From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Fri Mar 26 06:04:52 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA28015; Fri, 26 Mar 93 06:04:50 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA29403; Fri, 26 Mar 93 06:04:47 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Fri, 26 Mar 93 08:58:30 -0500 Message-Id: <9303261358.AA18562@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 08:58:08 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <9303261358.AA18555@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0156 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on March 26, 373 P.N.O. [13:58:29 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Fri, 26 Mar 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0156 Today's Topics: ANON: Anon.penet.fi no more [2 msgs] Buy Health, Not Health Care [1 msgs] Chomsky, Conspiracies, and Jews [1 msgs] ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion [5 msgs] GOVT: How-to: mail the statists [1 msgs] HUMOR: Trendy pop science [2 msgs] Israel as a mailing list [1 msgs] JEWS: Perry's Last Name [1 msgs] Jews in Palestine [1 msgs] PARABLES: Extropian Parables -- a proposal [2 msgs] PHIL: Are we hypocrites? [2 msgs] PHIL: Are we hypocrites? (serious.NOT flame bait(long)) [1 msgs] Tropical Libertaria [1 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 50909 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 20:32:38 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion > Third, I *do* expect some people will explicitly adopt a "I don't > read messages unless I know who they're from" strategy, in much the > same way publishers have to be very careful not to read manuscripts > sent to them unsolicited. Why do publishers not read unsolicited manuscripts? > -Tim May Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk Accountable Society member since 21/3/93 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 20:27:20 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: Chomsky, Conspiracies, and Jews > Israel as a nation-state bores me. If Jewish heritage is a powerful > set of memes, let it flourish in diverse locations, not crammed into > a tiny part of the desert. > But a major component of Judaic culture is Zionism. ie many of the Jewish memes are concerned with geographical location. There's no point saying go away and play your games somewhere else. A Zionist wants to play *in* Palestine. Arrational it may be, but it's what they believe in. Zionism in modern times started with the *private* purchase of land in Palestine by some Zionist charity/ies. If only it had stayed private. > -Tim May Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk Accountable Society member since 21/3/93 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 13:33:35 PST From: Robin Hanson Subject: ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion Timothy C. May writes: >Third, I *do* expect some people will explicitly adopt a "I don't read >messages unless I know who they're from" strategy, in much the same way >publishers have to be very careful not to read manuscripts sent to them >unsolicited. This is a nice example! >>Without a plausible scenario for how such reputations could be created >>and communicated, extortion seems less of a problem; potential victims >>would estimate n,m so high that they would not think it in their >>interest to give in, even if able. This is hopeful, but before >>breathing too easy we should work harder searching for such scenarios. > >Nothing forces either the extortionist or the victim to go through these >hypothetical extortion rating agencies...if in fact such agencies make >extortion less profitable or even not feasible, why would they be used? > >An extortionist can always "secretly" contact his victim, make a threat, >demand a payment, and collect his payment all without contacting anyone or >any entity besides his victim. In other words, the way it's usually done >today. I think your missing some important issues, and finding these issues was the point of doing the analysis I did. You do *not* want to give in to an anonymous extortion threat without both some reason to believe that they can and would actually carry out the threat, and that doing do would not lead to even more and worse threats from this or other extortionists. After all, why shouldn't the extortionist sell your name to someone else as one who gave in, or come back via another pseudoname? A familiar way to show ability are to first do some small harm, or near harm, and then send the threat. Protection rackets, with local geographic monopolies, are a familiar way to demostrate that giving in won't lead to ten new guys at your door. Kidnapping is rarely a repeat business because victims know they can take much stronger precautions after one such event; threats of kidnapping are less effective. The question is how crypto-extortionists can accomplish these demonstrations. I talked further with my friend, and he posed the scenario where an extortionist publically posts a sealed time-stamped copy of the threat, and releases the key only if the victim doesn't give in. New victims then look back on old records of such releases by the same extortionists, and examines public records to see if those people were harmed afterword. These victims also search the public records for the absense of people who claim that they gave in to this extortionist and then were subject to more and more threats until they were ruined. His scenarios do sound plausible. There might be hope that people who tell reporters about their troubles after giving in might be persuaded to not publish the public key of the extortionist, but this is only a hope so far. >Though I favor strong crypto and even crypto anarchy, I am less confident >than Robin that these markets in assassinations and extortion can be >suppressed. Confident? Me? I wouldn't be looking into it if I was confident it wasn't a problem. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 16:39 EST From: "Andrew I Cohen" Subject: PHIL: Are we hypocrites? Garrett Goebel's recent post about a possible hypocrisy among anarcho-capitalists seems to be raising some interesting challenges, but the structure of the challenge is unclear to me. I'll look at some specific arguments, though their role in some larger argument wasn't made clear in the original post. > > UNDERLYING QUESTION: Are anarcho-capitalists anarcho-hypocrites? Are > their beliefs grounded in the moral overtones which they so dislike in > religious and statist opponents > So, is the problem that anarcho-capitalists (AC's) are investing their arguments with normative terms? Or is it that they're employing _bad_ moral arguments? Which one? > TOPICS: Is there a basis to rights? > Do basic rights exist? > > GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: > o There are only two ways rights exist... > o Rights exist where people volunteer to observe them, ie. social > conventions > o Rights exist where governments establish and enforce them, ie. > The Bill of Rights and the U.S. government > Recent discussions about the "existence" of rights leave me perplexed. What is the criteria of "existence"? Rights aren't material things; they're principles. Can't principles "exist" (i.e., be "valid" or "true" or whatever) without receiving some institutional or majoritarian sanction? But it's not clear what role these assumptions play in Garrett's overall argument, anyway. > the three principles that define the anarcho-capitalist. > > 1) NO ONE SHOULD INITIATE FORCE, ie. no one should be forced to do > anything they don't want to do. > > 2) EVERYONE SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, > provided it doesn't conflict with rule #1, ex: gov't enforce charity... > taxes. This rule really doesn't need to exist, as it is a natural > outgrowth of rule one. > > 3) SELF DEFENSE/RETALITORY FORCE IS JUSTIFIABLE, and should be used when > rule 1 or 2 is violated. > > These are extremely strong rules. It would be hard to argue that > any of them are 'wrong'. And it is easy to see how libertarianism, > anarcho-capitalism, and extropianism have grown out from these three > principles. There is however, as I see it, one rule lacking. Ironically, > without this rule, I just can't accept anarcho-capitalism as 'right'. > > 0) THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, ie. no government, organization, or person > has any underlying "right" to force me to part with any of these rules. > ie. there is no basis for fundamental rights. Here the argument needs to slow down and define its terms. What do we mean by "right" (the adjective)? It's not clear why this last principle is needed to lend definitive moral oomph to anarcho-capital- ism. But leave that aside. Looking at the no-exception principle, the move from "there are no exceptions" to "there is no basis for fundamental rights" seems quick to me. Much needs to be filled in to make this work. In fact, the "no-exception" principle would seem to be a splendid basis for fundamental, inviolable rights. No? > At first glance, I'm sure that most of you would say that you too > agree that there are no exceptions. But at the mention of no fundamental > rights, for some reason, I see many extropians balking. We all recognize > that no one has a fundamental "right" to force us to stop abiding by our > principles... but we don't acknowledge that we have no fundamental "right" > to stop others from abiding by their principles. > > Yes, governments force us to abide by certain rules, protecting > what they call "rights". By our principles, they have no "right" to > do this. Note the wording. I never claimed we had any basic "right" > that superseeds their ability to force us to comply by their rules. We > do have the ability to resist, and the duty to on principle... our > principles. I really do not understand what is going on here. What is the argument? > > Turn this example around, and you have the point I am trying to make. > Yes, anarcho-capitalists can argue explicitly and logically that their > principles equate to the best set of rules and principles. That living > the anarcho-capitalist life is a net gain for all. But here we sit. Our > ideas deemed radical, revolutionary, and "bad". We accept all but the last, > as proper descriptions... without thinking, we turn around and call them > centrist, statist, illogical, inferior, and "bad". All but the last > description are correct. At least based on my principles. But when we > take that last step of calling them "bad", we step off our pedestals of > logic and higher principle and sink down to their level. How? Why? You > ask in annoyance as I tread on what you define as the holy "basics". Garrett seems to be supposing that something about anarcho-capitalism precludes moral judgment. We need an argument for that. Can't the libertarian/extropian/etc. adopt a principle of non-coercion or inviolable negative rights or whatever -- some fundamental -- and then step aside and say to others: "here are the principles by which to organize a society; any departure from them is (morally) illegitimate." What is it about AC that precludes that? > > At the point where we stop using logic, stop criticizing our > ideological opponents with emotional detatchment... at that point, we > begin to use moral force... force. Smirk if you will, but don't hit > the delete key. At the point where we typify our opponents as morally > "wrong", the only thing that separates them from us, is the fact that > they have physical force to back their moral convictions... we don't > as of yet. I still don't see the problem. Is it that force is involved? There is a big (and, in my view, morally important) difference between the force of persuasion and physical force. You can walk away from one unmolested. > > Let me put it in a different, if not similar way. If we hold ourselves > to be revolutionary, logical, and superior based on our better set of > principles... when we resort to moral force over the force of logic, > then we have crossed a line, we have violated our principles, and we are > no longer better than our opponents. So I'm dragging on you say? Let me > wrap it up. > I still don't get it. What principles have we violated? > That line between moral force and logic is a thin but important one. > When we cross it, we are claiming that we have a fundamental "right" to > force someone to change their principles and/or actions. We claim a > fundamental "right" that not only doesn't exist, but is specifically > against the principles by which we define our superiority. When you argue Using this type of reasoning, as I understand it, it is illegitimate ever to try to persuade anyone of anything, or to pass judgment on anyone or anything. The force involved in my announcing, vehemently, "Hillary Clinton is a power-luster, up to no good" is substantially different from my putting a bullet in her head. (Hmm.... nah.) > > As a final note, I'd like to state that I am not claiming any moral > grounds on which you should be forced to comply with my conclusions. If > my conclusions are logical ones, and correct, than you will recognize them > and comply with them voluntarily. It is my belief, that if our ideas and > principles are indeed logically superior, than time will prove us correct > through our actions. Until then, I would appreciate it if those that find > themselves calling governments and other organizations blantently wrong and > bad... would check that primal instinct, and add in a "logically wrong" or > an "economically bad", instead of descending to the level of moral force > that our opponents are so adept at using. Ah, so there's a distinction between logical arguments and moral pronouncements. Sure. But I still don't see the overall argument. Look, isn't there supposed to be some "persuasive force" behind the argument in the original post? Is the idea that moral pronoucements are bankrupt? out of place in argument? inconsistent with our more fundamental commitments? Why? Any effort at trying to influence the conduct of another will involve force. If I try to show a friend that her commitment to property rights requires that she abandon her support for laws against discrimination in hiring, she would hopefully renounce her silly position because of the force of my argument. Things change vastly when I put a gun to her head and ask her to stop lobbying for laws against discrimination and supporting them in her daily doings. > Moreover, historically, moral force has been used > more and with greater impact to defend physical force, not the force of > reason and logic; force that is no force at all, in that you voluntarily > comply with reason. However little force moral force adds up to, is irrel- > evant; it is force. > I disagree (with the implication). Yes, force is force, but moral force is not physical force. > > C. Garrett Goebel > Maybe we can hear the structure of the argument fleshed out a bit, and perhaps us AC's would then, by force of argument, be driven to some serious reflection. Andrew Cohen uandcoh@unc.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 14:28:56 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: PHIL: Are we hypocrites? (serious.NOT flame bait(long)) X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Garrett Goebel says: > TOPICS: Is there a basis to rights? Yes. They are a naturally evolving epiphenomenon. > Do basic rights exist? No, in the sense that the universe doesn't care if anyone is respecting anyone elses rights. Yes, in the sense that rights do tend to spontaneously evolve, and that ignoring them destabilizes society and makes everyone worse off. > GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: > o There are only two ways rights exist... > o Rights exist where people volunteer to observe them, ie. social > conventions Its not entirely a form of "volunteering to observe them", although it is essentially voluntary. Its more that agreeing to the rules is desirable for most people because it makes their own lives better, thus making rights an evolutionarily stable fiction. > Are We Hypocrites? > > Anarcho-capitalism and extropianism are characterized if anything, by > hyper-rationality. The anarcho-capitalist belief system has many angry > words for any belief system based on faith and backed by moral overtones. Anarchocapitalism is different from extropianism. Extropians tend to disagree with faith-based systems, but religious, even extremely religious, anarchocapitalists exist. I know some of them. They tend to be good people, usually -- just not what I'd consider to be operating on fully correct premises. > Through > the three principles that define the anarcho-capitalist. > > 1) NO ONE SHOULD INITIATE FORCE, ie. no one should be forced to do > anything they don't want to do. Its true that one of our conclusions is that no one should initiate force, but remember that doesn't mean that no one should be forced to do things. For instance, nature forces most people to eat regularly or die. What it does mean is that no one should initiate violence against other persons or their property. You are mixing the two senses of "force", which leads to problems. Also note that for many of us, this rule is a conclusion we draw from looking at the world about how to run things such that we would be happiest, not a moral premise or principle. > 2) EVERYONE SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, > provided it doesn't conflict with rule #1, ex: gov't enforce charity... > taxes. This rule really doesn't need to exist, as it is a natural > outgrowth of rule one. > > 3) SELF DEFENSE/RETALITORY FORCE IS JUSTIFIABLE, and should be used when > rule 1 or 2 is violated. You can think of number 3 in spontaneous order terms this way: you and I agree that we will not initiate violence against each other. When you break the agreement by initiating violence against me, our agreement becomes void by your actions and you cease to be protected by the agreement. > These are extremely strong rules. It would be hard to argue that > any of them are 'wrong'. And it is easy to see how libertarianism, > anarcho-capitalism, and extropianism have grown out from these three > principles. Libertarianism/Anarchocapitalism is just one facet of extropian thinking. All "real" (for some definition of real) extropians are anarchocapitalists, but far from all anarchocapitalists are extropians, and extropians are in to many things (cryonics, etc) that have nothing to do with politics per se. > There is however, as I see it, one rule lacking. Ironically, > without this rule, I just can't accept anarcho-capitalism as 'right'. > > 0) THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, ie. no government, organization, or person > has any underlying "right" to force me to part with any of these rules. > ie. there is no basis for fundamental rights. I don't how the i.e. follows from the previous phrase. > At first glance, I'm sure that most of you would say that you too > agree that there are no exceptions. Actually, I don't agree. You see, the "rules" you have stated are based on what we've found makes society work better. I'll agree that I can't think of general exceptions to the rules, but there are certainly times when one can seemingly violate the rules. For instance, I have no compunction about running across another mans lawn in order to flee from a threat to my life, etc. One does, of course, have to be willing to take the consequences of such violations, such as paying compensation for the harm caused. > But at the mention of no fundamental > rights, for some reason, I see many extropians balking. We all recognize > that no one has a fundamental "right" to force us to stop abiding by our > principles... but we don't acknowledge that we have no fundamental "right" > to stop others from abiding by their principles. No one would claim that we have any reason to stop others from behaving as they will -- UNTIL they start causing us harm. When they do, we stop them. Its not a question of rights -- its a question of what arises when all people operate only to stop others from initiating violence against them. The resultant spontaneous order looks like a web of "natural rights", but it is not, just as a market doesn't really move prices to match supply and demand -- the actions of millions of consumers and producers acting in their own interests just give that appearance of planning by an institution when no instition or planning really exist. There are no "rights" involved -- whats involved is the "invisible hand", which is not a hand or actor of any sort at all -- just spontaneous order. > Yes, governments force us to abide by certain rules, protecting > what they call "rights". By our principles, they have no "right" to > do this. Note the wording. I never claimed we had any basic "right" > that superseeds their ability to force us to comply by their rules. We > do have the ability to resist, and the duty to on principle... our > principles. There are no rules or principles or rights -- there is only what does and does not happen and what we do and do not desire. As an example, a drug dealer need not claim any right to disobey the government -- but we can note that in general the government is powerless to stop him. Similarly, one might claim that by the governments own supposed rules many of its actions are "illegal", but this is a meaningless comment -- they perform these acts anyway. I rarely if ever argue against government on the basis of absolute morality, because even if there were such a thing it is fruitless to try to get people to agree on what it might be. > Turn this example around, and you have the point I am trying to make. > Yes, anarcho-capitalists can argue explicitly and logically that their > principles equate to the best set of rules and principles. That living > the anarcho-capitalist life is a net gain for all. But here we sit. Our > ideas deemed radical, revolutionary, and "bad". We accept all but the last, > as proper descriptions... without thinking, we turn around and call them > centrist, statist, illogical, inferior, and "bad". All but the last > description are correct. At least based on my principles. But when we > take that last step of calling them "bad", we step off our pedestals of > logic and higher principle and sink down to their level. How? Why? You > ask in annoyance as I tread on what you define as the holy "basics". I don't see what you are getting at here. Good and bad are relative terms -- good and bad to whom is always the question. Anarchy would be good for me, so I call it "good". I make no claims for other people, nor do I care to. > At the point where we stop using logic, stop criticizing our > ideological opponents with emotional detatchment... at that point, we > begin to use moral force... force. Smirk if you will, but don't hit > the delete key. Here again you conflate the vernacular term "force" with violence. More than that, however, there is nothing wrong with making judgements. Government does not meet my personal goals, so I term it bad for me. Whats wrong with that? Where is the appeal to emotion there? > At the point where we typify our opponents as morally > "wrong", the only thing that separates them from us, is the fact that > they have physical force to back their moral convictions... we don't > as of yet. But again, many of us argue without any use of moral judgements at all. > Let me put it in a different, if not similar way. If we hold ourselves > to be revolutionary, logical, and superior based on our better set of > principles... when we resort to moral force over the force of logic, > then we have crossed a line, we have violated our principles, and we are > no longer better than our opponents. "Moral force", as you put it, does not meet the libertarian definition of force. Force is a term of art meaning PHYSICAL force, such as shoving someone or shooting them, not, say, nagging them, or nature "forcing" them to eat. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 14:47:30 PST From: dorsey@lila.com (Bill Dorsey) Subject: PARABLES: Extropian Parables -- a proposal In article <9303242357.AA07016@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> you write: >As a songwriter I've written hundreds of "parables" >over the last 19 years. (While I've done it on an >amateur level, I've won 3 of 4 song contests I've >entered--two of them libertarian contests in Los >Angeles.) If anyone would like to seem them, I'll >include 5 or 6 of the best one. (I just wrote a racy >one today called "T*x Me, Bill" which starts off >Oh, Bill, keep picking my pockets and leave >your hand on my loin..." and continues in that >vein...hohoho) > Carol, I'd love to see your songs/parables! -- Bill Dorsey "Most people mistake law for justice and authority for dorsey@lila.com liberty. You will hear them talk of 'liberty under law,' PGP 2.1 public and they are content to see it so deep under the law that key on request it is completely obliterated." -- Herbert Spencer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 18:03:24 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Michael Clive Price says: > > Third, I *do* expect some people will explicitly adopt a "I don't > > read messages unless I know who they're from" strategy, in much the > > same way publishers have to be very careful not to read manuscripts > > sent to them unsolicited. > > Why do publishers not read unsolicited manuscripts? So they can't be accused of plagarism. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 18:09:40 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Robin Hanson says: > > Confident? Me? I wouldn't be looking into it if I was confident it > wasn't a problem. I've just been reminded of something else -- cryptocash IS traceable. If the person who buys the cash wants to, he can record the numbers he uses to generate the cash. The bank can then later on trace the use of those number. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 18:02:49 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Jews in Palestine X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Michael Clive Price says: > > Israel as a nation-state bores me. If Jewish heritage is a powerful > > set of memes, let it flourish in diverse locations, not crammed into > > a tiny part of the desert. > > > But a major component of Judaic culture is Zionism. ie many of the > Jewish memes are concerned with geographical location. There's no point > saying go away and play your games somewhere else. A Zionist wants to > play *in* Palestine. Arrational it may be, but it's what they believe > in. Zionism in modern times started with the *private* purchase of land > in Palestine by some Zionist charity/ies. If only it had stayed > private. Disclaimer: half my family is Israeli. It WAS largely private, and even to this day with the goddamn socialist government land largely changes hands privately. Zionism started as a movement to construct a homeland for an oft-butchered and persecuted people that had been wandering without full rights for millenia -- and it operated entirely by private means until 1948. The first thing that went wrong with it was when the Brits began their rather un-libertarian policy of forbidding Jewish immigration to Palestine. (My family lived there as far back ask they could remember, by the way -- they weren't 20th, or even 19th century immigrants.) But lets take a step back for a moment. Repeating, Zionism was NOT irrational. Not even remotely. People don't seem to remember that countries around the world used to kick Jews out, kill them, refuse them immigration, etc. I'm not just talking about the Nazis, either. I'm talking about nice places like the good old US of A which had a policy before the Second World War of not allowing in Jews fleeing from the Nazis. I'm talking about Czarist Russia where Pogroms were a way of life. Wanting your own country under such circumstances is very much like the desire of many Extropians to have their own country -- a place where you are safe, and where your safety is in your own hands. What happened was this: Jews moved peacefully into Palestine and BOUGHT land and lived on it. The Brits, with their fun Divide and Conquer strategy, decided to divide up the Jews and the Muslims in their traditional method of controling the locals. This led to people killing each other where no one had previously been in real conflict. (Jews had lived in Palestine largely peacefully over many centuries of Ottoman rule -- including, as I mention, my own family.) The Brits also closed Palestine up to Jewish immigration, largely so that, having enraged the Arabs, they could then appease them. After a while, the Brits finally promised in the famous "White Paper" to open up Palestine to Jewish immigration -- something that people paranoid about being butchered by Nazis who wanted a place to live safely desperately wanted. World War II approached, Jews desperately wanted to leave Europe, and no place on earth -- not the U.S., not England, no where, would take them in. Some were lucky enough to already have relatives abroad that they could go to -- for those without them, the "civilized" countries of the world were closed, as were the uncivilized ones, by the way. From 1933 to 1939, many Jews TRIED to leave Europe, and largely could not. The Brits reneged on the promise to open Palestine for immigration, and the war came and millions were butchered. After the war, the various Jewish undergrounds decided not to wait any longer to be permitted to have a safe place to live and started smuggling Jews by the boatload into Palestine. They more or less decided never to be at anyone else's mercy again. Remember, by the way, that they weren't seizing land to house them -- they didn't have that power. The Brits tried to stop this, there was lots of bloodshed, etc. I don't want to get in to that. What I will mention is this, however -- from the perspective of a rational individual in 1945 or 1946, the desire of Jews to have a country where they had some measure of control over their own lives made perfect sense. The fact that much has gone astray since then is not the point. The fact that Israel is a state and I oppose all states is not the point, either. The point is that the social and historical forces that created the Zionist movement were NOT irrational lovers of a barren desert they had never seen but people who wanted a safe home -- not a crazy idea at all. What does all this have to do with Extropianism? Well, a lot, but its all indirect. I suggest we take the topic off this list, if you guys don't mind. Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 18:25:51 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: PARABLES: Extropian Parables -- a proposal X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Bill Dorsey says: > In article <9303242357.AA07016@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> you write: > >As a songwriter I've written hundreds of "parables" > >over the last 19 years. (While I've done it on an > >amateur level, I've won 3 of 4 song contests I've > >entered--two of them libertarian contests in Los > >Angeles.) If anyone would like to seem them, I'll > >include 5 or 6 of the best one. (I just wrote a racy > >one today called "T*x Me, Bill" which starts off > >Oh, Bill, keep picking my pockets and leave > >your hand on my loin..." and continues in that > >vein...hohoho) > > > Carol, > > I'd love to see your songs/parables! Please do it in private mail -- the rest of us might not be so pleased to see them... Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 17:48:52 EST From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Israel as a mailing list > Israel as a nation-state bores me. If Jewish heritage is a powerful set of > memes, let it flourish in diverse locations, not crammed into a tiny part > of the desert. > > -Tim May A similar argument might be made about the extropians list. We have a continuous low-level fight to keep a place for extropian-minded people and guests to congregate. I won't belabor the imperfect analogy. -fnerd ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 23:19-EST From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: HUMOR: Trendy pop science Some friends and I were noodling around, discussing what might be the trendy pop science concept of next year and listing ones we could think of. Help me out? I'm looking particularly for ideas which are fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied in silly places. Chaos Neural Nets AI biofeedback VR Stephen Hawking memes ESP holograms nanotech fractals Godel's theorem biofeedback Schelling points Heisenberg's uncertainty principle Artificial life pyramid power relativity consciousness genetic algorithms cold fusion fuzzy logic Singularity buckyballs God fractals Upon reflection, my personal favorite on the list is God -- a harmless little philosophical argument ("there _must_ have been a creator...") gone terribly, terribly wrong. As for next year's pop science fad: the leading contender for me is probably nanotech. Suggestions are encouraged -- the flakier the better. -- Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 23:53:38 EST From: mike@highlite.gotham.COM (Mike Wiik) Subject: Tropical Libertaria FYI Perhaps Port Watson is somewhat based on ideas in "Visit Port Watson" by "anonymous" in Semiotext(e) SF (ISBN#0-936756-43-8, ISSN#0-093-95779). The book claims the article first appeared in _Libertarian Horizons: A Journal for the Free Traveler_ in 1985.... (there it was in the Pacific on an island called Sonsorol). -Mike mike@highlite.gotham.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:27-EST From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: HUMOR: Trendy pop science Some more pop science fads, past and present: Object oriented programming time travel LSD zen astrology perpetual motion vitamin megadoses trickle-down economics auras EST Freudian analysis crystals lunar calendar acupuncture And lest we delve too far into pseudoscience, let's emphasize ideas which have a grain of truth but which are violently misapplied... -- Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu). Freely repost/archive any of my messages. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 21:08:42 PST From: Pandit Singh Subject: ANON: Anon.penet.fi no more Is the demise of the anonymous server being discussed in any newgroups? --- pan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 23:19:13 PST From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: ANON: Anon.penet.fi no more Pandit Singh writes: > Is the demise of the anonymous server being discussed in any newgroups? > > --- pan Yes, it's a hot topic in several groups: *news.admin.policy *controversial groups (alt.sex.*, talk.rape, etc.) *sci.crypt -Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 02:12:45 CST From: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu Subject: Buy Health, Not Health Care Nice piece. What is the formatting language? Are you publishing it anywhere? I expect Liberty would take it--it may be too clear and simple for an academic journal. Maybe The Public Interest? Have you considered the alternative of subsidizing health care expenses, in order to avoid having a huge insurance burden to lay off? Firm 1 sells you $X of insurance on the terms you suggest. Firm 2 agrees to pay firm 1 50% of your medical bills, in exchange for a premium from you. As long as the two firms cannot conspire and firm 1 cannot conspire with the health providers (a little harder to guarantee), the effect is almost exactly as if you bought $2x of insurance. The one difference is that the insurance firm will skimp on expenses that are not reimbursable by firm 2, such as research on which doctor to assign you to. David Friedman University of Chicago Law School ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 01:03:18 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: ECON/CRYPT: Crypto-Extortion >I've just been reminded of something else -- cryptocash IS traceable. >If the person who buys the cash wants to, he can record the numbers he >uses to generate the cash. The bank can then later on trace the use of >those number. > >Perry This is not true with the modern, Chaumian kinds of digital cash. When "Alice" (who might be a bank) sells some digital cash to "Bob," Bob performs a mathematical operation which makes the numbers change--and yet allows them to be redeemable by Alice. When Alice gets the digital cash, she cannot know which purchaser originally bought the cash. If Alice is a bank, this means she cannot trace the flow of money. (It's important of course that if the digital cash is to flow through multiple hands, that a new set of numbers be generated at each stage--nothing is gained if Note #A23F91E112C3B is circulating from person to person.) -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 13:06:04 +0100 (MET) From: ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel) Subject: JEWS: Perry's Last Name Perry, if your family had lived in what is now called Isreal during the 19th and 20th centuries... how did you pick up the last name Metzger. German for butcher. Is that your mother's family you are refering to? In any case, your name is a good sign that a lot of your blood was German and yiddish... and at least half European. I also don't see how this is a really useful list topic. Though it was a very interesting post, and I learned some interesting history from it. thanks, -- C. Garrett Goebel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 13:16:01 +0100 (MET) From: ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel) Subject: GOVT: How-to: mail the statists If you should wish to send email instead of snail mail, for whatever reasons you choose... Send your letter to any of the following: clinton-hq@Campaign92.Org 75300.3115@compuserve.com clintonpz@aol.com Include two things 1) Where you want it to go. 2) Your U.S. return mail address Your email will be printed out, and dropped in the White House mail delivery service. A week or so, and gods willing, your mail will get to where you want it. Ain't gov't efficiency nice? If you win the Lotto, you get return mail. Good luck and lett'm have it, ggoebel -- C. Garrett Goebel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 14:30:32 +0100 (MET) From: ggoebel@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Garrett Goebel) Subject: PHIL: Are we hypocrites? I'd like to thank those who responded. Their criticisms were insightful... and pointed out exactly the weakest areas of my argument. Namely, the things I am trying to nail down for myself: o What defines AC/libertarianism/etc... what are the root principles? o Exactly what kinds of force are allowed vs. what is voluntary? o Do basic rights exist? Is there a point where I should be able to force my principles on another? ...where my or their principles are just fundamentally right and merit initiation of force. Instead of slamming out a response, I'm going to run things through my head a bit and see if I can't make my stances and questions clearer first. Try to address the areas pointed out. ...trying to keep my quality level up (maybe my reputation will appreciate? HEx shares soon available.) Garrett -- C. Garrett Goebel ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0156 ****************************************