61 Message 61: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sat Aug 7 11:43:30 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA13187; Sat, 7 Aug 93 11:43:27 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 AA24432; Sat, 7 Aug 93 11:43:15 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA21786 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 7 Aug 1993 14:39:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 14:39:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199308071839.AA21786@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 7, 373 P.N.O. [18:39:38 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: [3 msgs] Disagreement about Natural Law [1 msgs] INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters [1 msgs] PHIL: Divine right of kings vs. natural rights? [1 msgs] POLI: Re: help with a school choice proposal [1 msgs] SELF: Gingivitis [1 msgs] Worry: evolution and violence [1 msgs] polit: feeding the looters [1 msgs] test [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 53592 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 04:04:47 +0100 From: Arkuat Subject: PHIL: Divine right of kings vs. natural rights? Phil G. Fraering wrote: > 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? It was cooked up by local bishops who allied themselves with the early Holy Roman Emperors against the Pope, essentially to put the Emperors on equal footing with the Popes politically. This particular conflict goes back to the days of Charlemagne and flared up particularly under the Hohenstaufen emperors, especially the Saracen-sympathizer Frederick I AKA Barbarossa. Thereafter, it was usually invoked when some king or another wanted to assert control over the local church, again, more to put the Pope into a position of weakness than the king in a position of strength. I think Henry VIII may have brought it up in the course of creating the Church of England. It didn't count for much more than that until a French historian and political theorist named Bossuet made a big deal of it during the reign of Louis XIV. Louis took the ball and ran with it, and so did his successors right down to July 14, 1789. Eric Watt Forste -- PGP 0x431347 -- HEx ARKU "Expectation foils perception." --Pamela C. Dean ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 05:08:29 +0100 From: Arkuat Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters Peter Baumbach wrote: > If you are going to be around in 100, 200, 500, 1000 ,... years, then > what do you invest in? Businesses. Productive activities. Same as usual. > $1 or $1000 invested now will approach the same total as the return rate > decreases for larger investments. I read the whole thing several times, but I could not follow your logic in deciding that larger sums cannot produce the same rates of return as smaller sums. Here's a short essay. It will lead up to answers to your specific questions. There's a way of thinking about these kinds of threats that I've seen presented independently by at least three different investment geeks (Andrew Tobias, that Donoghue fellow, and Harry Browne) but I think Harry Browne came up with it first. Essentially, whenever the money supply is stable, we have some degree of business stability. A period in which business produces negative returns will almost always be accompanied by some sort of monetary disruption (under the present monetary system): either hyperinflation or a depression with accompanying deflation. In a time of accelerating dollar inflation, gold profits because it is the second choice foreign currency (after the dollar) throughout the world. When people perceive accelerating dollar inflation, they sell their dollar savings, and many such hoards get converted to gold. Enough to affect the price drastically, since the yearly production is a tiny fraction of the accumulated supply. In a time of price deflation, as would accompany a major business depression, dollar assets would be most valuable. In particular, long term bonds would appreciate tremendously. The safest long term bonds are U. S. Treasury 30-year bonds, because the U. S. government is the only bond issuer that can literally create the dollars to pay the principal and interest. (Yes, Perry, I know, the details are more complicated, but that's the gist of it.) So basically, you hold, as a hedge, roughly equal amounts of gold and 30-year Treasury bonds, amounts large enough to make you feel safe against monetary shocks in either direction. You have a supply of liquid cash big enough to make you feel safe about your liquidity, and you keep that in one of the three or four money market funds that invest directly in Treasury bills and do not use repos. Cash is for safety, not for high returns. (Stocks are for high returns.) After you have these three cushions, you put the rest into common stocks. Perry Metzger has posted a lot of advice about stock picking and mutual funds, and all of it that I've seen looks good to me. Read Lynch's books. I would say, if you you're going with mutual funds, to be aware of the "value" strategy and the "growth" strategy and pick one or two aggressive, long-term-oriented funds that follow each of these two basic strategies. An example of a good "value" fund is Neuberger and Berman's Manhattan fund. An example of a fairly good "growth" fund is Scudder's Capital Growth fund. These are examples, not necessarily recommendations. Yes, I know, inflation will hurt bonds, deflation will probably hurt gold. But an inflation that kills half the value of your bonds will probably double the price of your gold, and you come out ahead. The idea is to come out far enough ahead to make up for any losses in your stocks. Same with deflation... the gains in the bonds should be enough to balance out the losses in gold and stocks. You *want* volatility using this four-pronged strategy. The downside only goes to zero, but the upside goes to infinity. Stocks are the basic investment. But bonds and gold and cash can go a long way toward allaying any worries you might have about a bad business climate in the future. Remember that, adjusting for inflation, the total return on stocks with dividends reinvested was flat, and often negative, from the late 60's until 1982. A little gold held during that time would have made up for this. And long T-bonds could have a similar boosting influence during some future deflationary depression. If these ideas are interesting to you, you might take a look at Harry Browne's best book on the topic "Why the Best-laid Investment Plans Go Wrong". He tends toward the pessimistic side and recommends a portfolio of 25% cash, 25% long T-bonds, 25% gold, and 25% stocks. My own observations show that markets are resilient enough to head off most government-invoked economic disasters before they go *too* far, and I would call for something more like 55% stocks and 15% in each of the other three prongs. But as Browne and Tobias both emphasize, how much you want to put into each prong is a personal decision. The important thing is to understand the purpose of each of the four prongs and make a conscious decision about how much you want in each. So now to your questions: > 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? Stocks. As I say, read Peter Lynch's books, and maybe Burton Malkiel's book. And Perry Metzger's posts. Keep an eye out for banks and other financial-service companies implementing digicash. If you see anyone making a good product out of this technology, find out if they're publicly traded. Personally, I expect the IRS folding, and the U. S. government folding, will probably be splendid for the business environment, and handsome profits will be made *if* you pick the right stocks. What are the right stocks? The well-run companies with good products whose stock is selling cheaply. (Perry already said this. Peter Lynch already said this.) > 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? Two things can happen in this instance: (1) they can monetize the debt, in which case I expect accelerating inflation to produce a gold bull market similar to that seen in the Seventies. Reasons for believing this are discussed above, and in considerably more detail in Browne's book. (2) They can default on the debt. I think this is much less likely than monetization, though they're both bitter pills for the government to swallow. If the Feds do default, it's hard to say what might happen. If default results in a loss of confidence in the dollar, then we should see inflation and the same sort of bull market in gold. If default results in a collapse in the banking system, then we could see a pretty massive monetary contraction: a deflationary depression. And the long bonds you were relying on to protect you against that suddenly won't be worth much anymore. It's hard to say whether such conditions would produce a bull market in gold or not; certainly a mild deflation should hurt the price of gold (just like the prices of all other commodities), but in the kind of economic chaos you're postulating here, it's just not so cut-and-dried. Eric Watt Forste -- PGP 0x431347 -- HEx ARKU "Expectation foils perception." --Pamela C. Dean ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 05:24:16 +0100 From: Arkuat Subject: Worry: evolution and violence Richard Kennaway wrote: > 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. In short, that crime control > is as ineffective as gun control or crypto control. ...stuff elided... > Perhaps someone here can give an instant opinion on whether it's > bullshit or not, and save me the work? Instant opinion: it's not bullshit. Have you read THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW by Bruce Benson yet? That's the book to go to if you want to save yourself the work. Benson contrasts systems of customary law (which "protect the ruled from each other") against systems of authoritarian law (which seem to be what you are describing above). Eric Watt Forste -- PGP 0x431347 -- HEx ARKU "Expectation foils perception." --Pamela C. Dean ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 12:34:02 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: For My ExtroPositivist Critics To my surprise, I've found myself presented with arguments from my esteemed fellow extropians from a positivist position. I had thought that since extropianism consists, in part, of spontaneous order, that such learned extropians as those who have presented these arguments would be familiar with the critique of positivism done by members of the spontaneous order school of thought, such as Hayek's "The Counter- Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason," or some of the more recent work such as that of Mario Rizzo and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Positivism is based upon the misunderstanding of physics of a Frog named Saint-Simon, who was not up to being a physicist himself, who lived about the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. His followers extended his thought into a comprehensive philosophy, including the new "science" of "sociology," which was created in order to escape the need to counter arguments based upon the science of economics which were tending to refute the sort of socialism being advocated by Saint-Simon and his followers, especially August Comte, who imagined the entire world economy being planned by a Council of Newton which would include himself, Newton, and God. The early positivists were also historicists, unlike Popper, who criticized this view and rejected it. They predicted that their views would supplant the "negative" philosophy of the Enlightenment, including liberal capitalism, with their "positive" substitute. Thus, they tended to equate liberal capitalists with feudal medeivalists. Perhaps this doesn't refute Positivism, especially as presented by later, more sophisticated adherents of it, but it ought to lead us to suspect it. It also puts the discussion about the status of axioms in to a little bit better historical perspective. Since there were so many different definitions of the very terms of debate presented, I took the liberty of researching them in the best source I have, Webster's New Twentieth Century English Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Second Edition, 1960. I prefer the authority of the Oxford English dictionary which is inaccessible to me, so please correct me if the OED substantially adds material to the discussion. On the status of axioms, I have been presented with the claim that they must be testable, and that in order for an axiom to be testable, it must also be falsifiable. Let's assume the following formulation of this claim for the sake of argument: "Axioms must be falsifiable." My source defines "axiom" as a authoritative sentence, a proposition whose truth is evident without any further process of reasoning or demonstration. Since the above is a proposition, and it was presented sans any further proof or demonstration, then it must have been intended as an axiom itself. In that case, it must be falsifiable. Is it? If it is, then my dictionary entry giving the history of the term ought to suffice to falsify it, since it doesn't provide falsifiability as a necessary characteristic of an axiom. If it is unfalsifiable, then it is either as meaningless as positivists would have us believe that all such propositions are, or it is an exception to itself. If it is possible for there to be one exception, then why not others? Why ought we not consider the other axioms I gave as examples meaningful? The above stipulation for axioms is either false, meaningless, or contradictory. Is there any reason to accept it? Once again, I think not. I also checked for the definition of "testable" and "test," and can also assure you that "falsifiability" was not indicated as a necessary characteristic of a test, either. Thus, it would seem that the objection to the axiomatic status of my exemplary propositions fails. There remains the objection that they are not axioms, but tautologies. Happily, I've found the definition for a tautology, too: 1. needless repition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence; redundancy; pleonasm. Example: necessary essentials. 2. an example of this. Syn. - repetition. - There may be frequent repetitions (as in legal instruments) which are warranted either by necessity or convenience; but "tautology" is always a faul, being a sameness of expression which adds nothing either to the sense or the rhetorical effect. Now we have the setting laid for questioning the axiomatic status of such propositions as: "existence exists," "human action is purposeful behavior." They are repetitions, because their predicates are repititions of their subjects, but does this add "nothing either to the sense or the rhetorical effect"? Yet again, I think not. As I have already indicated in previous posts, the truth of these propositions can be exhibited by a test consisting of the attempt to deny them without their presupposal. Their statement in propositional form does, in my opinion, add to the sense of them. It clarifies the testing procedure. E.g., "existence does not exist" is clearer than "there is no existence." Thus, these are indeed axioms, not tautologies, and they are meaningful in that they are true, that is, they correspond to the facts of reality. They can also be tested, without having to be falsifiable. They are also meaningful in another way. It has been objected that their propositional form adds no information. However, their status as axiomatic foundations for logical deduction of specific conclusions about the facts of reality does indeed seem to add information to our knowledge of the world. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes: (The following is a somewhat long quote. Please bear with me in order to get a sample of the riches available from this method.) "Economics - or, in Mises's terminology, praxaeology - and its status as a nonhypothetical, a priori true social science is derived from the axiom of action. "With every action an actor pursues a goal; and whatever his goal may be, the fact that it is pursued by an actor reveals that he places a relatively higher value on it than on any other goal of action he could conceive of at the start of his action. "In order to achieve this goal an actor must interfere or decide not to interfere (which is also an interference) at an earlier point in time to produce some later result; and this interference implies the use of some scarce means (at least those of the actor's body, its standing room, and the time absorbed by the interference). "These means must also have value fo an actor - a value derived from that of the goal - because the actor ust regard his employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal. Further, actions can only be performed sequentially, always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one courseof action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less-valued goals. "In addition, when acting an actor not only invariably aims to substitute a more for a less satisfactory state of affairs and demonstates a prefer- ence for higher over lower values, he also nvariably considers when in the future his goals will be reached and demonstrates a universal preference for earlier than later results. Since every action requires time and man must occasionally consume something, time is always scarce. Hence, present or earlier results are, and invariably must be, valued more highly than future or later ones, and man will only exchange a present value against a future one if he thereby anticipates INCREASING his future well-being. "Furthermore, as a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another - of not being able to realize all goals simultane- ously and of being constrained by time preference - each and every action implies the incurrence of costs, i.e., the forsaking of the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be postponed because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly-valued goal. "And finally it is implied in our knowledge of what it is to act, that at its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the forgone opportunities. Yet every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if in retrospect an actor finds that contrary to expectations the result actually achieved has a lower value than he relinquished alternative would have had. "All of these categories which we know to be the very heart of economics - values, means, choice, preference, time-preference, cost, profit, and loss - are implied in the axiom of action... "All true economic propositions... can be deduced by means of formal logic from this incontestably true material knowledge regarding the meaning of action and its categories." The positivist would have to deny the meaning of economic propositions based upon this method, and come up with an alternative method if they are to have any meaning at all. I'll simply say that I think their attempts to do so fail, and refer interested parties to Mario Rizzo's paper criticizing them published in "Austrian Economics: A Reader," ed. by Richard Ebeling and published by Hillsdale College in their "Champions of Freedom" series. (Available at a certain bookstore whose initials are F.F. for $10.00.) The above quote was from Hoppe's paper: "Austian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism," also edited by Ebeling and published in the same series by Hillsdale. (FF and LFB are out of stock on this one, so you may have to order it from the publisher: Hillsdale College Press, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242.) 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 02:46:04 PDT From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) Subject: POLI: Re: help with a school choice proposal Andrea L. Gallagher asks us: I need some critical review of ideas, and this list seems like an excellent place to get it. Your're right! Summary: I'm thinking of getting involved in a push for school choice here in Michigan, but it will have to start out at public- school-only choice. What does such a system need to look like so it works even though private schools aren't allowed? Background: Michigan has been struggling with two interlocked problems. Our property taxes are too high and there are huge disparities between funding levels (paid for by property taxes) of wealthy and poor districts. After a couple of failed proposals, the State Legislature had some sort of fit and eliminated all school property tax levies. This is about $5.6 bill state- wide, about two-thirds of the property taxes and two-thirds of the school funds (varies by district). This started as a bluff by the likely Dem. challenger to the Gov, but the Repub's called it, things snowballed, and it passed both houses in half a day. Gov. Engler is thrilled. I'm thrilled too! Andrea, you are asking the wrong question. You don't need to organize anything! YOU ARE ALREADY WHERE YOU WANT TO BE! DON'T DO ANYTHING! There is now NO state funding of education. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT! The next step is to save even more taxes by selling off (auction is good) public school assets to private entrepreneurs. The next step after that is to repeal compulsory education laws; a court might now declare them invalid anyway. REAL SCHOOL CHOICE INCLUDES THE CHOICE NOT TO GO TO ANY DAMN SCHOOL AT ALL. Now, most of this money is going to be replaced, ... Why? If you want to work at something, work at opposing this replacement. ...HOWEVER, in 1970 the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution forbidding state funding of non-gov't schools.... This is fine, now all you need is another amendment forbidding state funding of gov't schools as well! [Andrea makes several suggestions for implementing a public- school-only "choice" system.] There was something like this done in Harlem (NYC) that was written up in Reason Magazine and possibly elsewhere. It was an improvement over the previous no-choice system. You can probably find references in the library. But I repeat, where you are right now is better (freer) than any state-run "choice" system. All the "problems" you mentioned are handled automatically in a private system where parents and children both choose and pay. And one choice is home schooling. Another one is no schooling (or self-education). The LP is fond of pointing out that the literacy rate -before- there -were- public schools in this country, was higher than it is -now.- -- edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 09:51:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: test Please ignore -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 93 02:45:51 PDT From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) Subject: SELF: Gingivitis Craig Presson said here: There were mentions recently of Co-Q10 being useful against gingivitis, along with its other benefits. Would those who mentioned this please tell me what dosages you are using? I picked up Co-Q10 and DMAE yesterday. I am ramping up to 90mg/day (or more) of Q10 in divided doses before I introduce the DMAE. -- Bleeds with Floss Before you go off on a search for an expensive(!) hi-tech solution, why not try a proven, cheap lo-tech solution first? Just brush your teeth every day with common Baking Soda. This seems to remove dental placque better than most tooth pastes. It also helps prevent decay, cures "bad breath" and "morning mouth" by neutralizing mouth acids. Flossing is OK, but a better supplement to brushing is to use an -interdental brush- designed to fit between the teeth. My periodontist recommended one available by mail order that seems to work a little better then the ones available at drugstores. Inquire at Dental Specialties Products, Inc. 17401 Nichols #E Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714)842-0985 I also use the baking soda with the interdental brush. If you have deep "pockets" between your teeth and gums (your dentist will measure them when you go for an exam), then clean them out every day with the end of a round wood toothpick stuck in one end of your interdental brush handle. Choose either a wide "Christmas tree"-shaped interdental brush if you have wide spaces between your teeth, or a narrower cylindrical shape for narrower spaces. Continue to floss where the brush won't fit at all. Use the brush from -both- inside and outside. I had periodontal disease bad enough a few years ago that I ended up loosing one tooth (there's a bridge there now). The above advice cost me $80 from a periodontist; the initial visit was not insured. My gums now are in good shape (no bleeding), as long as I follow the above procedure; If I slack off for a few days, I start to have problems, which have fortunately proven reversible. Of course, have your teeth examined and cleaned professionally every 6 months. Decent dental insurance should cover that. -- edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: polit: feeding the looters To clarify, the IRS only took money from my bank account once--when I was dumb enough to tell them where it was! Now, when we have our meetings I just refuse to tell them. Otherwise, they can find savings accounts easily since the interest money is reported every year. However, checking accounts more difficult to find, even though banks do take SSN for it. They can find it either by checking out all the banks in your neighborhood to see if you have an account there, or they can find it through the random checks they allegedly do to compare SSN with bank accounts and tax records to look for anomalies. Otherwise, they twice garnished my paychecks on jobs-- and I immediately quite both jobs. They also got my California state tax refunds 3 or 4 times. (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) On Sat, 7 Aug 1993, D. Anton Sherwood wrote: > 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 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: polit: feeding the looters To clarify, the IRS only took money from my bank account once--when I was dumb enough to tell them where it was! Now, when we have our meetings I just refuse to tell them. Otherwise, they can find savings accounts easily since the interest money is reported every year. However, checking accounts more difficult to find, even though banks do take SSN for it. They can find it either by checking out all the banks in your neighborhood to see if you have an account there, or they can find it through the random checks they allegedly do to compare SSN with bank accounts and tax records to look for anomalies. Otherwise, they twice garnished my paychecks on jobs-- and I immediately quite both jobs. They also got my California state tax refunds 3 or 4 times. (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) On Sat, 7 Aug 1993, D. Anton Sherwood wrote: > 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 11:31:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: Disagreement about Natural Law (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) On Sat, 7 Aug 1993 starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: > 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. You are a gentleman, Tim. By the way, is Perry going to be in Utah? We'll have to get together for a drink and a few laughs. END of carol's reply...rest is just recap of a message you've all read so stop here o o * \__? > > 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? > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 11:31:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: Disagreement about Natural Law (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) On Sat, 7 Aug 1993 starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu wrote: > 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. You are a gentleman, Tim. By the way, is Perry going to be in Utah? We'll have to get together for a drink and a few laughs. END of carol's reply...rest is just recap of a message you've all read so stop here o o * \__? > > 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 ********************************* &