Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
In the case of printing, the result over the following century or two was a rise in literacy rates (in the common languages, and this is when German, French, and English, for example, largely solidified into their current forms, viz. the Luther Bible, the King James Version, etc.). And the Protestant Reformation was built on printed words and on the people's ability to directly read the religious texts.
A technology undermined the state and the church.
This is why I still bother reading Tim May's posts. Every now and then he comes up with a good one. Hell, I'd recommend he stick with technology and stop worrying about blacks and other "social problems". In response to the main post I'd point out that it would have been easy (and wrong) to say that, "The Printing Press, The telescope, town clocks and Protestantism will reduce the power of the church to the point where it will collapse." (Actually, many educated catholics probably thought this at the time.) And although the Catholic church did lose power on many fronts, it by no means dissappeared. (You could almost say it prospered, but probably by virtue of the fact that it might be the single largest real estate dealer in the world.) The church morphed, changed, fought itself and the rest of the world and found a nice cozy niche for itself. ANd part of this is due to mere social inertia... but also, the church probably still serves a function that people need (or at least want), and so they continue to feed it $$$ and whatnot. But the Catholic church has become one possible option, and arguably they've learned to "compete" for donations and members. Likewise with governments. I still need my trash taken out, and for potholes to be fixed. And although these services can be provided privately (maybe) if strong crypto gives people opportunities, government might be forced to learn how to do some things more efficiently so that people can "opt-in" if they choose to. Hell, this has already happened to some extent with the US mail service. So while I don't believe heavy crypto will kill off governments, I DO believe it will eventually force them to change into something we probably can't imagine too well right now. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
In the case of printing, the result over the following century or two was a rise in literacy rates (in the common languages, and this is when German, French, and English, for example, largely solidified into their current forms, viz. the Luther Bible, the King James Version, etc.). And the Protestant Reformation was built on printed words and on the people's ability to directly read the religious texts.
A technology undermined the state and the church.
This is why I still bother reading Tim May's posts. Every now and then he comes up with a good one. Hell, I'd recommend he stick with technology and stop worrying about blacks and other "social problems".
Except he's wrong. No government fell and the printing press did nothing but increase the power of the church, his own example demonstrates it.
In response to the main post I'd point out that it would have been easy (and wrong) to say that, "The Printing Press, The telescope, town clocks and Protestantism will reduce the power of the church to the point where it will collapse."
NONE of those devices did that. They changed the approaches used but did not in any significant way do this. What -did- was the growth of concepts like equality and self-determination. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Durden wrote:
Likewise with governments. I still need my trash taken out, and for potholes to be fixed.
What makes you think government is needed at all for these? My trash is taken out by a private company, not by any government. And privately built and maintained roads have existed for a very long time.
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 07:05 AM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:
Likewise with governments. I still need my trash taken out, and for potholes to be fixed.
What makes you think government is needed at all for these? My trash is taken out by a private company, not by any government. And privately built and maintained roads have existed for a very long > time.
We fix all of the potholes on our road. And more efficiently that "CalTrans" with its headquarter skyscrapers and $80,000/year pothole fillers do. (BTW, we pay exorbitant property taxes partly to pay for local roads, yet most mountain roads are private. Why don't we get a rebate on our taxes? Because money taken by the Gaping Mouth is never returned.) --Tim May "You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - -Michael Shirley
At 7:05 AM -0700 5/6/03, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:
Likewise with governments. I still need my trash taken out, and for potholes to be fixed.
What makes you think government is needed at all for these? My trash is taken out by a private company, not by any government. And privately built and maintained roads have existed for a very long time.
120-130 years ago, there was a privately owned toll road between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz. Now there is a publicly owned road, with no toll, and I haven't heard much call to go back to the old days. Why are the vast majority of people happy with the current situation? Some ideas: * Paying for roads through gas taxes has much lower transaction costs (in both time and money) than paying tolls. The modern electronic toll systems are a relatively new development, and while they compromise privacy, that privacy will soon be lost to the cameras. * People like the direct influence on road decisions that the political process allows. In the case of the Los Gatos -- Santa Cruz road, the people in Santa Cruz county who don't want their county to be a bedroom community for Silicon Valley have kept the road a twisty 4 lane freeway. Any more ideas? Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 7:05 AM -0700 5/6/03, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:
Likewise with governments. I still need my trash taken out, and for potholes to be fixed.
What makes you think government is needed at all for these? My trash is taken out by a private company, not by any government. And privately built and maintained roads have existed for a very long time.
120-130 years ago, there was a privately owned toll road between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz. Now there is a publicly owned road, with no toll, and I haven't heard much call to go back to the old days. Why are the vast majority of people happy with the current situation? Some ideas:
Why would anyone waste time arguing for something which absolutely could not happen in today's world? I'm serious. People spend time on things they think could be changed. This is why there is "not much call." There is also "not much call" to bring back indentured servitude, even though the arguments for it are compelling. It won't happen, period, short of some Mad Max meltdown, so arguing for it is a waste of neurons and chronons. --Tim May
At 6:44 PM -0700 5/7/03, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
120-130 years ago, there was a privately owned toll road between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz. Now there is a publicly owned road, with no toll, and I haven't heard much call to go back to the old days. Why are the vast majority of people happy with the current situation? Some ideas:
Why would anyone waste time arguing for something which absolutely could not happen in today's world?
I'm serious. People spend time on things they think could be changed. This is why there is "not much call."
There have been some proposals to build privately owned toll roads in California. One proposal was from the San Francisco Bay area to Sacramento. As far as I know, that one died from lack of interest. I think there was also one in the LA area, but I know less about it. The idea is a private toll road would have less traffic, and be faster. In fairness, these proposals are "government-private partnerships", and not true private roads. The government provides the eminent domain, and the private provides some of the capital. I never heard a large amount of enthusiasm for these proposals. Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:04 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 6:44 PM -0700 5/7/03, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
120-130 years ago, there was a privately owned toll road between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz. Now there is a publicly owned road, with no toll, and I haven't heard much call to go back to the old days. Why are the vast majority of people happy with the current situation? Some ideas:
Why would anyone waste time arguing for something which absolutely could not happen in today's world?
I'm serious. People spend time on things they think could be changed. This is why there is "not much call."
There have been some proposals to build privately owned toll roads in California. One proposal was from the San Francisco Bay area to Sacramento. As far as I know, that one died from lack of interest. I think there was also one in the LA area, but I know less about it. The idea is a private toll road would have less traffic, and be faster.
There is indeed a private toll road, Highway 73 going from a point near San Juan Capistrano to a point near Irvine. It passes mostly through part of the former Irvine Ranch, mostly uninhabited. Basically, contiguous with part of the Laguna Hills. (Consult a map if interested. Yahoo will show it by entering "Irvine, CA".) I've taken it a few times, at the suggestion of my younger brother, ever-impatient with any delays. We did not take it during rush hour periods. Frankly, it cut a few miles off the normal I-5 route, and was slightly faster. This private toll road would be very hard to build in any other place, as the ownership of the large tract of undeveloped land made it possible. Private developers rarely are granted eminent domain (seizure of lands or property for the people's democratic socialist use) and it is virtually impossible to conceive of a developer acquiring rights of way for a highway through thousands of farms, houses, ranches, schools, shops, etc. (I know about auctions, but there are some markets that don't "clear." There are people who simply refuse to sell. Even when The Donald (Trump) sought to build a casino in Atlantic City there was one parcel owner who refused to sell. Once the state of NJ refused to condemn the property to give it to the Donald, he built _around_ it on three sides.) Even when the population was a fraction of what it is today, this was a problem building railroads. Of course, though the books on free enterprise are light on mentioning this, the private railroads got the land rights by coercion, threats, burning out settlers, bribing state officials, etc. "Blazing Saddles" was not far off the mark. Today, a private toll road could basically not been be built in areas where they are most needed. Q.E.D.
In fairness, these proposals are "government-private partnerships", and not true private roads. The government provides the eminent domain, and the private provides some of the capital.
I never heard a large amount of enthusiasm for these proposals.
As I discussed in my reply yesterday, people don't rally enthusiasm for things which are just not going to happen anyway, anywhich, anyhoo. And any emergent enthusiasm would be met with a vast counter-reaction from the neighbors, the affected land owners, etc. --Tim May
At 10:26 AM 5/9/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:04 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 6:44 PM -0700 5/7/03, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Bill Frantz wrote: Even when the population was a fraction of what it is today, this was a problem building railroads. Of course, though the books on free enterprise are light on mentioning this, the private railroads got the land rights by coercion, threats, burning out settlers, bribing state officials, etc. "Blazing Saddles" was not far off the mark.
A more serious treatment of this is found in a very good, but overlooked, film "The Claim," http://us.imdb.com/Details?0218378, which has lately been on premium cable. steve
From: "Tim May"
This private toll road would be very hard to build in any other place,
Not impossible, though: http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/dginfo.cfm The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816. Since the Greenway's dedication on September 29th 1995, commuters have enjoyed a non-stop alternative to Routes 7 and 28.
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0400, BobCat wrote:
Not impossible, though:
http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/dginfo.cfm
The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816. Since the Greenway's dedication on September 29th 1995, commuters have enjoyed a non-stop alternative to Routes 7 and 28.
Yep, it's a good counterexample to the general rule. But I recall that when land acquisition began, that area near Lessburg was still primarily farm country, which is easier to accumulate in terms of parcels. Also it's unclear that it was entirely private -- the web page talks about planning beginning after a 1988 state law was enacted... -Declan
At 3:00 PM -0700 5/9/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 06:00:21PM -0400, BobCat wrote:
Not impossible, though:
http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/dginfo.cfm
The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816. Since the Greenway's dedication on September 29th 1995, commuters have enjoyed a non-stop alternative to Routes 7 and 28.
Yep, it's a good counterexample to the general rule. But I recall that when land acquisition began, that area near Lessburg was still primarily farm country, which is easier to accumulate in terms of parcels. Also it's unclear that it was entirely private -- the web page talks about planning beginning after a 1988 state law was enacted...
Perhaps there is a reason that the 5th amendment provided for eminent domain. And, given the government camel nose under the tent, how far do you let it in? It would be nice to introduce some competition to keep CalTrans honest. OTOH, I like the low transaction costs, and the reasonably accurate allocation of cost that go with a fuel tax based road system. (The heavier vehicles use more gas, are harder on the roads, and pay more per mile. The people who drive more, pay more tax. That seems roughly fair. OTOH, it's not clear that the current system builds roads where they are most needed. And there is undoubtedly waste in the system. The computer system scandals come immediately to mind.) Perhaps if some of the gas tax was allocated to support the private toll roads, perhaps a percentage of mileage carried... Of course that approach would work best for maintenance, not construction, which is a more of a gamble on future behavior. Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
At 04:56 PM 05/09/2003 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
Perhaps there is a reason that the 5th amendment provided for eminent domain. And, given the government camel nose under the tent, how far do
Eminent domain gets used for all kinds of appalling things - it's not just governments building roads or military bases, or even governments taking land for government-run activities. It's also used for shopping malls and such where the government thinks it can get higher property tax revenues or "improve" the city or increase campaign contributions from real estate developers, and in the past it was used for "urban renewal", i.e. tearing down housing inhabited primarily by black people. In the past year, some major big-box retailer chain had a shareholder proposal to never use eminent domain to acquire their building sites, and management found a way to get it not to be voted on, as opposed to just voting against it. I don't think it was Walmart.
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 02:25 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:56 PM 05/09/2003 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
Perhaps there is a reason that the 5th amendment provided for eminent domain. And, given the government camel nose under the tent, how far do
Eminent domain gets used for all kinds of appalling things - it's not just governments building roads or military bases, or even governments taking land for government-run activities.
It's also used for shopping malls and such where the government thinks it can get higher property tax revenues or "improve" the city or increase campaign contributions from real estate developers, and in the past it was used for "urban renewal", i.e. tearing down housing inhabited primarily by black people.
Yes, many such uses by private actors, via bought and paid for public actors. There have been several publicized cases where a longstanding store or restaurant was seized by eminent domain, razed, and then the land has yet to be built upon. Small town residents in one area saw an important store (hardware, I think) seized and razed and now, years later, just an empty lot with no sales or property tax coming in, no employees, and no hardware store. (I think the plan had been for some large box store, but the chain decided the town only could support a smaller-sized store, which was now gone.) I met some Silicon Valley friends for lunch a few days ago. We went to a small place near a set of "out of place skyscrapers" which had been heavily subsidized by a local government. The restaurant was virtually empty, and the owner/chef came out to our table (he knew one of our party from years back) to launch into his tale of woe. For those who know the area, we ate in an old shopping complex called "Town and Country Village," in Sunnyvale, near Mathilda Avenue and Central Expressway. The old T & C Village had fallen onto hard times over the past 20 years, replaced by newer centers. So Sunnyvale decided to subsidize a builder to erect some 6-story office buildings. Three or four massive towers--massive compared to what's all around for a mile or two--got built. And now they are largely empty. Here's the "dot com explosion" optimistic report on this project: http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2000/05/08/story5.html Anyway, this restaurant owner was telling us how the town gave him various inducements to open a restaurant to serve the lunch crowd from these several skyscrapers. (Apparently when government gets into the building business it also must worry about how to feed the workers. True in ancient Egypt, true today.) Since the buildings sit nearly empty, many of the new restaurants and delis and lunch places are failing. Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.) According to news reports on this area, Sunnyvale is still losing money on a major indoor mall it built 23-4 years ago ("Sunnyvale Town Center," which I used to live a mile or so away from when it was being built in the late 70s. IMO, there's something very, very wrong about any level of government building shopping malls. --Tim May "The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 10:03:43AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
I agree with all the rest of this, however, I think you're wrong about the gambling. I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, by selling lottery tickets. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:44 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 10:03:43AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
I agree with all the rest of this, however, I think you're wrong about the gambling. I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, by selling lottery tickets.
A superficially good idea ("sounds good!"), but ultimately silly. Government bans gambling, or heavily regulates it, or declares illegal the exact odds it grants itself. Lotteries, for example, are the ultimate sucker bet. The payoff is a miniscule fraction of what is betted, and then to add insult to injury, governments state the payoff as "twenty million dollars!!!!" when the actual anuity value is something like $8 million. (Because they declare the 20-year payout as the prize. A casino which tried this, or a private lottery company, would be prosecuted for fraud.) Having government make gambling illegal but then operate gambling operations is no different from making prostitution illegal but then running brothels. I admit it is useful as an illustration of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of government, but I believe all of those who have been involved in government-run gambling where gambling is otherwise illegal should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Several million should be sent to prison for exactly the crimes they send civilians to prison for. --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 Sat, May 10, 2003 at 09:10:01PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:44 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 10:03:43AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
I agree with all the rest of this, however, I think you're wrong about the gambling. I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, by selling lottery tickets.
A superficially good idea ("sounds good!"), but ultimately silly.
Government bans gambling, or heavily regulates it, or declares illegal the exact odds it grants itself.
You're not making much sense here, Tim. Who said anything about making gambling illegal? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Sunday, May 11, 2003, at 06:35 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 09:10:01PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:44 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 10:03:43AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
I agree with all the rest of this, however, I think you're wrong about the gambling. I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, by selling lottery tickets.
A superficially good idea ("sounds good!"), but ultimately silly.
Government bans gambling, or heavily regulates it, or declares illegal the exact odds it grants itself.
You're not making much sense here, Tim. Who said anything about making gambling illegal?
You're being deliberately obtuse. You're on the verge of entering my filter file. Gambling is not a free market in most U.S. states. Government runs the gambling franchise in most states. This is what I said. --Tim May
At 09:10 PM 05/10/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:44 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
I agree with all the rest of this, however, I think you're wrong about the gambling. I think that's the only way gov't ought to be allowed to fund itself, by selling lottery tickets.
A superficially good idea ("sounds good!"), but ultimately silly. Government bans gambling, or heavily regulates it, or declares illegal the exact odds it grants itself.
When I was a kid, gambling was illegal because it was immoral, and wasteful, and took bread out of poor children's mouths, and oppressed the less educated, except of course for bingo at the volunteer fire company or Catholic church, in which case it was charitable giving mixed with harmless entertainment for the elderly. (Or for some reason, if it involved horse racing.) Now it's illegal back home because it competes with the state lottery. Sorry, that won't wash. If it's moral for the state to raise money that way, it's hypocritical for them to continue banning private gambling.
Lotteries, for example, are the ultimate sucker bet.
Not always, because the "state lotto jackpot" can reach positive expectation, if there's no big winner for enough weeks in a row so lots of suckers have already lost. It's still pretty much a sucker bet, but because the betting isn't all simultaneous, some bettors really can be much luckier than average. All this was different in New Jersey, of course. The state was finally permitted to offer a daily-number lottery as long as the payouts were lower than the main Mafia-run daily-number lotteries, and the lottery point-of-sale posters say where the money goes, so you can tell that in spite of the politicians saying it was for schools and old people, about half the profits went to running prisons. No thanks. Last time I played a government lottery, I didn't win the green suit and guns or the two-year vacation in exciting tropical Southeast Asia. Didn't even win the third-prize government-health-care physical. Ain't planning to play again.
On Sunday, May 11, 2003, at 12:22 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
Last time I played a government lottery, I didn't win the green suit and guns or the two-year vacation in exciting tropical Southeast Asia. Didn't even win the third-prize government-health-care physical. Ain't planning to play again.
I played the California Lotto game once, shortly after it started (mid-80s, as I recall). I wanted to see what the tickets looked like and whether in fact there was a hash (or other variant of crypto) on the back, as I had heard there was. Yep, for a dollar I confirmed this. I lost the losing ticket amongst my stuff many years ago. (The idea is an obvious one to our crowd. Suppose the winning number is "foobar," in some likely base. Any clod who hears this is the winning number can then use a good printer and make his own winning ticket, or so he thinks. But only the "mint" is able to generate the _other_ number, call it "foobaz," which is either a hash with a secret key of "foobar" or is otherwise computed from "foobar." John Koza, the genetic programming guy at Stanford who has authored several books on the subject, started a Gilroy-based company called Scientific Games, which did a lot of the work on lotteries and their tickets. Now they own several other betting companies. Koza sold out at least 15 years ago and concentrated on genetic programming (which has nothing to do with Scientific Games or lottery tickets).) --Tim May "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights." --President William J. Clinton
At 10:03 AM 5/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: [Talking about government-assisted projects and businesses going broke]
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
It's very clear that this is bad policy, though I'm not too sure it's actually unconstitutional. Didn't the states finance and run some of the early canals? The big problem is that the state has to have all kinds of coercive powers to do its main jobs, and those powers are awfully handy when the state is trying to protect its state-run businesses from competition, or buy land for its favored new project that the owner doesn't really want to sell, or whatever. A secondary problem is that there's no limit to how much the business can lose, when it simply can't go broke because the state owns and protects it. Just look at AMTRAK. (And as many of us have learned to our cost in the last few years, there's almost no limit other than bankruptcy to how quickly a badly-run business can lose money.)
According to news reports on this area, Sunnyvale is still losing money on a major indoor mall it built 23-4 years ago ("Sunnyvale Town Center," which I used to live a mile or so away from when it was being built in the late 70s.
IMO, there's something very, very wrong about any level of government building shopping malls.
Yep. Though I think it's a lot more common that a private company builds and operates the shopping malls, but with special incentives given to the company by the government. This is basically patronage, and it's always been a big part of local politics. How does that Huey Long quote go? Something like "Those who give a lot will get a large slice of the pie; those who give a little will get a small slice of the pie, and those who give nothing will get...good government." And of course, you get interesting competition between local governments, with each offering a bigger bag of goodies paid for by the taxpayers, or seized by condemning someone's property, so that the big mall built two years ago goes bankrupt because of the newer, shinier, even more subsidized mall that's just been built a few miles away. The same sort of competition happens for factories. I'm not usually a "there oughta be a law" kind of person, but in this case, a well-thought-out federal law prohibiting this kind of competition would be a major net benefit to taxpayers and local governments throughout the country.
--Tim May
--John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 03:08 PM, John Kelsey wrote:
At 10:03 AM 5/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: [Talking about government-assisted projects and businesses going broke]
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I >> digress.)
It's very clear that this is bad policy, though I'm not too sure it's actually unconstitutional. Didn't the states finance and run some of the early canals?
The states also established state religions and banned books, in the century or so for it to shake out in the Supreme Court that when the states agreed to support the Constitution as a condition for joining the Union it meant that they really did have to support the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is quite clear that powers not specifically granted to government by the Constitution don't exist. While building canals is arguably related to national defense and the common good (though I think private actors are better suited to build canals, and railroads, etc.), running gambling operations while declaring gambling immoral and illegal is clearly nonsensical and (I think) unconstitutional. Regrettably, the political stooges who sit on the Supreme Court have put considering this business of government running gambling dens about #131 on the list of probably unconstitutional things to look at. (I think the courts should hold personally liable those who pass unconstitutional measures. Imprisoning those who commit acts later declared to be unconstitutional might disincentivize them to blithely pass unconstitutional bills.) To repeat, government cannot declare gambling a social evil which must be banned and then turn around and set up its own gambling operations. Everyone involved in the many state gambling operations should receive sentences no less harsh than those imprisoned on gambling charges. This would mean most would die in prison. Except for those who ought to be killed for their other substantial crimes, this would be a good thing. "I was just following orders" is, of course, not a defense. The lowliest lottery clerk should receive the same multi-year prison sentence that a Mob numbers runner would receive. The kingpins in the Republicrat parties will, of course, receive effective death sentences, gang-raped by the lifers they sent to prison for competing with the JFL/LBJ/Nixon/Ollie North/Bill Clinton/Mena, Arkansas drug pipeline set up decades ago by corrupt-on-earth Washington politicians like John F. Kennedy. At least he got whacked. --Tim May, Occupied America "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:00:25PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
(I think the courts should hold personally liable those who pass unconstitutional measures. Imprisoning those who commit acts later declared to be unconstitutional might disincentivize them to blithely pass unconstitutional bills.)
Liability is an interesting idea, but then you'd have judges under a tremendous amount of pressure never to declare anything unconstitutional. ("Want a paycheck anymore, chief justice?" Or just wet squads assigned to take care of the problem of recalcitrant judges.) -Declan
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 08:40 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:00:25PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
(I think the courts should hold personally liable those who pass unconstitutional measures. Imprisoning those who commit acts later declared to be unconstitutional might disincentivize them to blithely pass unconstitutional bills.)
Liability is an interesting idea, but then you'd have judges under a tremendous amount of pressure never to declare anything unconstitutional. ("Want a paycheck anymore, chief justice?" Or just wet squads assigned to take care of the problem of recalcitrant judges.)
We hold corporate employees liable for criminal acts. Why should government employees be exempt from the same standard? And why should a judge who is able to withstand pressures not to sentence corporate employees to prison be unable to withstand similar pressures when it comes to government employees? There are issues of separation of powers, what with the judiciary thus having some power to imprison legislative members, but this is not a new issue. Judges have sentenced members of the legislature and the executive branch to prison for various offenses, including bribery, corruption, perjury, etc. The business of legislators passing new laws when other essentially identical laws were struck down, just to show their constituents that they are "doing something" or "helping to save the children," has got to stop. "You knew that passing a law restricting freedom of speech would be struck down eventually. You did it anyway. You have been found guilty of violations of the civil rights of the 3 million residents of Colorado in this class action case. The 73 defendants in this case are each sentenced to the statutory minimum of 6 months for each violation, sentences to run consecutively." --Tim May --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." --Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
We hold corporate employees liable for criminal acts. Why should government employees be exempt from the same standard? And why should a judge who is able to withstand pressures not to sentence corporate employees to prison be unable to withstand similar pressures when it comes to government employees?
Agreed... I'm not disagreeing about the problem, just the remedy. As an example, Sen. Leahy thought his "morphed child porn" bill was constitutionally problematic, but introduced it anyway: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03545.html Same with debate over other bills -- "let the courts figure it out." And that's assuming the 'critters are being nominally honest instead of mouthing protect-the-children and other FUD throwaway lines. If the Congress must approve federal judges, pay their salaries on an annual basis, and has the constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, all I'm saying is that the remedy of Congress passing a law to hold themselves criminally liable -- and having that law enforced by federal judges is not realistic given the current state of our political system. -Declan
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 03:24 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
We hold corporate employees liable for criminal acts. Why should government employees be exempt from the same standard? And why should a judge who is able to withstand pressures not to sentence corporate employees to prison be unable to withstand similar pressures when it comes to government employees?
Agreed... I'm not disagreeing about the problem, just the remedy. As an example, Sen. Leahy thought his "morphed child porn" bill was constitutionally problematic, but introduced it anyway: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03545.html
Same with debate over other bills -- "let the courts figure it out."
I would craft the rules for prosecution so as to cut Leahy a break on this, as it was the _first_ time the "morphed child-like images" law was tested. (Assuming for the sake of argument this was in fact the first such law...I dimly recally morphed images being outlawed half a dozen years ago in another law.) My main point was not to criminally prosecute those who pass laws _later_ found to be unconstitutional, when tested for the first time, but to prosecute those who keep passing the same unconstitutional laws. They know the laws "won't pass constitutional muster," as the lingo goes, but they get enough other career criminals to sign on anyway. None of this is going to happen, we all realize, but the point is valid. Passing obviously bad laws ought to have the consequences that cooking the books does with with corporate fraud.
--Tim May "The Constitution is a radical document...it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights." --President William J. Clinton
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
My main point was not to criminally prosecute those who pass laws _later_ found to be unconstitutional, when tested for the first time, but to prosecute those who keep passing the same unconstitutional laws. They know the laws "won't pass constitutional muster," as the lingo goes, but they get enough other career criminals to sign on anyway.
Yes. Leahy would fall into that category, actually. Congress enacted the "morphed" child porn ban in I recall 1996, and the Supreme Ct struck it down 7-2 as unconstitutional around a year ago. Within days Leahy, Hatch, and the other usual suspects reintroduced nearly-identical legislation: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52285,00.html
The original law, overturned on First Amendment grounds, outlawed a certain type of image that "appears to be" of a minor. The new COPPA bill refers to any computer-generated image that is "virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
We've seen the same silliness on campaign finance, on dial-a-porn restrictions (something like three rounds before the Supremes), and on CDA->COPA. -Declan
At 18:08 2003-05-12 -0400, John Kelsey wrote:
At 10:03 AM 5/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: [Talking about government-assisted projects and businesses going broke]
Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not be in the construction and business development business. (I would go further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I digress.)
It's very clear that this is bad policy, though I'm not too sure it's actually unconstitutional. Didn't the states finance and run some of the early canals? The big problem is that the state has to have all kinds of coercive powers to do its main jobs, and those powers are awfully handy when the state is trying to protect its state-run businesses from competition, or buy land for its favored new project that the owner doesn't really want to sell, or whatever. A secondary problem is that there's no limit to how much the business can lose, when it simply can't go broke because the state owns and protects it. Just look at AMTRAK. (And as many of us have learned to our cost in the last few years, there's almost no limit other than bankruptcy to how quickly a badly-run business can lose money.)
The Whig Party's platform was called, by Clay, the American System. Today we call it mercantilism. The Whigs pushed their internal improvements agenda (building unneeded and/or grossly overpriced roads, bridges or canals supplied by political contributors) across all the states in the early 1800s. Everywhere it was a disaster bankrupting several. So much so that by 1850 all state constitutions banned internal improvement activities. This was the downfall of the Whigs, but many of its leaders resurfaced in the Republican party whose first presidential candidate was Lincoln. "A Jobless Recovery is like a Breadless Sandwich." -- Steve Schear
On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
The Whig Party's platform was called, by Clay, the American System. Today we call it mercantilism. The Whigs pushed their internal improvements agenda (building unneeded and/or grossly overpriced roads, bridges or canals supplied by political contributors) across all the states in the early 1800s. Everywhere it was a disaster bankrupting several. So much so that by 1850 all state constitutions banned internal improvement activities. This was the downfall of the Whigs, but many of its leaders resurfaced in the Republican party whose first presidential candidate was Lincoln.
The more recent name for this is "pork barrel politics." (Actually an old name, but still in use.) Projects get built where constituents and contributors will benefit the most. Declan mentioned the "public choice" analysis as it related to politicians supporting the creation of "homeless gardens." (This is what the community garden in Santa Cruz is called.) These notions are all closely related: -- public choice analysis (who benefits?) -- market distortions (markets are ignored) -- rent-seeking (control of resources means continuing rent); shakedowns, governments banning competition for its monopolies -- central planning (inefficient allocation) -- laws no longer connected to morality, but to rent-seeking (gov't. running gambling) -- a general inattention to market, as politicians are not spending their own money (hence bad investments in urban renewal, factory subsidies, highways, railroads, etc.)--their own money is not at risk. All of these points are why libertarian, market-oriented ideas are important even if the moral issues are unpersuasive (to some). --Tim May --Tim May "Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" --Unknown Usenet Poster
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:55:50AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
-- public choice analysis (who benefits?) -- market distortions (markets are ignored) -- rent-seeking (control of resources means continuing rent); shakedowns, governments banning competition for its monopolies -- central planning (inefficient allocation) -- laws no longer connected to morality, but to rent-seeking (gov't. running gambling) -- a general inattention to market, as politicians are not spending their own money (hence bad investments in urban renewal, factory subsidies, highways, railroads, etc.)--their own money is not at risk.
All that is right, of course, and very concise. I guess I'm inefficient because I wrote a piece recently that used many more words to say the same thing. :) See below. It's on nanotech pork barreling and public choice. -Declan --- The best case for a government subsidy of R&D is to fund vital research that the private sector would fail to do on its own. Proponents of government nanotech funding argue that, as in other "basic research" areas, corporations have only short-term profit horizons. They say that government must pay for basic research because that's not profitable--only applied research is. This point has some validity, but there are three counter-arguments. First, private sources will pay for basic research. It may not be at the level that all researchers would prefer, but if it can lead to applied research results, the private sector will still do some of it. Second, nanotechnology includes a mix of early-stage research and late-stage research. Third, by having private funders, you avoid the public choice problems. Real-world subsidies rarely, if ever, follow the ideal found in economics textbooks. Instead, government-funded R&D in the real world is subject to the lobbying and rent-seeking that takes place whenever government dangles money. As the nascent world of nanotechnology develops, we have a chance to see how the political process steers research in political ways that need not parallel scientific goals. Bureaucrats, special interest groups, and members of Congress have strong incentives to channel nanotech funds to politically popular recipients or into trendy research areas that may or may not have legitimate scientific value. This has already lent itself to pork-barrel politics, as illustrated by a March 2002 speech by House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) delivered in New York City. In it, Boehlert pledged to steer a disproportionate amount of cash to businesses and universities in his home state. "I will do everything in my power to ensure that nanotechnology research gets the funding it deserves," Boehlert said. "I will do everything possible to see that a significant portion of that research takes place right here in New York state." Without the traditional yardstick of profit and loss, there is no straightforward way to measure what is a wise course of spending. Rational economic calculations tend to be replaced by the routine of a guaranteed budget increase every year. Money often goes to favored or well-connected groups, and controversial but promising research may be ignored. Replacing market decisions with ones made on Capitol Hill could lead to highly-politicized results and inefficient allocation of nanotech funds. ... It's too early to predict what might happen in the case of nanotechnology, but early signals indicate Congress is eager to tie strings to funding. A bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) would "ensure that philosophical, ethical, and other societal concerns will be considered alongside the development of nanotechnology." Last week, a House committee added an amendment to a nanotech funding bill that would require an evaluation of the racial diversity of organizations applying for nano-funding. During a presentation last year at a Foresight Institute conference, a former national security advisor for Vice President Al Gore predicted increased control. "These guys talking here act as though the government is not part of their lives," said Leon Fuerth, now a professor of international affairs at George Washington University. "They may wish it weren't, but it is. As we approach the issues they debated here today, they had better believe that those issues will be debated by the whole country." Among groups that benefit from nanotech spending, we're starting to see a lot of unhealthy jockeying for position and rent-seeking going on. Rent seeking is obtaining wealth or power through government action. In general, it grants special interests short-term gains at the expense of the long-term economic health of a society. To bolster its rent-seeking abilities, the Nanobusiness Alliance trade group signed up former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as its chairman and Rep. Robert Walker, former House Science committee chairman, and former Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater as advisors. Corporations that hand over up to $25,000 a year to the alliance can be part of all "legislative tours at no charge" and receive "free access to legislative" lists of key members of Congress and their aides. Alliance members include both startups and the billion-dollar firms Lockheed Martin, Agfa, Gateway, and GE. If these CEOs viewed nanotech research as too risky to fund themselves, there might be more justification for government dollars. Instead, private investment is flourishing. According to a statement from the Nanobusiness Alliance: "Some of the world's largest companies, including IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, Lucent, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NEC, Corning, Dow Chemical and 3M have launched significant nanotech initiatives through their own venture capital funds or as a direct result of their own R&D." A venture capital company devoted exclusively to nanotech, Lux Capital, already exists. Lux Capital estimates that from 1995 to 2000, the number of news articles referencing nanotechnology jumped sixfold, and a billion dollars of venture capital flowed into the nanotech industry last year. A recent report from the firm said companies "are increasingly conducting pure or basic research to keep competitive... Private spending on pure research is supposed to surpass public spending in the next year. Other firms turn to partnerships with academia, essentially outsourcing R&D initiatives." Evidently, basic research in the case of nanotechnology can be funded privately. While a firm may not be able to capitalize on all the benefits of basic research it pays for itself, CEOs seem to believe that a sufficient understanding of the fundamentals leads to applications that can be profitable. ---
On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 07:58 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:55:50AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
-- public choice analysis (who benefits?) -- market distortions (markets are ignored) -- rent-seeking (control of resources means continuing rent); shakedowns, governments banning competition for its monopolies -- central planning (inefficient allocation) -- laws no longer connected to morality, but to rent-seeking (gov't. running gambling) -- a general inattention to market, as politicians are not spending their own money (hence bad investments in urban renewal, factory subsidies, highways, railroads, etc.)--their own money is not at risk.
All that is right, of course, and very concise. I guess I'm inefficient because I wrote a piece recently that used many more words to say the same thing. :) See below. It's on nanotech pork barreling and public choice.
Actually, I wasn't very concise. I listed a laundry list of loosely-related ideas...somewhere in there is a coherent and concise theory. However, since some of the ideas have won their authors Nobel Prizes in Economics, and since they themselves have not distilled the point into a single theorem (a la Coase's Theorem, which is also related, but I won't get into that here), listing the examples is all that I could do. The general theme is purpose "the purpose of life." The purpose of any lifeform, or at least the outcome after competition and selection, is furtherance of life. Whether genotype or phenotype, whether actual instance of a lifeform or the DNA. The purpose of a U.S. politician is to be reelected. Nothing else matters. So the politician will say anything he has to say to be reelected. And he will spend money that is not his own to be reelected. Likewise, the purpose of Congress as a generalized lifeform is to perpetuate itself, to grow, to become more dominant. It passes laws to insulate itself from competition, it spins a web of confusing and conflicting laws to ensure its survival. The purpose of the judicial system is to ensure its role as the priesthood, interpreting the confusing and conflicting laws as the seers and priests of ancient times interpreted the signs of the gods. And so, for lifeforms such as the U.N., the Hague, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, etc. This is Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" writ large. Politicians mouth words about good and evil and morality and campaign reform and protecting the children, but the real reason they act is out of self-interest. This is the larger theme behind all of the examples Declan says I concisely described. The key is to place limits on this ability to act as a devouring lifeform. Most libertarians are, I think, aware of this at a deep level. Most favor the Cincinnattus approach to government: Cincinnattus (spelling?) was the Roman general who wanted to work his farm. Other Romans, in Rome, wanted him to lead Rome. He did so, for some amount of time (I forget how long), then went back to his farm. However, most politicians view politics as their life's work...or at least the best-paying job they're ever likely to get. A Congressvarmint earns something like $130,000 a year, plus numerous fringe benefits (cars, staff, fuckable interns, speaking engagements which pay more $$$, graft opportunities, junkets to Carribbean islands, and so on). A moderate dullard like Gary Condit from Modesto, California can do better as Congressman, distributing other people's money to whomever will suport his continuing career, than he can as a fertilizer salesman in his home town (like that other famous Modesto resident, Scott Peterson, accused of killing his wife Lacy). Hence Washington, D.C. is itself a lifeform, intent on surviving, growing, solidifying its power, proliferating, and generally acting as invasive weed. Political kudzu. Instead of meeting for a few months out of each year, with the politicians otherwise back in their home districts, it's of course a year-round affair now, with most of the politicians (and their staffs, who are about 20 times as numerous, more if departments of the Executive branch are counted) making the political capital their primary residence. With many who lose in elections remaining in Washington as undersecretaries of something (I just noticed Asa Hutchinson, a former Congressman, is now some kind of undersecretary at HHS) or as think tank employees...they would rather stay on in McLean or Adams-Morgan or Bethesda or Vienna than go back to Skedunktity Junction, Tennessee. I hesitate to call this a "bionomic interpretation," especially as I never really bothered to learn what "bionomics" was all about, but it's a kind of biological interpretation. Or, quoting Nietzsche once again, it's a "will to power." (No accident that N. was the first profound thinker to come after Darwin restructured everything people had thought about the world.) Entities at nearly all levels seek power, seek life, try to suppress competition. The challenge is to find ways to limit the grown of invasive weed entities like government (of whatever ideological form...the Baathists were in many ways no worse than the Republicrats). Ayn Rand expressed this in terms of disputing altruism, which is the flip side of saying that organisms seek power or act in self-interest. (She was a Nietzschian, at least originally, but later found something to disagree with him about, and in typical Rand fashion, declared him to be some kind of corrupt thinker. Hilarious.) So, Declan, this is a less concise, restatement of the examples. Again, close to "public choice theory." But also close to natural selection. And ultimately, a market system (of sorts, with various distortions caused by men with guns). Where crypto comes in, of the form we call anarchocapitalism or cryptoanarchy, is that it short-circuits or bypasses some of the centralized control mechanisms. Which is not altogether new, as the telephone did this, as decentralized distribution did, and so on. (Which is a reason Russia had but one major city that all sought to move to, but the U.S. has long had many major cities....most people I know have no stinking desire to live in either Washington or NYC or LA.) But relating crypto and digital money and data havens to political ideology is another major topic, so I'll stop here. However, you mention nanotechnology, which I have had some interest in for a couple of decades (via Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, Ted Kaehler, and the nanotechnology discussion group in Palo Alto in the early 90s), so I will make a few comments:
-Declan
---
The best case for a government subsidy of R&D is to fund vital research that the private sector would fail to do on its own. Proponents of government nanotech funding argue that, as in other "basic research" areas, corporations have only short-term profit horizons. They say that government must pay for basic research because that's not profitable--only applied research is.
Some of the nanotech advocates have long-argued for a "Moonshot" approach, an Apollo Program for nanotech. Gag! We tried to argue with them that this was a terrible idea, that Apollo _itself_ was a terrible approach to going into space in general. The chip industry did not need significant amounts of government money. It is an oft-repeated and bogus claim that chips came from government money. While government spent some money buying circa-1960 technology for Minuteman missiles, for example, the commercial development was way ahead. I could give a dozen more examples. Anyone who was at either Fairchild or TI in the 60s or Intel or Mostek or AMD in the 70s could trivially dispute the claim that the core developments of those decades came from government largesse.
This point has some validity, but there are three counter-arguments. First, private sources will pay for basic research. It may not be at the level that all researchers would prefer, but if it can lead to applied research results, the private sector will still do some of it. Second, nanotechnology includes a mix of early-stage research and late-stage research. Third, by having private funders, you avoid the public choice problems.
Most of the important spending in Silicon Valley was not of research, but was of _feeders_. By this I mean the rise of various companies supplying feedstocks: silicon wafers of sufficient purity, liquid nitrogen (even plumbed under some streets by vendors), photoprojection printers, test equipment, pure chemicals, laminar flow hoods, and on and on. It is this _ecology_ of suppliers and customers that gave us the striking advances in chip technology (and similar advances in aircraft, in biotech, in computers in general, in software, and so on). By contrast, Apollo gave us a dozen spacecraft, of which half were used. Nanotech will need the same ecology of suppliers and customers cited above. Government cannot provide this. However, it is in the interest of some "nanotech leaders" that they be the ones to disperse the money of others, that they become the dominant nanotech lifeform. Whether individuals or committees (some in Washington, even), they will seek to perpetuate and expand. (In some cases, the "nanotech leaders" will be the Congressmen who try to build a career, and later business gig, on shaping nanotech policy. In other cases, it will be early pioneers of nanotech who are unhappy with the industrial focus of work and wish to get it back it back to the pure vision (I decline to name a name here). In other cases, it will just be the usual plodders and dullards who see setting nanotech policy as their only hope for some measure of job security. We've seen this many times before. (Which is not to say this did not happen during the rise of Silicon Valley. In fact, companies and those in them would like to do the same thing. There is no doubt that my former employer, Intel, would like to be the dominant lifeform for at least as long as the remaining careers and retirement living of its employees! I, too, would like to see it continue to dominate--at least until I can sell my remaining stock! This is not surprising. Altruism is not why companies like Intel or Apple or Microsoft exist. However--and this is important!--they lack the power to force their customers to continue to buy from them, as companies like Packard (the car company, not the monitor company) and U.S. Steel and United Airlines found out. Or, in the chip business, as Mostek and Monolithic Memories and Rheem Semiconductor found out. This is the difference between "markets with coercion" and "markets without coercion.") (There are deep, and unexplored here, connections between the initiation of force and distortions of markets. Organisms have long used force--claws and teeth and clubs and guns--as a means of competing for food or mates, for controlling territory, for collecting rent. Much could be said here about the connections with initiation of force, Schelling points for rights in uncoerced transactions, the role of untraceability (and hence unreachability in the physical world) in some of the interesting crypto uses, and anarchocapitalism in general. We seek ways to reduce or remove the ability of men with guns to force us to give them money or other things of value.)
Real-world subsidies rarely, if ever, follow the ideal found in economics textbooks. Instead, government-funded R&D in the real world is subject to the lobbying and rent-seeking that takes place whenever government dangles money.
Yep, this author is making the same list of points I made: rent-seeking, public choice theory, dangling money...all part of the general will to power principle. Rest of article not commented on. I urge Cypherpunks to listen to their (likely) natural inner voices telling them government subsidies have rarely worked and have often done great harm. No government funding for nanotech, or digital money, or _anything_. So, this article is no longer concise. Such is life.
--Tim May, Occupied America "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
On Saturday 17 May 2003 11:47 am, Tim May wrote:
The general theme is purpose "the purpose of life." The purpose of any lifeform, or at least the outcome after competition and selection, is furtherance of life. Whether genotype or phenotype, whether actual instance of a lifeform or the DNA.
The purpose of a U.S. politician is to be reelected. Nothing else matters. So the politician will say anything he has to say to be reelected. And he will spend money that is not his own to be reelected.
I'm sure Tim has read this, but maybe some people havent. http://generalsystemantics.com/Systemantics.htm The Postal Service is alive, too. All systems are.
On Saturday, May 17, 2003, at 06:40 PM, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
On Saturday 17 May 2003 11:47 am, Tim May wrote:
The general theme is purpose "the purpose of life." The purpose of any lifeform, or at least the outcome after competition and selection, is furtherance of life. Whether genotype or phenotype, whether actual instance of a lifeform or the DNA.
The purpose of a U.S. politician is to be reelected. Nothing else matters. So the politician will say anything he has to say to be reelected. And he will spend money that is not his own to be reelected.
I'm sure Tim has read this, but maybe some people havent.
http://generalsystemantics.com/Systemantics.htm
The Postal Service is alive, too. All systems are.
I read Korzybski ("general semantics--the map is not the territory") around 1970. General systems theory, a la Bertanlanffy, I only read enough of to say "So?" General semantics and general systems theory are not very profound. Much more interesting to me today is epistemic logic in particular, and modal logic in general, and topos theory even more abstractly. However, these areas are a bit too abstract for most of the popularizations. (Such as they are today, where people don't read. I thought things were pretty bad when "Analog" and "Scientific American" were the sources, now I find that SciAm is a thin, glossy, no content advertisement rag and "Analog" is virtually unread. But Eminem be saying "Keep da faith, baby!") --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
At 7:58 PM -0700 5/16/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's too early to predict what might happen in the case of nanotechnology, but early signals indicate Congress is eager to tie strings to funding. A bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) would "ensure that philosophical, ethical, and other societal concerns will be considered alongside the development of nanotechnology."
I heard our current policies described as, "We already have a faith based science and technology policy." I think the speaker was referring to stem cell research. Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
On Sat, 10 May 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
Eminent domain gets used for all kinds of appalling things - it's not just governments building roads or military bases, or even governments taking land for government-run activities.
It's apparently a pretty large-scale problem. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/US/domain_030512_csm.html
On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 03:00 PM, BobCat wrote:
From: "Tim May"
This private toll road would be very hard to build in any other place,
Not impossible, though:
http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/dginfo.cfm
The Dulles Greenway is a privately owned 14-mile toll road that connects Washington Dulles International Airport with Leesburg, Virginia. The Greenway is the first private toll road in Virginia since 1816. Since the Greenway's dedication on September 29th 1995, commuters have enjoyed a non-stop alternative to Routes 7 and 28.
If I'm not mistaken--and I haven't done any Googling on this--the new toll road is next to the older and still operating road. (I have not been on the Dulles Access Road since 1991, but I recall the private toll road was under construction next to it, on the same right of way.) I spent most of the 60s in the Langley/Fairfax area, and I took travelled the Dulles Access Road many times. The original "right of way" was of course obtained by condemning hundreds of properties in the 1950s to make way for the Dulles Access Road. Burbclaves like Reston and Herndon later grew up on either side of the condemned right of way, and had only limited connections to each other. If the new toll road is using the original condemned right of way, then my point stands. The new developers presumably bribed the right officials and contributed to the right election campaigns so as to piggyback on the original statist action. If the new toll road is NOT on the orginal right of way, and passes through the various neighborhoods like Herndon, Reston, and Vienna, then I would be very interested in just how they bought up thousands of houses, cut through dozens of surface streets, and generally cut a new swathe through a suburban area. --Tim May
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 07:43:51PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
If the new toll road is NOT on the orginal right of way, and passes through the various neighborhoods like Herndon, Reston, and Vienna, then I would be very interested in just how they bought up thousands of houses, cut through dozens of surface streets, and generally cut a new swathe through a suburban area.
There are two roads: The Dulles Toll Road, which connects I-66 (near the Beltway) with Dulles Airport, and the Dulles Greenway, which continues northwest away from the city to end in Leesburg. We've been talking about the Greenway. There's a map here: http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/dgmap.cfm I take the Dulles Toll Road whenever I fly out of that airport, but have only taken the Dulles Greenway once or twice (the only people I know in the area are north of Leesburg, and it's easier to connect through Point of Rocks in Maryland). So I'm not really all that familiar with it. A quick search, though, turns up this, which shows that the Greenway was a government project accomplished through eminent domain, that it is run by a private contractor and will return to state control in a few decades, and that it's subject to continued aggressive regulation from local governments. http://www.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_making_inroads_private/
On the other side of the country, the Dulles Greenway, a 15-mile extension of the Dulles Toll Road, connects the Beltway (I-495) around Washington, D.C., with Dulles International Airport... That profitability, plus growth in the nearby suburbs, convinced Virginia to build the extension. Its DOT, however, decided not to build a public road and awarded the franchise to the Toll Road Corporation of Virginia (TRCV). The TRCV will operate the Greenway for 40 years, after which the road becomes state property... The Greenway, meanwhile, is subject to utility-style regulation by the state's corporation commission with a target return on equity of 21 percent... The road also has been subject to extensive regulation. For example, Greenway officials wanted to raise the speed limit on the road from 55 to 65 miles per hour, an approval process that took substantial time and required an act of the Virginia legislature. Furthermore, state regulators and lenders have to approve toll restructuring.
Not a good example of a privately-owned and privately-built road. -Declan
Tim May wrote:
This private toll road would be very hard to build in any other place, as the ownership of the large tract of undeveloped land made it possible. Private developers rarely are granted eminent domain (seizure of lands or property for the people's democratic socialist use) and it is virtually impossible to conceive of a developer acquiring rights of way for a highway through thousands of farms, houses, ranches, schools, shops, etc.
(I know about auctions, but there are some markets that don't "clear." There are people who simply refuse to sell. Even when The Donald (Trump) sought to build a casino in Atlantic City there was one parcel owner who refused to sell. Once the state of NJ refused to condemn the property to give it to the Donald, he built _around_ it on three sides.)
Always fun when this happens. In my home town, Brighton in England, a company with the unfortunate name of "GRIP" bought about 8 or 9 old houses to build an office. One old woman wouldn't sell, she wanted to carry on living in her own house, so until she died it was stuck in the middle of a steel and glass office block, propped up by big wooden beams. As you say, when the government wants to build something, it usually passes a law to kick out such recalcitrant old ladies. Except that somehow railway companies - and before them the canals, this goes back to the 18th century - always managed to get the government on their side.
participants (14)
-
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
BobCat -
Declan McCullagh -
Harmon Seaver -
Jim Choate -
John Kelsey -
ken -
Kevin S. Van Horn -
Roy M.Silvernail -
Steve Schear -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tim May -
Tyler Durden