CDR: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
California has "shut down"--through a threatening letter--a site which matches up folks who are willing to say they'll vote for Nader in states where Gore is sure to win if other folks who had hoped to vote for Nader will instead vote for Gore in order to help him in swing states. (Sounds complicated. But it's really simple. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." No money is changing hands, no actual "ballots" are being traded.) The Web site doing this is/was: http://www.voteswap2000.com/ The article on California's actions is: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001031/wr/campaign_traders_dc_1.html BTW, I just "expressed my preference" at the site: http://Winchell.com/NaderTrader/default.asp No doubt I am even now more of a speech criminal. I wonder if a raid is imminent. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
The voters will be able to suss it out without a website. In the last UK general election about a couple of million voters very precisely voted either for whichever of the Labour (who won overall) or Liberal (came 3rd) candidates was most likely to beat the Conservatives (who were thereby hammered by the 1st-past-the post system). The Liberals (as usual) were bleating about having a chance to get into power, but in practice (as usual) they were used as a protest vote by those who couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory. The same has, I suspect, been true of 3rd parties in the USA. You can't judge their strength by their vote because many of their votes because they are nearly always a vote *against* whoever seems most likely to get in. And because genuine supporters, knowing their preferred candidate won't get in, may pragmatically vote for the contender they consider least damaging. As Tim pointed out the other day. We're not doing this for fun. If there is a chance of getting someone in who will do less real damage, vote for them. In the absence of revolution, amelioration at least ameliorates. But on the bright side - even without websites or any other visible vote-trading, enough people knew who to vote for to get the Tories out. The electorate *were* paying attention. In Brighton (my home town) all 3 seats went Labour because people knew they were the strongest non-Tory party (even Hove which had long had a reputation as one of the most conservative places in the country) - the Liberal vote hardly existed. In Lewes, only 8 miles away, enough people voted Liberal to get the Tories out & the Labour vote collapsed. Of course most oy you Americans probably won't think that electing a Labour government is a good idea - but that isn't the immediate point. The pleasantly surprising thing is that so many people were aware of the numbers and cast their vote accordingly. They *weren't* just listening to the TV or the parties. They thought about it and cast their vote intelligently in what they saw to be their own interests (in this case revenge on the party of Margaret Thatcher, easily the most hated British politician of the 20th century). Ken Tim May wrote:
California has "shut down"--through a threatening letter--a site which matches up folks who are willing to say they'll vote for Nader in states where Gore is sure to win if other folks who had hoped to vote for Nader will instead vote for Gore in order to help him in swing states.
(Sounds complicated. But it's really simple. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." No money is changing hands, no actual "ballots" are being traded.)
The Web site doing this is/was: http://www.voteswap2000.com/
The article on California's actions is: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001031/wr/campaign_traders_dc_1.html
BTW, I just "expressed my preference" at the site: http://Winchell.com/NaderTrader/default.asp
No doubt I am even now more of a speech criminal. I wonder if a raid is imminent.
--Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 9:48 AM +0000 11/1/00, Ken Brown wrote:
The same has, I suspect, been true of 3rd parties in the USA. You can't judge their strength by their vote because many of their votes because they are nearly always a vote *against* whoever seems most likely to get in. And because genuine supporters, knowing their preferred candidate won't get in, may pragmatically vote for the contender they consider least damaging. As Tim pointed out the other day. We're not doing this for fun. If there is a chance of getting someone in who will do less real damage, vote for them. In the absence of revolution, amelioration at least ameliorates.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm bouncing between voting for Bush as a "do the least damage" (on gun issues, tax issues, foreign affairs, etc.) and voting for Browne of the LP on "feelgood" issues. (In that I'll feel better in coming years being able to think to myself: "I didn't vote for that Bush clown...I voted my principles!") However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however.
I'm making a somewhat wild assumption that you're voting in California -- as am I. As far as I can tell, Gore is going to take california, so by my reasoning I'm free to vote with my conscience, since a vote for either bush or gore wouldn't make a difference in this case. If you haven't already you might want to consider that point (and do the research yourself to back it up or disprove it -- don't take my word for it). Ph.
In a 10/14 survey, Gore was leading California by 4 points: http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1214.html I suspect with Nader's surge, this lead has narrowed. For more detailed analysis: http://www.cluebot.com/search.pl?topic=election -Declan On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Phaedrus wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however.
I'm making a somewhat wild assumption that you're voting in California -- as am I. As far as I can tell, Gore is going to take california, so by my reasoning I'm free to vote with my conscience, since a vote for either bush or gore wouldn't make a difference in this case. If you haven't already you might want to consider that point (and do the research yourself to back it up or disprove it -- don't take my word for it).
Ph.
At 11:00 AM -0500 11/2/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
In a 10/14 survey, Gore was leading California by 4 points: http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1214.html
I suspect with Nader's surge, this lead has narrowed.
I saw a deliriously enthusiastic crowd of supporters for Nader's appearance last night on the Chris Matthews MSNBC show "Hardball." The hall was packed with his supporters, no doubt. Still, the enthusiasm was real, and stronger than what I've seen for Gush or Bore. The audience was howling and cheering as Nader called for populist/communist measures like confiscating the wealth of the rich, muzzling the speech of businessmen, and regulating businesses at all levels. "Does Bill Gates really deserve to have more total net worth than the combined assets of the bottom 40% of our country?!" Whoops and howls. One wonders if Bill Gates will rethink the wisdom of helping to fund MSNBC! Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two. Should be exciting to see what happens. If Nader succeeds in taking enough votes from Gore for Bush to win, the Dems may move further to the left in the _next_ election. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 08:51:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two.
Ironically, Nader himself is a millionaire, apparently as a result of the investments he's made over the past 20-30 years and his spendthrift lifestyle. Good for him - but it makes me wonder where he'd draw the line between "wealth that's deserved" and "wealth that's not deserved." -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
At 9:30 AM -0800 11/2/00, Greg Broiles wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 08:51:03AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two.
Ironically, Nader himself is a millionaire, apparently as a result of the investments he's made over the past 20-30 years and his spendthrift lifestyle. Good for him - but it makes me wonder where he'd draw the line between "wealth that's deserved" and "wealth that's not deserved."
Yep, I heard that he has a multimilllionaire position just in Cisco alone. As you said, good for him. (Frankly, anyone who was in the working force in the late 50s, early 60s, as Nader was, and who lived parsimoniously in a rooming house for all those years had BETTER be a multimillionaire!) As for how he'll draw the line, I'm sure he'll do as other liberals do: support confiscatory income taxes. As the Kennedy clan does. (Of course, the Kennedy clan was careful to have most of its bootlegging money from Old Joe placed in trusts and suchlike.) Many extremely wealthy liberals are all too willing to support wealth confiscation. "I'm willing to have half of my $300 million taken for a good cause, so let's get going and build a communitarian fair society!" --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:53:31AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
Yep, I heard that he has a multimilllionaire position just in Cisco alone. As you said, good for him. (Frankly, anyone who was in the working force in the late 50s, early 60s, as Nader was, and who lived parsimoniously in a rooming house for all those years had BETTER be a multimillionaire!)
Nader lives in a Dupont Circle townhouse owned by his sister and reportedly worth millions. (Given land prices in that area of DC, it has to be worth at least $1 million.) Ironically, Cisco has been targeted by the Feds for antitrust violations. Somehow, Nader never got around to beating up on them though he's happy to do it to nearly every other high tech firm. -Declan
Greg Broiles wrote:
Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two.
Ironically, Nader himself is a millionaire, apparently as a result of the investments he's made over the past 20-30 years and his spendthrift lifestyle. Good for him - but it makes me wonder where he'd draw the line between "wealth that's deserved" and "wealth that's not deserved."
I guess it's the same issue that I mentioned a couple days ago: it only matters if it affects you. that's why multinational corporations or the people representing them get a lot of wrath, and the solitary millionaire without a corp behind him does not. micro$oft and billy boy affect my life a lot more than the 1,000 millionaires living close by(*), most of whom I don't even know about. (*) I happen to live in Hamburg, which has germany's highest density of millionaires.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
Nader is getting a late start in the enthusiasm stakes, but it could be that he'll really surge. A lot of folks are mired deeply in what Nietzsche called "resentiment." They just don't like it when other people have done well by investing instead of by drinking beer for the past 20 years, and they want the successful people taken down a notch or two.
Most of these folks have a perception that they've been locked out of doing well -- if your parents couldn't afford a good school, or if they can't afford *any* school and you put yourself through, it colors your opportunities for at least the first six or eight years of your professional career. If your money went to support parents who didn't have anything saved for retirement, you automatically don't have as much saved for your own retirement. If you start out with no wealth, then the guy born to wealthy parents, or with wealthy connections from the posh private school he went to, who bankroll his business startup, is taking an advantage you never had. I think a lot of people resenting those who've done well is actually resenting people who had opportunities - provided through no merit of their own - that were denied to them. If you're going to think in terms of "doing well," in terms of skill and dedication and saving and investment making you into one of the upper upper-crust in this culture, you aren't thinking of individuals, really. You really have to think of several *generations* of a family building and passing on wealth and opportunity to the next generation. It works for individuals too, but it's much harder to do and in a single lifetime the odds against rising from an illiterate family with no savings to being one of the super-rich are negligible no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi- generational project. I've struggled with this one myself. My folks were hillbillies. So I started with just about nothing, myself. However, I had opportunities, and I took them and did fairly well with them. Public schools. Merit scholarships to start the college career. The ability to work two jobs while taking classes to finish it. The kind of health that isn't fazed by a few days without food or a month of living outdoors. A Ridiculously high IQ. A strong back. A hometown community where I could build a reputation as a good worker, and so have steady pick-up jobs through times when a lot of people didn't have steady work even with full-time jobs. These are real opportunities, though most of them aren't of the magnitude that fate granted to Bill Gates and his ilk. I'm on track to retire comfortably -- at my current pace, if I can hold it, I will be a millionaire within the next five years. But I'm 37 years old and it has taken me this long to overcome where I started. If public schools and state-sponsored scholarships are removed, I don't like to think of where I'd have been. I think it's not unreasonable that a certain amount of public money should go to opportunities -- schools and scholarships especially -- because these are investments that taxes pay back. If you make loans to individuals, some get paid back and some don't. The ones that get paid back, could have paid a hell of a lot more, and the ones that don't are worse off than when they started. But if you make "loans" to populations, in the form of supporting schools and scholarships, the increased ability of that population to earn, and subsequent tax revenues, *do* pay it all back, and then some. I hope we find a way to make such things into palatable business propositions and privatize them; I'd hate to see them die with governments. Bear
At 10:43 AM -0800 11/2/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Most of these folks have a perception that they've been locked out of doing well -- if your parents couldn't afford a good school, or if they can't afford *any* school and you put yourself through, it colors your opportunities for at least the first six or eight years of your professional career.
Not the crowd I mentioned, ironically. This was at the University of Wisconsin campus at Madison. Mostly well-off kids, at a rich campus.
If you're going to think in terms of "doing well," in terms of skill and dedication and saving and investment making you into one of the upper upper-crust in this culture, you aren't thinking of individuals, really. You really have to think of several *generations* of a family building and passing on wealth and opportunity to the next generation. It works for individuals too, but it's much harder to do and in a single lifetime the odds against rising from an illiterate family with no savings to being one of the super-rich are negligible no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi- generational project.
This is not true. Most billionaires in the United States did it in a single generation. On the Fortune list of billionaires, most made the money by starting companies. Only a handful are heirs. I won't bother citing the usual figures on how heirs tend to spend down the inheritance, not increase it, at least not any faster than ordinary T-bill rates would predict.
I've struggled with this one myself. My folks were hillbillies. So I started with just about nothing, myself. However, I had opportunities, and I took them and did fairly well with them. Public schools. Merit scholarships to start the college career. The ability to work two jobs while taking classes to finish it.
Mostly a cultural thing. It's very common for Asian ancestry persons in the U.S. to work extremely hard, to live with other Asians in very crowded houses and apartments, to save most of what is earned, to loyally support and lend money to their circle of friends and family, and then to start some small business. With hard work, they often prosper. By contrast, it is very common for African ancestry persons in the U.S. to complain that Whitey hasn't given them enough money, that they are owed a good job, to smoke crack cocaine, and to father many illegitimate children. Hence the statistics of Asians vs. Africans on the welfare rolls. These are cultural, not racial, issues. Sad, but true.
jobs. These are real opportunities, though most of them aren't of the magnitude that fate granted to Bill Gates and his ilk. I'm on track to retire comfortably -- at my current pace, if I can hold it, I will be a millionaire within the next five years. But I'm 37 years old and it has taken me this long to overcome where I started.
I won't get into comparing our situations, but I believe the key ingredient is work, saving, investment, a positive outlook for the future, and more work. It worked for me, no thanks to government and taxation. BTW, most of the younger folks I know in software have no college degree.
I hope we find a way to make such things into palatable business propositions and privatize them; I'd hate to see them die with governments.
Nothing wrong with indentured servitude. You can read some pieces I wrote about this many years ago, circa '93-94. The archives should have them. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi- generational project.
This is not true. Most billionaires in the United States did it in a single generation. On the Fortune list of billionaires, most made the money by starting companies. Only a handful are heirs.
Most of them come from well-to-do families rather than filthy rich families, that's true. But few or none come from blue collar or really poor families. Besides, my goal isn't having a one-percent chance of becoming a billionaire; the people you're pointing at rode the venture capital rocket, and for each of the one-generation people on that list, ninety-nine others went flat broke and deep into debt trying to do the same thing. The multi- generational plan I have in mind is building up by investment and hard work, not by riding the crash-prone venture capital rocket.
Nothing wrong with indentured servitude. You can read some pieces I wrote about this many years ago, circa '93-94. The archives should have them.
Where are all of the archives? I have only found the ones on venona, and they are incomplete. Bear
At 9:40 PM -0800 11/2/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi- generational project.
This is not true. Most billionaires in the United States did it in a single generation. On the Fortune list of billionaires, most made the money by starting companies. Only a handful are heirs.
Most of them come from well-to-do families rather than filthy rich families, that's true. But few or none come from blue collar or really poor families.
Of three billionaires I can think of off-hand, all came from poor families. For example, Gordon Moore of Intel. Grew up in a fishing village, Pescadero, halfway between Santa Cruz and San Francisco. Modest means. (And his partner in forming Intel, Bob Noyce, now deceased, grew up on a farm in Iowa.) For example, Larry Ellison of Oracle. Grew up dirt poor in the midwest (Chicago, I believe, or some city similar to Chicago). These are two out of the top 5. Add to this Jim Bidzos, a near-billionaire from his Verisign holdings alone. Poor, enlisted in Marines, etc. And there's the guy who hired me into Intel in 1974, a poor kid from the poor side of the tracks, name of Craig Barrett. Now CEO of Intel and worth several hundred millions. (Oh, and Andy Grove, Hungarian refugee, arriving penniless in 1956-7.) And look to Warren Buffet, Sam Walton, and a slew of others. I'd say your "few or none" point has been decisively disproved by example. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
--
no matter how good you are. You can get rich enough to live off your investments, sure -- but reaching the billionaire league is a multi generational project.
Tim May:
This is not true. Most billionaires in the United States did it in a single generation. On the Fortune list of billionaires, most made the money by starting companies. Only a handful are heirs.
Ray Dillinger:
Most of them come from well-to-do families rather than filthy rich families, that's true. But few or none come from blue collar or really poor families.
Tim May:
Of three billionaires I can think of off-hand, all came from poor families.
For example, Gordon Moore of Intel. Grew up in a fishing village, Pescadero, halfway between Santa Cruz and San Francisco. Modest means.
(And his partner in forming Intel, Bob Noyce, now deceased, grew up on a farm in Iowa.)
For example, Larry Ellison of Oracle. Grew up dirt poor in the midwest (Chicago, I believe, or some city similar to Chicago).
These are two out of the top 5.
Add to this Jim Bidzos, a near-billionaire from his Verisign holdings alone. Poor, enlisted in Marines, etc. And there's the guy who hired me into Intel in 1974, a poor kid from the poor side of the tracks, name of Craig Barrett. Now CEO of Intel and worth several hundred millions.
(Oh, and Andy Grove, Hungarian refugee, arriving penniless in 1956-7.)
And look to Warren Buffet, Sam Walton, and a slew of others.
I'd say your "few or none" point has been decisively disproved by example.
The book "the millionaire next door" does provides plausible evidence that in their origins, millionaires are close to being a cross section of America. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5reu3NKJr/NkOIGpX2fmomv+eNbVe5MCBbPeruvB 42CMOlug+BOUjmCtHa4RJNdWtkjsmOJj6BZO4cXg7
participants (8)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Broiles -
James A, Donald -
Ken Brown -
Phaedrus -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt