5.1 is pretty good on OS X, as is OmniWeb.
--Tim May "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." --Robert A. Heinlein
georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 22 Oct 2001, at 18:52, Tim May wrote:
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
There never was a netscape 5, they jumped from 4.5 to 6.
I'm using 4.8 -- tried 6, it sux. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
At 12:52 AM 10/23/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 22 Oct 2001, at 18:52, Tim May wrote:
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
There never was a netscape 5, they jumped from 4.5 to 6.
I'm using 4.8 -- tried 6, it sux.
6.0 ranged from bad, if you had enough RAM, to mind-bogglingly amazingly bad if you ran on Win98 with 24MB RAM. It was way beyond atrocious - just trying to load the startup page (set to "about://") took tens of minutes of little pieces dribbling onto the screen. 6.1, on the other hand, seems to work tolerably well, at least on my 64MB RAM machine. I normally use Mozilla (though I'm finding that 0.9.5 crashes a bit more than 0.9.4.) The one main gripe I've had about Mozilla has been that a number of plug-ins either don't work at all or have installers that get confused if your machine has both a Netscape 6.x and a Mozilla on it, and tends not to install itself where the Mozilla can find it. I use IE for pages that have too much broken Javascript to survive on Mozilla, or for pages that have plugins that my Mozilla doesn't support.
on Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:13:49AM -0700, Bill Stewart (bill.stewart@pobox.com) wrote:
At 12:52 AM 10/23/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 22 Oct 2001, at 18:52, Tim May wrote:
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
There never was a netscape 5, they jumped from 4.5 to 6.
I'm using 4.8 -- tried 6, it sux.
6.0 ranged from bad, if you had enough RAM, to mind-bogglingly amazingly bad if you ran on Win98 with 24MB RAM.
For the GNU/Linux and free 'Nix users in the crowd, I've got my own set
of reviews (about four months stale, update kinda in progress) at
http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html
My personal graphical pick: Galeon. Konqeror and Mozilla aren't too
far behind. w3m and lynx are great for quick text browsing. Dillo's a
blazingly fast, lightweight graphical browser, if you don't mind the odd
rough edge (no cookies, frames, animated gifs, cut'n'paste,
Java/Javascript -- most of which is IMVA a Good Thing(tm)). Other
clients reviewed as well. Netscape? It sucks, blows, bites, and loses.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self
Tim May wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 01:38 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Hmm, now that is bizarre. Anybody have any idea why Netscape does that sometimes? And not others? It looks fine when I hit the send button
Does _what_?
It would help if you gave an example of what you're talking about.
The message I just sent moments before -- the formatting was trashed, although the ones before that were fine -- totally random weirdness.
You must be the only remaining user of NS (for either the Mac or Windows). Everyone I know gave up on NS 5 and moved on to IE. It's not perfect, but it's not buggy like "AOLscape" is.
Ish! I'm getting bummed with NS, but wouldn't use IE on a bet. Why use a virus magnet? But then, I don't use any other M$ product either, it's all third rate. Actually, NS on linux works pretty well. What I'm probably going to do is just stop using the Mac for communication at all, and just stick with linux, where I can use mutt and opera (which is seriously faster than either NS or IE) or maybe konquerer, if I can get it to work under gnome. I bought the Mac just for DTP, then got seduced by it's audio/visual stuff and finally started using it for web and mail too, but that's becoming too annoying. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ish! I'm getting bummed with NS, but wouldn't use IE on a bet. Why use a virus magnet?
The virii are typically executables for x86/Windows machines, not Macs. You said you were using a Mac, so why do you think IE for the Mac exposes you to virii?
But then, I don't use any other M$ product either, it's all third rate.
Religious nonsense. I tend to avoid MS products because I can get good alternatives for very little money, but few would call Microsoft Office "third rate." I've seen the version for OS X and it looks very good. Maybe "1.5" rate, but not second rate and surely not third rate. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
Tim May wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Ish! I'm getting bummed with NS, but wouldn't use IE on a bet. Why use a virus magnet?
The virii are typically executables for x86/Windows machines, not Macs. You said you were using a Mac, so why do you think IE for the Mac exposes you to virii?
I used to have a web page with a simple dos command that would immediately crash any windoze machine running IE. While I realize that all the viri and such are aimed at windoze boxes, not Macs, given the general insecurity of IE in particular, and M$ products overall (for instance, Word and others ID'ing you secretly in the documents) who knows what all it does? I'm amazed, in fact, that someone like you, Tim, would use it. Do you know for sure what it sends back to M$ central, or perhaps, gasp, even to the fedz?
But then, I don't use any other M$ product either, it's all third rate.
Religious nonsense. I tend to avoid MS products because I can get good alternatives for very little money, but few would call Microsoft Office "third rate." I've seen the version for OS X and it looks very good. Maybe "1.5" rate, but not second rate and surely not third rate.
StarOffice is a lot better. Opensource, for one thing (although I know the Mac version was dropped and the OS X version not quite ready yet, but the linux version rocks), and doesn't get macroviri in any version. Again, why would you use something that ID's everything you write? But if you really want a great word processor, try XyWrite. Too bad the law firm that bought it dropped the ball on development, but the Notabene version is going strong, and is the ultimate wp AFAIC. http://www.notabene.com/ No mac version, or linux version, but I run Xywrite under VirtualPC on the Mac, and under VMware on linux. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Harmon Seaver
StarOffice is a lot better. Opensource, for one thing (although I know the Mac version was dropped and the OS X version not quite ready yet, but the linux version rocks), and doesn't get macroviri in any version. Again, why would you use something that ID's everything you write? But if you really want a great word processor, try XyWrite. Too bad the law firm that bought it dropped the ball on development, but the Notabene version is going strong, and is the ultimate wp AFAIC. http://www.notabene.com/ No mac version, or linux version, but I run Xywrite under VirtualPC on the Mac, and under VMware on linux.
Strange that you would go to all the trouble. I'll take emacs and LaTeX2e any day of the week. Who needs WYSIWYG when you can make nicer-looking documents in less time using a Turing-complete document formatting / programming language? -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
"Riad S. Wahby" wrote:
Strange that you would go to all the trouble. I'll take emacs and LaTeX2e any day of the week. Who needs WYSIWYG when you can make nicer-looking documents in less time using a Turing-complete document formatting / programming language?
Compatability with Wurd users. A lot of customers, especially suit types, give you Word and Excel files (or, worse, PowerPoint, gag), even when the app is being implemented on *NIX. A fair number of commercial publications want articles and stories to be submitted as Word docs. And sometimes when you're putting in a bid to a corp, they require the proposal both as hardcopy and as Word and Excel files. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
At 02:49 PM 10/22/2001 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason
are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete. We've been thru this discussion before. All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why
that they they
should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land." Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so. The average size farm in the world is only 7 acres, and if you talk to most of those farmers, they would much rather live and work on their little subsistence farms than move into a city and work in a factory. ...
Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
If he _isn't_ self-sufficient, then he does care about the trade going on around him. That's been the case forever, and new trade always disrupts someone who was making his living with the way things were.
And if he wants to make use of metal tools, then he'll have to exchange as best he can for them. But, again, he's not self-sufficient, unless he can dig and forge his own metals. Complaining that the world isn't the way it was for Grandpa shouldn't get a sympathetic ear from anyone who uses metals, plastics, or medicine, or who eats fresh produce out of season.
One of the great long term hopes for nanotechnology is the "cornucopia" or StarTrek replicator, a device which can "manufacture" from raw materials and information a broad variety of consumables and hard goods. If it ever does come about and is not something centrally controlled and monitored a 'la Stephenson's Diamond Age, it could usher in an age of individual sovereignty the likes of which the world as not known since its transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture. It might also spell the end of economy. steve
On 22 Oct 2001, at 13:17, Steve Schear wrote:
One of the great long term hopes for nanotechnology is the "cornucopia" or StarTrek replicator, a device which can "manufacture" from raw materials and information a broad variety of consumables and hard goods. If it ever does come about and is not something centrally controlled and monitored a 'la Stephenson's Diamond Age, it could usher in an age of individual sovereignty the likes of which the world as not known since its transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture. It might also spell the end of economy.
I'm reminded of George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" stories, in which invention of the replicator did end the economy, until a substance was discovered ("Identium") that could not be replicated. It seems that markets appear whenever there is something of perceived value to trade. -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy@scytale.com
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
I'm reminded of George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" stories, in which invention of the replicator did end the economy, until a substance was discovered ("Identium") that could not be replicated. It seems that markets appear whenever there is something of perceived value to trade.
...and limited supply with respect to demand. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 01:17 PM 10/22/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
One of the great long term hopes for nanotechnology is the "cornucopia" or StarTrek replicator, a device which can "manufacture" from raw materials and information a broad variety of consumables and hard goods. If it ever does come about and is not something centrally controlled and monitored a 'la Stephenson's Diamond Age, it could usher in an age of individual sovereignty the likes of which the world as not known since its transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture. It might also spell the end of economy.
steve
Replicators exist. They're called computers. They can only replicate bits, but they do so well enough to make Jack Valenti mess his diapers. As to the end of the economy, see Schneier (et al?)'s _Street Performer Protocol_ (IIRC) paper. But you knew that.
on Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 04:58:54PM -0700, David Honig (honig@sprynet.com) wrote:
At 01:17 PM 10/22/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
One of the great long term hopes for nanotechnology is the "cornucopia" or StarTrek replicator, a device which can "manufacture" from raw materials and information a broad variety of consumables and hard goods. If it ever does come about and is not something centrally controlled and monitored a 'la Stephenson's Diamond Age, it could usher in an age of individual sovereignty the likes of which the world as not known since its transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture. It might also spell the end of economy.
steve
Replicators exist. They're called computers. They can only replicate bits, but they do so well enough to make Jack Valenti mess his diapers.
As to the end of the economy, see Schneier (et al?)'s _Street Performer Protocol_ (IIRC) paper. But you knew that.
Better yet: energy can't be replicated.
--
Karsten M. Self
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Steve Furlong wrote:
Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
Bullshit, just wait until the first drought. No man is an island, and no chunk of an ecosystem can be removed from that around it. Your 'self-sufficiency' is a logical fantasy. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Steve Furlong wrote:
Then let them. A self-sufficient subsistence farmer won't be bothered by the trade his neighbors are carrying out. [1] His farm can be a neolithic bubble as the world progresses.
Bullshit, just wait until the first drought.
No man is an island, and no chunk of an ecosystem can be removed from that around it. Your 'self-sufficiency' is a logical fantasy.
To a point. "Free choice" in most instances, is also a logical fantasy. That's very clear just in the economic downturn of the last year, right here in the good ol' USA, and I can easily imagine what it's like in Bolivia or Guatamala. All of a sudden, one day I take my corn to market, and nobody buys. Hmmm. This actually happened to me long ago when I was running a sawmill. One day I showed up with a truck load of white cedar which was getting me around $800 @ thousand board feet. The man says, "Sorry, we're getting red cedar trucked down from Canada at $300." Hmmm. Well, red cedar ain't the same as white cedar by a long shot, but joe backyard builder hasn't a clue, he just looks at the price. Yeah, I adapted (sold the sawmill quick, for one thing), but I also had a lot of other options. OTOH, it took few years to figure things out, and I'm still not happy with the outcome. And I had a wife who could make good money. Lucky me. The thing is, mostly I'm seeing fatcat whiteboys sitting on their ass in Amerika talking about "free market" and free choice like they really know shit about what's going on in the world. Maybe we could relocate them to the hinterlands of Guatamala and see how well they adapt. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
To a point. "Free choice" in most instances, is also a logical fantasy.
A real one too, congratulations. I guess you just became a crank :) There's no such thing as 'control' either. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete.
Ooo, there's a crime. :'D
Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so.
No, actually history records a succession of starvations. (Remember that part about Moses interpreting pharaohs dream about 6 fat and 1 skinny kine?) Only modern "factory farms" seem immune that this cycle. Also, your argument makes no economic sense. Against whom are these peasants competing? Surely they can eat what they grow no matter how cheaply the "rapacious" factory farmers price their wares. S a n d y
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
No, actually history records a succession of starvations. (Remember that part about Moses interpreting pharaohs dream about 6 fat and 1 skinny kine?)
Sure, but for the most part, they did alright, else we would not be here.
Only modern "factory farms" seem immune that this cycle.
Not so -- only because of corporate welfare.
Also, your argument makes no economic sense. Against whom are these peasants competing? Surely they can eat what they grow no matter how cheaply the "rapacious" factory farmers price their wares.
That's the point I was trying to make -- they aren't being "starved" out. And, as I pointed out previously with the Amish, it isn't that they are not mechanized enough, or not big enough. So why are they losing their land and moving to the city to become wageslaves for some megacorp? In the US, it's been the swindle worked on them by the chem salesmen, the gov't, and the banks -- non of which the Amish have any truck with, so they do okay. In Latin America we see them primarily being kicked off their land by "paramilitarys" usually in the pay of big ranchers and/or megacorp argribiz, and sometimes by the army. Maybe kicked off is too strong -- frightened off by all the rapes and murders and beatings, or, with the army, "relocated" to make them "safe" from the guerillas (and to stop them from feeding the guerillas). Remember -- we participated in this in Viet Nam? Our troops moved the peasants off becuase it was "Viet Cong" territory, into camps where they could be controlled -- and incidently provide cheap labor for some industry or other. Often, when the peasant tries to return to his land, he finds that the local courthouse has been burned and all the records of ownership lost. In Viet Nam, I personally know troops who killed villagers when they returned from relocation camps. Not the first time, not the second time, but the third time -- "Fuck it, we told them not to come back, they musta been Cong". The same thing happens all over Central and South America. Yes, economics is part of the picture, but not in the way you are putting forth. It's not free trade -- it's fascism. Someone else said they need to just grow a different crop, and obviously some are doing that -- coca and marijuana, and opium, and that's a good thing, and many of them at least in some areas are getting together and getting armed, and that's a good thing too. And maybe they'll survive. But anyway, these simplistic little arguements that this is all just a matter of them not being competitive is pure bullshit. By all of those same standards, the Amish are clearly not competitive in the current US agri-climate, but for some strange reason they seem to be doing the best of any farmers in the country and debt free. Where you *do* see peasants going off to the city to make the big bucks is all the Mexican illegals who come across the border to work here. And then you find too that a great many of them work for awhile and then go back home to build a new house, buy a little land, etc. And that's great, that's the way it should be, not run off by paramilitarys to live in some cardboard box jungle in the city and become a wageslave in a sweatshop. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Sure [with regard to periodic starvation], but for the most part, they did alright, else we would not be here.
Tell that to the 7th kine. In reality, subsistence (this word means something) farmers were mostly chronically malnourished--even in the good times--and died in droves whenever the sun didn't shine or the rain didn't fall. I don't consider that doing "alright."
Only modern "factory farms" seem immune that this cycle.
Not so -- only because of corporate welfare.
Can you be more specific? "Corporate welfare" such as making the rain fall or what?
That's the point I was trying to make -- they aren't being "starved" out. And, as I pointed out previously with the Amish, it isn't that they are not mechanized enough, or not big enough. So why are they losing their land and moving to the city to become wageslaves for some megacorp?
You tell me. It would appear that either you are wrong about the economic viability of their farms or they are somehow acting against their own best interest. Subsistence farmers are going to the cities because they (correctly) understand that to do so increases their standard of living. Period.
In Latin America we see them primarily being kicked off their land by "paramilitarys" usually in the pay of big ranchers and/or megacorp argribiz, and sometimes by the army. Maybe kicked off is too strong -- frightened off by all the rapes and murders and beatings, or, with the army, "relocated" to make them "safe" from the guerillas (and to stop them from feeding the guerillas).
Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true (evidence, please), this is not a failure of the market or the fault of the "sweat shop" operators. In fact, the "sweat shop" operators are the only heroes in this scenario. They are at least providing something better than the dislocated farmers would have had otherwise. Good for them. S a n d y
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Tell that to the 7th kine. In reality, subsistence (this word means something) farmers were mostly chronically malnourished--even in the good times--and died in droves whenever the sun didn't shine or the rain didn't fall. I don't consider that doing "alright."
Surely they can eat what they grow... Speaking from both ends once again. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Also, your argument makes no economic sense. Against whom are these peasants competing? Surely they can eat what they grow no matter how cheaply the "rapacious" factory farmers price their wares.
Actually it makes perfect sense, if you understand how a farm works. The farmers are competing against the environment, their own limited knowledge and resources, and time. Do you seriously want to propose that a chicken craps a combine? That the seeds for the various crop rotations simply drop from the sky like manna? That it'll always rain just enough, and therefore there won't be a need for irridation ditches down to the local crick? And what about all that animal feed? And the wood for the fence posts and the wire for the wire? Now, how many people does that one person farm now need to hire in order to get all the infrastructure and support services running, before we even get around to feeding ourselves? A self-sufficient farm is either a very low-tech endeavour (which reduces your needs) or else it grows according to economy of scales. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete. We've been thru this discussion before.
If this applies throughout the whole economy (i.e. the natives can't compete with any product at all), you'll have a trade deficit and sooner or later the currency rate will go down. That'll end the imports and even out the difference in efficiency. In the absence of a currency area boundary, you'll still have Ricardo and his principle of relative benefit (that the term?). Nobody'll starve because of competition, unless they're just plain lazy and/or unable to adapt. Sweatshop work is a variation of the latter.
All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why they should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land." Peasant farmers have been making an adequate living on "their own retched little plots of land." for at least since before any recorded history, and, for that matter, can still do so.
If the previous buyers get their food cheaper somewhere else, what's the problem? That production can survive within the confines of an inefficient economy is no reason to keep running that inefficient economy. Otherwise you'd be transfering income from the buyer to the seller, and inefficiently at that.
Anyone who spends any time at all researching the conditions of peasant farmers in the 3rd world who leave their land and go to work in sweatshops would never come to the conclusion that they chose to do so.
They made a choice over starving to death. Sounds like a choice to me. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
At 01:25 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Of course you're ignoring the fact that sometimes the reason that they are "starving on their own retched little plots of land." is because of NAFTA and huge multinational corporations importing so much US factory farmed corn and other ag products into that country that they can't compete.
Obviously if their corn is too expensive, they need to grow something else. Or find some other edge --you know, buy our organic CPUs handcrafted by vegetarian Santa Clara monks using Daisy CAD. You have no "right" to make a living growing/making something you can't sell. Paraphrasing Thoreau: Man said "I exist". The universe said, "So?" Of course, if you closed their market to others, you'd just raise the price for the corn-eaters. We've been
thru this discussion before.
Indeed.
All else being equal, there is no logical reason in the world why they should be "starving on their own retched little plots of land."
Overpopulation. Malthus. [Don't even start, Choate] Starving is the natural state. (All this assumes no immoral coercion by native governments or others.) ---- Humans are the only species who don't let their learning interfere with their behavior --GS Actually, to me, anyway, "Capitalism" is a Marxist word meaning "economics". -RAH
I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?
To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* -- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in a response.
Declan, Declan. Put away your straw man. There are alternative's other than huts and two dollars an hour (which is high, btw). Nobel ecconomic laureates have been telling us for years to be careful about idealised market models and to start looking at players not as mere as capital and labour but as information processing nodes. This years Nobel for Economics won by George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analysis of markets with assymetric information" is typical. You don't need a Nobel to realise that the relationship between a large employer and employee is brutally assymetric. One entity knows far more about the rules of the negotiation than the other. There's you as a prospective employee and then there's the local workplace monopoly with hundreds of industrial relations lawyers, psychologists, and other assorted strategists who'll hand you a document thick with legalese and tell you where to sign. Without a legal team, you'll never understand it or the political connections backing it up. And even if you do there's a million other mugs to choose from who won't. To counter this sort of assymetry. Employees naturally start trying to collectivise to increase their information processing and bargaining power. That's right. UNIONS Declan. Those devious entities that first world companies and governments have had a hand in suppressing all over the third world by curtailing freedom of association, speech and other basic political rights we take for granted. -- Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and proff@iq.org |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Julian Assange wrote:
This years Nobel for Economics won by George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analysis of markets with assymetric information" is typical.
With "prior art" in the Austrian economic literature, which I hear is considerably more interesting.
You don't need a Nobel to realise that the relationship between a large employer and employee is brutally assymetric. One entity knows far more about the rules of the negotiation than the other.
The term "asymmetric information" refers to a specific situation where you e.g. do not know a whole lot about what you're buying. Small people applying for jobs in big companies does not really fit the bill -- you'd have to be pretty darn stupid to sign a long-term contract for a dayjob you know nothing about. Yes, there is a legal quagmire around employer-employee relations. No, asymmetric information hasn't got a whole lot to do with it.
To counter this sort of assymetry. Employees naturally start trying to collectivise to increase their information processing and bargaining power. That's right. UNIONS Declan. Those devious entities that first world companies and governments have had a hand in suppressing all over the third world by curtailing freedom of association, speech and other basic political rights we take for granted.
Sure, unions are good and using coercion to stop them from coming into being is bad. But that only applies as long as unions are granted no legal status apart from other voluntary organizations, and participating in a strike is taken as what it is, a refusal to work. Likely a breach of an enforceable contract, too. Any "workers' rights" beyond that are something you'll have a *really hard time* justifying. Asymmetry does not help, either. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
On Mon, Oct 22, at 04:58PM, Julian Assange wrote: | This years Nobel for Economics won by George A. Akerlof, A. Michael | Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analysis of markets with | assymetric information" is typical. The Nobel priye was won by people who published ideas that nobel laureate FA Hayek published in the 30's. | To counter this sort of assymetry. Employees naturally start trying | to collectivise to increase their information processing and | bargaining power. That's right. UNIONS Declan. Those devious entities | that first world companies and governments have had a hand in | suppressing all over the third world by curtailing freedom of | association, speech and other basic political rights we take for | granted. And yet, if in a union, I am posed a similar question as the sweatshop worker. Do I dare go against the union and risk being a pariah, or do i simply follow the herd and fuck over the businessman whose hand feeds me? There is only asymetry if you presume the employee to be ignorant, or uneducated or plain outright stupid. If the exchange is totally voluntary, the owner will present a wage that the employee may or may not accept along with terms and conditions, which the employee is also free to accept or decline. Granted, in the world of unskilled labor, this doesnt seem as evident, but that goes back around the circle on why the work is unskilled and why the worker is there. Life handed him a shittier set of choices than the guy whose hobby was network security and has more bargaining power at the negotiation table with an employer. I firmly disagree with the suppression of unions, but by that same token I firmly disagree that an employer should be mandated to keep an employee who is a part of a union. It is the employees choice to unioniye, it should sure as hell be the employers choice to say as Tim so galantly put it "Fuck Off!". -- Churchill, Winston Leonard Spencer --On the eve of Britain's entry into World War II: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 10:09 AM, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, at 04:58PM, Julian Assange wrote: | This years Nobel for Economics won by George A. Akerlof, A. Michael | Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz "for their analysis of markets with | assymetric information" is typical.
The Nobel priye was won by people who published ideas that nobel laureate FA Hayek published in the 30's.
This is one of the problems with the whole "Economics" prize. There's not even a prize in _mathematics_, fer chrissake, so why one in _economics_? Alfred Nobel certainly did not endow an economics prize. (The econ prize gets its money from some other source.) The Econ prize was only established in the 70s, and now the prize committee is reaching down deeper into the ranks. Maybe it's time for them to admit that creating the prize was a political move in the first place and it should now be retired, or cut back to a prize only when it is really warranted.
And yet, if in a union, I am posed a similar question as the sweatshop worker. Do I dare go against the union and risk being a pariah, or do i simply follow the herd and fuck over the businessman whose hand feeds me? There is only asymetry if you presume the employee to be ignorant, or uneducated or plain outright stupid. If the exchange is totally voluntary, the owner will present a wage that the employee may or may not accept along with terms and conditions, which the employee is also free to accept or decline.
Most chip and computer engineers are not unionized (the union meaning, not the plasma meaning). This works well. Some engineers have formed professional societies. These are _nominally_ to "ensure professional standards." But critics point to their role as a rate-limiting, rent-seeking group. Doctors and lawyers, most notably, use professional societies as unions.
Granted, in the world of unskilled labor, this doesnt seem as evident, but that goes back around the circle on why the work is unskilled and why the worker is there. Life handed him a shittier set of choices than the guy whose hobby was network security and has more bargaining power at the negotiation table with an employer.
The blue-collar worker also has a fair amount of "bargaining power." He is paid less, usually, but his relative value to the employer is what he is paid. A machine tool worker may not have much power to "demand more money," but neither does an engineer, or even a security expert! The traditional labor union threatens mass action, typically a strike or walkout or slowdown. The usual theory is that this protects them from retaliation because a plant would have to fire _all_ striking workers, with dire consequences for them. This is false, as factories can and do move to other states, other nations. (The U.S. was a low-wage haven compared to England, in textiles. It also "stole" the intellectual property of the mills in England. Ironically, the same southern states (Georgia, South Carolina, etc.) that complain so viciously about the Asian and Mexican factories were _themselves_ beneficiaries of the move of factories from New England mill towns to their states. Largely to escape unions and reduce labor costs. Irony squared and cubed.)
I firmly disagree with the suppression of unions, but by that same token I firmly disagree that an employer should be mandated to keep an employee who is a part of a union. It is the employees choice to unioniye, it should sure as hell be the employers choice to say as Tim so galantly put it "Fuck Off!".
I put it even more strongly, of course.
--Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill
On Mon, Oct 22, at 10:27AM, Tim May wrote: | This is one of the problems with the whole "Economics" prize. There's | not even a prize in _mathematics_, fer chrissake, so why one in | _economics_? Alfred Nobel certainly did not endow an economics prize. | (The econ prize gets its money from some other source.) | | The Econ prize was only established in the 70s, and now the prize | committee is reaching down deeper into the ranks. | | Maybe it's time for them to admit that creating the prize was a | political move in the first place and it should now be retired, or cut | back to a prize only when it is really warranted. The time for that is past...look at the priye winners this year to see a list of people, none of which did any work which was entirely original. (disclaimer, i am talking about econ and sciences as i havent seen anything on the other people.) | Most chip and computer engineers are not unionized (the union meaning, | not the plasma meaning). This works well. | | Some engineers have formed professional societies. These are _nominally_ | to "ensure professional standards." But critics point to their role as a | rate-limiting, rent-seeking group. Doctors and lawyers, most notably, | use professional societies as unions. If the "society" is in fact for the purpose of creating a common market agreed upon standard, then it is a good thing, if it imposes standards on third parties who are not willing to comply to those standards, either organiyation is a Bad Thing(tm). | The blue-collar worker also has a fair amount of "bargaining power." He | is paid less, usually, but his relative value to the employer is what he | is paid. A machine tool worker may not have much power to "demand more | money," but neither does an engineer, or even a security expert! Too bad the blue-collar workforce doesnt figure this out for themselves, rather than bitching they are poorly treated. | The traditional labor union threatens mass action, typically a strike or | walkout or slowdown. The usual theory is that this protects them from | retaliation because a plant would have to fire _all_ striking workers, | with dire consequences for them. | | This is false, as factories can and do move to other states, other | nations. As well it should. Money goes where it is well treated. If the striking workers would prefer to do with no paycheck and having the right to go on strike, that is their choice. I have a problem when laws mandate that the business not do this or be fined. That is fucked up in my mind. Equal rights for all, not just for the workers. | (The U.S. was a low-wage haven compared to England, in textiles. It also | "stole" the intellectual property of the mills in England. Ironically, | the same southern states (Georgia, South Carolina, etc.) that complain | so viciously about the Asian and Mexican factories were _themselves_ | beneficiaries of the move of factories from New England mill towns to | their states. Largely to escape unions and reduce labor costs. Irony | squared and cubed.) The US was also founded on the same principles which the government is now desperately trying to destroy. I dont foresee the southern states realiying that hypocrisy is their practice. --Gabe -- Churchill, Winston Leonard Spencer --On the eve of Britain's entry into World War II: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
The Econ prize was only established in the 70s, and now the prize committee is reaching down deeper into the ranks.
A fun story I heard: a member of the Swedish Academy is said to have resigned over Milton Friedman getting a Nobel. The reason: Friedman's theory "exists only to justify the exploitation of developing countries". Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
At 10:02 PM 10/21/01 -0700, someone with the password to declan@well.com wrote:
I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly.
Without people using black bloc tactics, activists would have received no press coverage... Not to mention the benefit to be gained by having a radical faction around to make your moderates look more, well, moderate - a technique as old as the American Revolution, and quite effective for Ghadi and King. But no - for many CACL types, those using black bloc tactics were just bored, upper-middle-class, college-age, uninformed dumbshits pointlessly throwing rocks through starbucks windows - an image similar in accuracy to that of the bored, upper-middle-class, insularly utopian randroid masturbating to "Guns & Ammo". I'm constantly amazed by the misplaced animosity many CACL types display towards the left-anarchist crowd. I think Bruce Sterling said (in Holy Fire) "Fanatics always hate and fear their own dissidents far more then they loathe the bourgeoisie. By this ye shall know them." I wince at fanaticism, whatever its source, but I wince most at the shortsightedness of CACL types who, in their self-righteousness, scorn those who could easily be their closest allies. From everything I've seen (and I've seen a lot), they agree on decentralization [1], agree on encryption, agree on "victimless crimes", agree on weapons possession [2], agree on intellectual property, and agree on individual private property [3].
But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?
Who said it was? Have you seen anybody protesting against the opportunity that world markets can bring to poor people the world over? Or have you seen lots of people protesting secrecy-cloaked treaties designed to entrench government-supported monopolies? Make no mistake - that's what the WTO, the FTAA, and their ilk are all about. They are not about free markets; not about competition at all - they are about increasing the scope in which current multinational monopolies and duopolies (which, for the most part, would not exist without constant government support) can sell things. That is not the free-market way. For once and for all: Laissez-faire capitalism does not imply the existence of corporate entities! The left anarchists I know want to keep the means of production and distribution privately (or cooperatively) owned, and keep the free market of goods, services, and ideas... But they want to drop the notion of state-sanctioned corporate entities with their own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of their members. What's so bad about that? -- Luthor //Remembering is copying and copying is THEFT [1] They don't like either corporate or state centralization of power, but neither do you, right? Right...? AFIAK, Left-anarchists and CACL types oppose corporate and governmental centralization of power - it's just that the left-anarchists focus on corporate power, and CACL types focus on government power... And corporations can't exist without the state. [2] Who was it who said "Weapons embody power, and I prefer to see power in the hands of the people" - was it John Galt? John Locke? John Lott? Oh wait, it was Naomi Klein! Doh! (Chomsky disagrees with her, though, and I'd love to talk to him about that - I don't think he's thought it through) [3] All the left anarchists I know think they own their shoes, as you own yours. However, they question the utility of the corporate legal construction, and many (most? all?) deem corporate property (like intellectual property) a dangerous, shortsighted fiction whose time has come and gone.
I'll bite this one. Quoting Luthor Blisset (saeq@gmx.net): [snip]
For once and for all: Laissez-faire capitalism does not imply the existence of corporate entities! The left anarchists I know want to keep the means of production and distribution privately (or cooperatively) owned, and keep the free market of goods, services, and ideas... But they
Then they probably aren't anarchists.
want to drop the notion of state-sanctioned corporate entities with their own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of their members.
Anarchy won't work unless _everybody_ cooperates in good faith. And it ain't gonna happen. It is more likely that a state of actual anarchy would result in a minor restructuring of the democratic pattern of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. [snip]
[3] All the left anarchists I know think they own their shoes, as you own yours. However, they question the utility of the corporate legal construction, and many (most? all?) deem corporate property (like intellectual property) a dangerous, shortsighted fiction whose time has come and gone.
Ideally, intellectual property (or more properly, knowledge) would always be in the public domain. For that to be viable, something, perhaps a gift economy, would have to replace currently competing systems. And it ain't gonna happen. Too many people enjoy not only the simple material benefits of capitalism (to name one), but more importantly, the power which it gives them to manipulate their environment to suit their will; and which includes, of course, people. Patterns of domination and so forth are obviously far too deeply ingrained in the human psyche to make viable any meaningful change towards flattening somewhat bottom-heavy wealth and power hierarchies. We now return to the ongoing coverage of the American Anthrax Attack. Regards, Steve -- Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 01:03:40AM -0700, Luthor Blisset wrote:
But no - for many CACL types, those using black bloc tactics were just bored, upper-middle-class, college-age, uninformed dumbshits pointlessly throwing rocks through starbucks windows - an image similar in accuracy to that of the bored, upper-middle-class, insularly utopian
Alas, it also happens to be accurate. I've covered these protests in three cities so far, and generally the protesters have done little in the way of coherent thinking, are more united in their negative statements about capitalism and free trade and such than in their positive statements about what they wish to see happen, condemn capitalism while using the fruits of capitalism like cell phones and Palm pilots to organize their protests, and so on. Some photos: http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10/protesters-pushing-dumpster.html http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-12/dem-protests-3.html Example of one of the well-thought-out messages: http://www.mccullagh.org/image/10/breastfeeding-is-your-right.html There are exceptions, of course. But by and large, my summary was accurate. -Declan
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Luthor Blisset wrote:
[1] They don't like either corporate or state centralization of power, but neither do you, right? Right...? AFIAK, Left-anarchists and CACL types oppose corporate and governmental centralization of power - it's just that the left-anarchists focus on corporate power, and CACL types focus on government power... And corporations can't exist without the state.
The whole bunch of you miss the point that these are MECHANISMS. 'They' don't do anything. People use the concepts to do things to each other. And yes, corporations (ie agreements or contracts) can exist without a state. Governments however can't exist without a cash flow. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (27)
-
Bill Stewart -
Blanc -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Murray -
F. Marc de Piolenc -
Gabriel Rocha -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Harmon Seaver -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Karsten M. Self -
Ken Brown -
Luthor Blisset -
measl＠mfn.org -
Neil Johnson -
proff＠iq.org -
Riad S. Wahby -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sandy Sandfort -
Steve Furlong -
Steve Schear -
Steve Thompson -
Tim May