60 Message 60: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sat Aug 7 05:18:44 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA05025; Sat, 7 Aug 93 05:18:42 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA11315; Sat, 7 Aug 93 05:18:34 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA27135 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 7 Aug 1993 08:15:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 08:15:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199308071215.AA27135@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 7, 373 P.N.O. [12:15:17 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 7 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] BOOK P [1 msgs] Comet 1993e... [1 msgs] ECON: Interesting rumor from a couple months ago... [1 msgs] Extropians in Washington and Boston: Read this [1 msgs] Good place for an Extropian? [1 msgs] Help [1 msgs] INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters [3 msgs] Metaphors, memes (was Intelligence == wisdom == enlightenment?)[2 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] PHIL: Divine right of kings vs. natural rights? [1 msgs] Worry: crime and law enforcement (was: evolution and violence)[1 msgs] polit: feeding the looters [1 msgs] tooting my horn [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 53695 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 16:41:15 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: Help --- ~ WinQwk 2.0b#0 ~ Unregistered Evaluation Copy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 21:45:37 BST From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Metaphors, memes (was Intelligence == wisdom == enlightenment?) Tony Hamilton writes: >I would argue that the accumulation of knowledge has no >direct relationship to the ability to use that knowledge. It's really just >a matter of how you define wisdom. There is such a thing as knowledge of how to use knowledge. [I wrote:] >> that they have improved their intelligence and wisdom. Such improvements >> can easily result right now from simple things like education and >> experience of life. To perceive this phenomenon in terms of accumulated >> knowledge processed by static intelligence and wisdom projects onto the >> world a view that seems to me to have no reality beyond the minds of those >> making that projection. > >Why? "seems to me" isn't much of an explanation. Not to say I need one, >because I don't think it is of much value to _argue_ these points, since >its all fairly subjective. I was just offering my view of all this. When >you say "improves their ability", I would say "hones their ability", in >relation to traditional learning, that is. I certainly believe, that under >my definitions, wisdom and intelligence can be _improved_, but only by >external means; drugs, eugenics, and so on. It should be obvious that I >am no proponent of IQ testing as a means of measuring intelligence. Just >my opinions, Richard. Not trying to force them on anyone. Same here, so I'll expound my opinions some more. To me, splitting a human capacity into a fixed part and a variable part is a step that I rarely see justified by any evidence. Your metaphor above of "honing" one's ability rather than "improving" it is just such a step, taken only because you prefer one metaphor to the other -- as you say, it's all fairly subjective. Yet the metaphors we use strongly influence the actions we take or can even consider, even when empirical evidence on which to make a choice of metaphors is lacking. This is especially so when we do not even realise that we are using metaphors, and are seeing the world in terms which may or may not be true, but which did not come from any empirical observation. For example, to see wisdom and intelligence in terms of a fixed ability which can only be marginally altered by deliberate effort is a metaphor I find limiting. I prefer (subjectivity again) the metaphor of a capacity of the moment, which can change fluidly from one tie to another, by deliberate effort or otherwise. Occam's razor also plays a part in rejecting the fixed/variable split, since for qualities such as wisdom which are difficult to define objectively, let alone measure, I see no way of empirically observing such a division. I therefore prefer not to limit myself with such a metaphor. The external world is quite able to itself impose such limits as actually exist. Widening the topic, have you -- meaning the whole list -- ever noticed that many of the beliefs people hold and the statements they make are not so much about the external world as about the patterns which they have arbitrarily imposed on their perception of the external world? There is a well-known optical illusion called the Necker cube, a wire-frame drawing of a cube which can be seen in two different ways. Neither way of seeing it is present in the picture itself, but is (deliberately or unconsciously) imposed by the observer, who has a free choice of which way to see it. Just so can patterns -- memes, in fact -- be imposed on one's perception of the world in general. When one is aware of this, one can choose different patterns, and see how the world looks from different points of view. This meta-meme is itself such a meme for structuring one's perceptions, one which I find useful in many ways. For example: * When two people can look at the same data, come to entirely different conclusions, and even though they debate in good faith are unable to reconcile their differences, the reason is almost certainly a conflict between their unconscious metaphors. * To successfully explain something to someone requires more than just stating the relevant facts, it requires providing them with the patterns that will make the data make sense. * It is an interesting exercise to read a Usenet discussion on a contentious subject -- talk.politics.* offers a flood of such material if this mailing list is insufficient -- and see where people are describing the external world and where they are describing their internal patterns. Not that either of these is better than the other, just that presenting data in response to internal patterns or vice versa tends to be less effective than meeting like with like. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 15:06:37 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Metaphors, memes (was Intelligence == wisdom == enlightenment?) > To me, splitting a human capacity into a fixed part and a variable part is > a step that I rarely see justified by any evidence. Your metaphor above of > "honing" one's ability rather than "improving" it is just such a step, > taken only because you prefer one metaphor to the other -- as you say, it's > all fairly subjective. Yet the metaphors we use strongly influence the > actions we take or can even consider, even when empirical evidence on which > to make a choice of metaphors is lacking. This is especially so when we do > not even realise that we are using metaphors, and are seeing the world in > terms which may or may not be true, but which did not come from any > empirical observation. > > For example, to see wisdom and intelligence in terms of a fixed ability > which can only be marginally altered by deliberate effort is a metaphor I > find limiting. I prefer (subjectivity again) the metaphor of a capacity of > the moment, which can change fluidly from one tie to another, by deliberate > effort or otherwise. Occam's razor also plays a part in rejecting the > fixed/variable split, since for qualities such as wisdom which are > difficult to define objectively, let alone measure, I see no way of > empirically observing such a division. I therefore prefer not to limit > myself with such a metaphor. The external world is quite able to itself > impose such limits as actually exist. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Metaphors are key to how we turn knowledge into action. However, I don't see my model as limiting at all. Instead of striving to improve my intelligence or wisdom (through conventional means), I strive to increase my knowledge. In my view, I am potentially a super-genius who simply needs more data to work with in order to turn that power into results, and more data concerning _how_ to do this (what others are calling wisdom.) So, I'm saying that I feel that my metaphors are every bit as valid as yours because of this. Were I to instead lack the metaphor of knowledge being the key (in my model), then indeed I would be quite restricted, since without that part, I'm stuck with fixed intelligence and wisdom. In your model, it is all dynamic, which makes it _easy_ to conclude that you can improve yourself. In my model, some factors are static, others dynamic. I just propose that the dynamic part of my model has every bit as much influence as all the dynamic parts of your model. Given that, would you still refute the validity of this model? I think they are both valid - they are just based on different semantics (or metaphors) is all. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 15:43:38 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Good place for an Extropian? Hmmm... another list member has forwarded to me this job listing for a position which it might be potentially valuable to fill with an Extropian. I'd do it but I appear to have sprouted roots in Silicon Valley... anyone else interested? dV/dt ************************** Another Job Opening at EFF ************************** ONLINE ACTIVIST The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties for users of newly emerging technologies, is looking to hire an Online Activist. The Online Activist will actively participate in and organize EFF's sites on CompuServe, America Online, GEnie, Usenet and the WELL and will distribute feedback from the various networks to EFF staff and board through regular online summaries. This person will provide leadership to groups of members and will possibly set up and maintain an EFF BBS. The Online Activist will help to maintain EFF's ftp library. This person will train new EFF staff members on online communications. S/he will collect and solicit articles for, write articles for, edit and assemble our biweekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online. The Online Activist will work with the System Administrator to distribute and post EFFector Online and other EFF electronic publications and to maintain a database of form answers for commonly asked questions, along with the Membership Coordinator. This person must be willing to work out of EFF's offices in Washington, DC. The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a competitive salary with excellent benefits. For immediate consideration, please forward a resume, along with a cover letter describing your online experience and reason for applying for this job by August 23, 1993, to: Online Activist Search Electronic Frontier Foundation 1001 G Street, NW Suite 950 East Washington, DC 20001 fax (202) 393-5509 e-mail ssteele@eff.org (ASCII only, please) EFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 17:59:37 -0500 From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Comet 1993e... Yes, Amara, I know about said comet. I started the "let's look at it with Hubble" thread on sci.space when the news first came out, before I found out that the comet was hitting the other side of Jupiter and that some vandals are going up in December to remove the high-speed photometer from the scope... ;-) Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 17:52:09 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: Worry: crime and law enforcement (was: evolution and violence) Richard Kennaway writes: >I would love to research the thesis that [government] law enforcement >agencies, ... have never been more than marginally effective in ... keeping >down crime in general ... In short, that crime control is as ineffective as >gun control or crypto control. Government law enforcement is probably less effective that private law enforcement. But I see only two major ways to control crime: stop crime as it happens, through monitoring and defence, or deter crime by threatening harm after a crime. I think deterrence (what I meant by "law enforcement") is a major component of crime control, and that we would have much more crime without it. >>Since pervasive monitoring through TV cameras and the like should be >>much cheaper, costs to catch and convict should fall. >What "pervasive monitoring" do you envisage? The phrase suggests a TV >camera on every street corner, with software to automatically recognise >people and vehicles, ... compulsory smartcard ID ... Do you see such a >system as desirable? Who (not what) will do the monitoring? Who? Whoever can and wants to. State law enforcement may well use newly cheap coersive means, such as requiring smartcard ID, but private enforcement can also use new technologies non-coersively. The Rodney King videotape, for example. I think within a few decades many folks will have hidden tamper-resistant devices on their body which cheaply record everything they hear, and not too long later, everything they see. Plausible deniability in verbal speech may become a thing of the past. What do I desire? Mainly private law and law enforcement, so each of us can choose our tradeoffs between privacy and cheapness of law enforcement. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 20:28:50 -0500 From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: PHIL: Divine right of kings vs. natural rights? Perry writes that until "Natural Rights" came along, the prevailing theory of political power in Europw was that of the Divine Right of Kings. Let me ask a stupid question. I know where everyone says the idea of the Divine Right of Kings came from. But where did it really come from? (Hint: I *don't* think it's to be found in the Bible.) While we're at it, I'm interested in improving my knowledge of the ancient world. I just finished rereading _The Pelican History of Greece_ for the first time in 10 years; I can't remember the author's name, oddly enough, although he is very very good. 1. Has anyone else here read this book? Any comments? 2. What should I read next? What would be some good, cheap, primary sources? (Besides Plato; I'm a little upset with him because I'd like to know what Socrates really thought). Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 20:31:53 -0500 From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: ECON: Interesting rumor from a couple months ago... A couple months back I heard a rumor that the Russians were blackmailing the U.S. to send more aid by threatening to make the ruble convertible to gold (at which point the relative currency values would change places or something like that; part of this rumor held that most of the SU's immense gold reserves are still there. And please remember how much reserves they still have of the relatively obscure and useless metal Gallium.). In light of the recent currency exchange happening in Russia, I'd like everyone's (esp. Perry's) opinions about this rumor. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 22:37:36 EDT From: baumbach@atmel.com (Peter Baumbach) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters What do you think? If you are going to be around in 100, 200, 500, 1000 ,... years, then what do you invest in? If you can get a 10% return on your money now, what kind of return could you expect if you were investing 100 Billion dollars? I bet you couldn't do as well. If you could, then $1 invested now would be worth $100 Billion after 266 years. That won't be worth as much then, but what if you invested $1000 now? It would only take you 194 years to reach $100 Billion then. In either case, the life span of an extropian is important. As your investment grows, the return cannot possibly keep pace. $1 or $1000 invested now will approach the same total as the return rate decreases for larger investments. In the short term(?), where do you invest if you think the cypherpunks will have their way? What if there becomes wide spread use of digital cash? Will the IRS fold? Will the U.S. fold? In the shorter term(?), where do you invest if you think the interest on the U.S. debt will exceed the total income tax revenues? So much to think about. My head is spinning. Peter Baumbach baumbach@atmel.com HEx: PETER (Invest here ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 00:10:03 EDT From: The Hawthorne Exchange Subject: Nightly Market Report The Hawthorne Exchange - HEx Nightly Market Report For more information on HEx, send email to HEx@sea.east.sun.com with the Subject info. News Summary as of: Sat Aug 7 00:10:02 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Sat Aug 7 00:00:02 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 110 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 150 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 1E6 .02 .10 - 10000 - - 1E9 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 200 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 80 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 90 .01 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS .10 .15 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR 2.00 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .15 .15 10000 2500 375.00 ANTON - 1.00 - 10000 - - ARKU - .15 - 10000 - - BIOPR .01 .20 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR .01 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CYPHP .15 .17 .17 10000 100 17.00 DEREK - .42 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR 1.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .75 1.55 1.63 10000 9900 16137.00 E .58 .70 .60 10000 5487 3292.20 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.00 3.00 1.30 10000 3025 3932.50 FAB - - - - - - FCP - 1.00 - 80000 4320 - GHG .01 .30 .01 10000 6755 67.55 GOBEL .01 .30 1.00 10000 767 767.00 GOD .10 .20 .10 10000 1000 100.00 H .76 .76 - 30000 18750 - HAM .01 .30 .20 10000 5000 1000.00 HEINLN .01 .25 - 10000 - - HEX 100.00 125.00 100.00 10000 3368 336800.00 HFINN 2.00 10.00 .75 10000 1005 753.75 IMMFR .25 .80 .49 10000 1401 686.49 JFREE .01 .15 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .26 .25 10000 2510 627.50 LEARY .01 .20 .20 10000 100 20.00 LEF .01 .15 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY .01 .45 .30 10000 3051 915.30 LIST .40 .75 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP .01 .09 - 10000 - - LSOFT .58 .60 .58 10000 7050 4089.00 LURKR .06 .07 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 .01 .08 - 10000 - - MLINK - .09 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MMORE - .10 - 10000 - - MORE .75 1.25 .75 10000 3000 2250.00 MWM .15 .15 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 20.00 25.00 25.00 10000 98 2450.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NSS .01 .05 - 10000 - - OCEAN .11 .12 .10 10000 1500 150.00 P 20.00 25.00 25.00 1000000 66 1650.00 PETER - .01 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PLANET .01 .10 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .11 .25 .10 10000 400 40.00 PRICE - 4.00 2.00 10000000 1410 2820.00 R .49 2.80 .99 10000 5100 5049.00 RAND - .06 - 10000 - - RJC 1.00 999.00 .60 10000 5100 3060.00 ROMA - - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - - SGP - - - - - - SHAWN .01 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .05 - 10000 - - TCMAY .40 .63 .75 10000 4000 3000.00 TIM 1.00 2.00 1.00 10000 100 100.00 TRANS .01 .05 .40 10000 1511 604.40 VINGE .20 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 419374.53 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 23:10:07 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters > investment grows, the return cannot possibly keep pace. $1 or $1000 invested > now will approach the same total as the return rate decreases for larger investments. Why do you say this? My experience is that return on investment generally _increases_ (as a percentage, of course) with larger investments. You know, "it takes money to make money" and all. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 23:11:28 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: BOOK P ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 01:53:58 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: tooting my horn Craig said, I kid you not: > I believe that your comment reflects > intellectual honesty, and could lead to more insights about the nature > of physical law, whereas Peikoff . . . Buy now. HEx: ANTON (what else?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 01:54:32 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: polit: feeding the looters Carol Moore said: > I've had them [IRS] grab money from me 6 or 7 times so I'm used to it. > But it's always a shock the first time they STEAL your money... Carol, do you throw some of your assets to the wolves, i.e. leave them something to find in the bank so they won't come after you at home? *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT) From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters Disney recently sold some 100-year bonds, at something like 7.5% coupons, to various mutual and pension fund managers who are betting that dollar inflation will stay low, and Mickey Mouse's popularity high, for the next 100 action-packed years in the electronic markets and media. If the cypherpunks win, the current bond market is betting very wrong -- betting that Congress can greatly increase revenues by increasing tax rates on the wealthy (who can afford most to invest in tax havens) -- foolish even without a digital cash tax-free economy. The U.S. govnt. can (1) print money, destroying $-coupon bondholders and those otherwise long on FRNs, or (2) sell off Federal lands over the hue and cry of ecofascists, or some combination thereof. VAT and energy taxes work better in the short-term, but just encourage Congress to spend more in the long term. U.S. Fed deficit futures market, anybody? Alternatively, we might just grow our way out of it. Post-Singularity Mouseketeers pay off Fed deficit as minor act of charity. :-) What is the "fax effect" threshold for digital cash? szabo@netcom.com <- my new preferred address ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 9:52:31 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: The Right to Keep and Bear Videocameras >From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) > >If I had the time, and the relevant historical/sociological background, I >would love to research the thesis that law enforcement agencies, defined as >those agents of the government empowered to use violence directly, (1) have >always been created (often quite explicitly) to protect the rulers from the >ruled, not the ruled from each other, (2) have only then taken on the >function of keeping down crime in general, and (3) have never been more >than marginally effective in the latter purpose. I've come to suspect as much, too, but I'd need to do a lot more research in order to support the thesis adequately. >In short, that crime >control is as ineffective as gun control or crypto control. Actually, while I think crime control by the State is worse than by security firms, I would expect it to be a bit better than State controls on these things because they are "victimless crimes," that is, there's no victim to act as an informer to the State about the "clandestine" activities. >What "pervasive monitoring" do you envisage? While I've no idea how far private surveillance will go, here's an example of how beneficial it can be in reducing harm: "Les Girls," in San Diego, is a burlesque theater whose dancing girls had been getting harassed and even coerced into providing sexual favors to the vice cops. If the ladies didn't comply with the pigs, the pigs had their permits revoked. The manager installed video cameras for surveillance in order to combat this evil, and its incidence reduced a lot because the pigs didn't want hard evidence of their crimes. While I believe that the beating of Rodney King by the cops is less clear-cut, it also provides evidence that widespread surveillance technology is a good thing in that it tends to reduce intentional torts. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 03:43:16 +0100 From: Arkuat Subject: Extropians in Washington and Boston: Read this ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Received: from relay2.UU.NET by mail.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA29185; Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:13:35 -0700 Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA28815; Fri, 6 Aug 93 23:14:28 -0400 Received: by toad.com id AA21707; Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:08:55 PDT Received: by toad.com id AA21647; Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:05:54 PDT Return-Path: Received: from netcom5.netcom.com ([192.100.81.113]) by toad.com id AA21643; Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:05:50 PDT Received: by netcom5.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA15204; Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:06:37 -0700 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Message-Id: <9308070306.AA15204@netcom5.netcom.com> Subject: Cypherpunks in Washington and Boston: Read this To: cypherpunks@toad.com Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 20:06:37 PDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Cypherpunks in Washington, Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle, (and if someone wants to forward this to the Extropians list, which I am temporarily taking a break from, I'm sure some of them would be interested) The Internet service I use, NETCOM, is expanding into these cities, offering flat-rate service for $17.50 a month (if paid by credit card). I have no connection with them except for being a satisfied user. Many hacker friends of mine have NETCOM accounts, even if they have ordinary corporate addresses as well (at a Bay Area Extropians lunch, about 8 out of the dozen folks had NETCOM accounts). After all, NETCOM can't lay you off, can't complain about what you say, and essentially can't be leaned on by the Feds (not yet tested, but likely). A useful service. Some people use it mostly for their mail, and then just telnet to NETCOM to grab it. (NETCOM provides 5 MB for your files, but charges beyond that.) NETCOM also carries every newsgroup I've ever heard of, 4560 of them at last count, and even carried the controversial group "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children," about which I wrote a while back (I mention this mainly to show how much of a hands-off policy NETCOM takes). So far as I know, NETCOM has only kicked people out for advertising competing Internet services blatantly, in the netcom.* locall groups. Everything else seems to be fair game. (Some of the most notorious Net bozos are NETCOM folks, indicating further the freedom we have....I can't imagine any user on NETCOM being "disciplined" for racist, sexist, homophobic, or speciesist remarks.) And a full range of editors, newsreaders, mailreaders, ftp access, telnet, etc...all the usual stuff, managed well. There are usually enough modems to allow me to get on anytime I want to. And, to repeat, there are no connect charges and no time limits. If you're within the local call range of the nearest POP, you can stay logged-on as long as you like with no charges. It changed my life, no kidding. Here's the announcement: Xref: netcom.com netcom.announce:86 netcom.internet:1191 netcom.general:10006 Newsgroups: netcom.announce,netcom.internet,netcom.general Path: netcom.com!info From: info@netcom.com (Netcom Information Account) Subject: NETCOM expands coverage Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Distribution: netcom Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:29:29 GMT Approved: Info Lines: 86 FYI: NETCOM On-line Communication Services, Incorporated is pleased to announce the expansion of the NETCOM backbone into Seattle, WA, Dallas, TX, Atlanta, GA, Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. Each of the new Points of Presence (POPs) will support a full range of network services including: o Internet Connections (T1 & 56kb dedicated and dialup) o News/Mail feeds with Domain service o Business Dial-up access (news/mail/ftp/telnet/shell) o Host dial-up (stock reports, US News, news/mail/ftp/telnet/shell) o Personal Network (SLIP/PPP) Connections (PNC) o FrameConnect Internet Services NETCOM can be your gateway to economical communications world wide. A connection to the NETCOM state-of-the-art network will deliver connectivity at very affordable prices. NETCOM offers Internet connections, news feeds, electronic mail, local access points throughout California, source archives, large discounts on communication equipment, consulting, and everything you would ex- pect from a leading communications service provider. To access the guest account, make sure that your communication settings are 8-1-N and use vt100 for a terminal emulator. After you connect, log in as "guest". Remember, you must use lower case letters. You can also log in via telnet by using netcom.netcom.com or an IP address of 192.100.81.100. The fol- lowing are a few of the local access 1200/2400/9600 V.32/V.42 numbers: o Atlanta and greater Metro area (Aug 31) ........ (404) 303-9765 o Boston and greater Metro area (Aug 31) ........ (617) 237-8600 o Washington DC, Falls Church, Arlington, Vienna, Reston, Alexandria, Fairfax, McLean (Aug 31)..... (703) 255-5951 o Dallas, TX ...................................... (214) 753-0045 o Seattle, Bellevue, Bothell, Bothell-Duval Des Moines, Halls Lake, Issaquaah, Kent, Kirkland, Renton, Richmond Beach, Maple Valley ............. (206) 547-5992 o Portland, Beaverton, Burlington, Forest Grove, Corbett, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Sandy, Redland, Scholls, Stafford, Sunnyside, Tigard .... (503) 626-6833 o San Francisco, Sausalito, San Mateo, Foster City (415) 985-5650 o Sacramento, Folsom, Orangevale, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael ...................... (916) 965-1371 o Los Angeles, Inglewood, Beverly Hills, El Segundo, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Van Nuys, Culver . (310) 842-8835 o Irvine, Anaheim, Fullerton, Laguna Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, Westminster ........................... (714) 708-3800 o San Diego, El Cajon, La Jolla, La Mesa, Linda Mesa, and Mira Visa ................................... (619) 234-0524 o Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Bolder Creek ......... (408) 459-9851 o San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Albany Richmond, Alameda, Piedmont, Belvedere, Orinda, Moraga, San Pablo, Lafayette, Emeryville, & Brisbane ...................................... (510) 865-9004 o San Jose, Campbell, Almaden, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, & Milpitas .... (408) 241-9760 o Stanford, Mt View, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Redwood City .................................... (415) 328-9940 o Pleasanton, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Bishop, San Ramon, Dublin, Newark, Danville, Sunol, and Bishop Ranch .................................... (510) 426-6610 VOICE: (408) 554-8649 FAX: (408) 241-9145 Local Access Numbers: (800) 488-2558 _____________________________________________________________________________ info@netcom.com (408)554-8649 NETCOM On-line Communication Services, Inc. - - -- ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 9:39:50 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Disagreement about Natural Law First off, I must apologize for having let my shock at the extent to which Perry's account of natural law differed from mine let some negative evaluations of Perry slip out. 'Twas inexcusable of me, I regret it greatly, but I meant no harm and will try to refrain from repeating my mistake. That said, I still think that Perry's account of natural law is profoundly mistaken. >> >I've read more Lock, Rousseau >> >(sp?), Montesquieu, Hobbes, etc than I care to remember. >> >> All of these are Moderns, not classics. I'd also like to add to my earlier comment that not only aren't these Classical authors, but that neither Rousseau nor Hobbes are natural law thinkers at all, except insofar as they criticize and reject it. In fact, Perry's position on the nature of rights is most similar to a combination of Hobbesian and Rousseaean ideas. I will also flatly claim that the consistent application of logic to their premises yields statist conclusions, and that if one wishes to avoid such, then you'd best check the premises. >Natural law as the term is largely used today is an enlightenment >concept. I had no idea that common useage of the term had degenerated so. I'm not sure that this is indeed the case, much less that this ought to be our standard for political and legal philosophy. "Information" means something quite different in information theory than it does to the common man, but this doesn't mean that we abandon the scientific meaning of the term. (I find it odd for him to say that popular useage was so contrary to what I thought because natural law is the only defense for civil disobedience, among other things. When Martin Luther Kind defended the civil disobedience of his supporters, he explicitly quoted Aquinas. When Robert Bork appeared on CSPAN during his confirmation hearings for his appointment to the US Supreme Court and told the American people that the rights they retained were no more meaningful than an inkblot, he caused an uprising of popular opposition that doomed his chance of getting confirmed. He was so overqualified for the job that when they GOP saw that they were going to lose control of the Senate, they had Scalia nominated first because they thought he was going to be the hard one to get confirmed.) "Natural law," regardless of popular useage, is a term with a meaning that has been about the same for ca. 2000 years in political and legal philosophy. If Perry wishes to restrict his comments about natural law to the caricature imparted to the masses by the witch-doctors that dominate the humanities and social sciences of contemporary Academia, then 'twould be nice if he clarified this better so that we may understand that his words have absolutely no bearing upon the actual school of thought. (The State has largely captured academia in order to provide itself with intellectual bodyguards against the productive, and the caricature of natural law as a theistic school of thought with no relevance to the here and now is statist propaganda.) >Certainly predecessors of the idea appeared in Rome -- but it >was largely forgotten other than some philosophical rumblings until >much much later. It occurred to me that Perry might still defend his conception of natural law, so I came up with some comparisons to put things in perspective: Leaving Cicero and Aquinas out of the history of natural law is like leaving out... ...Adam Smith and Milton Friedman from the history of economics. ...Pythagoras and Euclid from the history of geometry. ...Herodotus and Thucydides from historiography. Putting Hobbes and Rousseau in is like presenting Marx and Keynes as free-market economists. >The first rumblings of the phrase "Natural Law" used >as a term of artlike it didn't appear until 1500 or so, and until the >English Civil War the concept had not achieved its modern form. Actually, I think what you're referring to as "natural law" is the theory after it had been extended by the likes of Locke to property rights, thus yielding the natural right to property and to self-defense. >As you point out folks like Aquinas had some concepts that were >related -- philosophical ideas don't spring fully formed from the head >of Zeus. To say that Aquinas' thoughts on natural law were merely related is a gross underestimate. Aquinas is the paradigmatic natural law thinker, without controversy. Anyone who claims otherwise is either mistaken or lying. >However, the dominant notions of pre-17th century politics in >Europe had far more to do with the divine right of kings than with >concepts such as natural law. This is an utter non-sequitur, on top of being ahistorical. The divine right of kings was the ideology of absolutist monarchy, which didn't rise until about the 16th and 17th centuries, more than three centuries after Aquinas, and sixteen centuries after Cicero. It coincided with the rise of State mercantilism which followed the Habspurg's becoming the dominant Empire in Europe based upon gold and silver bullion imported from the New World, mostly Mexico and South America. Before then, the divine right of kings was trivial. >We are, in any case, discussing the >liberal (meaning classical liberal) conception of natural law, not the >sort of notion that Aquinas or even later folks like Spinoza might >have had. The classical liberals did not substantially change the natural law tradition that they inherited, except to add to it by extending it to property rights. And this was only some of the classical liberals, like Locke and Spencer. Not Hobbes and Rousseau, who didn't believe in either natural law or natural rights. Spencer's work shows the evolution of natural law out of a theistic paradigm and into a scientific one. The early Spencer argued on the ground of the will of God, the late Spencer on the ground of the biological nature of man. >As such, I would say that turning to Locke, who is >acknowledged as the source of most of the 18th century liberal >philosophers natural law/social contract orientation. Natural law != social contract theory. Only one of the three great social contract theorists, Locke, was an adherent of natural law. The other two, Hobbes and Rousseau, were not. Hobbes is the founding father of Modern conservatism, and Rousseau the founding father of contemporary "liberalism," meaning collectivist welfare-statism, not "classical" liberalism. >If you want to discuss the classics, I'm more than willing to do that, >too, although I must admit that I cannot read ancient languages, and >am thus at a disadvantange since I know the works only by translation. Fine. Begin with natural law as dramatized by Sophocles in Antigone's defiance of Creon, preferring the "unwritten" law to positive law. Then we can proceed through Cicero and Aquinas, who both might be said to have been theistic in their personal beliefs (although this is trivial and irrelevant, just as Newton's superstitions such as his penchant for numerology is trivial and irrelevant to classical mechanics - and besides, Lysander Spooner represents natural law purified of any theistic tendencies, as well as any moral imperialism whatsoever, as witnesses by his essay: Vices Are Not Crimes.) >> Evidently, your "classical" education skipped Cicero on its way from >> Plato to the Moderns. > >I've read Cicero, Tim. There is really no reason to be as insulting as >you are getting. Once again, I sincerely regret any insult. 'Twas beneath me, you, and the topic. However, it appears that we remain in strong disagreement about the interpretation of the history of these ideas, which I suspect results largely from our different conceptions of them. Since you indicated familiarity with Cicero, but not Aquinas, I take it, then, that you haven't read any of the latter's works? ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #218 ********************************* &