From extropians-request@extropy.org Mon Sep 20 18:03:39 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA19867; Mon, 20 Sep 93 18:03:37 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed (ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA00913; Mon, 20 Sep 93 18:03:25 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA05387; Mon, 20 Sep 93 20:55:29 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA05377; Mon, 20 Sep 93 20:55:02 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA01895 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Mon, 20 Sep 1993 20:54:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 20:54:55 -0400 Message-Id: <199309210054.AA01895@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 21, 373 P.N.O. [00:54:22 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 21 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 263 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] "Timmy the Geek"....NOT! [1 msgs] ECON: What's wrong with a service economy? [1 msgs] GUNS: Buy now [2 msgs] GUNS: Buy now [1 msgs] GUNS: Buy now [1 msgs] META: Preaching to the choir (was: Using Bets to...) [3 msgs] SPACE: DC-X Flies [1 msgs] SPACE: DC-X Flies [1 msgs] Using Bets to Incentivize [1 msgs] WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas [5 msgs] Why smoking should be mandatory [1 msgs] just when you thought you were the strangest guy on the block...[1 msgs] stealing from the post office [2 msgs] talk.extropians... NOT! [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51855 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 14:46:35 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: "Timmy the Geek"....NOT! Tim May writes: > ...Unlike the term "hacker," > which has many resonances, several of them positive in tone, referring > to oneself as a nerd or jerk or toad is undeniably a self put-down. Like the girl in Jurasic Park who says she's not a nerd but a hacker. I don't know anyone who calls themself a toad. > I'm afraid these terms are not going to be "reclaimed" and made > positive again (not that they ever _were_ positive terms, you > understand). A nerd is a geek is a dweeb is a jerk. >... As far as I know, "jerk" is a different category. Nerds, geeks and dweebs can be icky but jerks are actively nasty. I change my mind; I won't go into the ambiguity and in-your-face issues right now. Especially since I've been too self-depricating lately. > (This is not directed at "Future Nerd," who I'm sure chose his handle > very carefully.) Thanks. "fnerd" is a cautionary name for use amongst extropians. The irony of this whole issue is that control of knowlege is power, and it often seems to go into the hands of nerds in the worst sense. --Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 11:57:21 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas I will bet $10 (or 10,000 Thornes) that Perry hasn't completed the FAQ to his own satisfaction and released it by 25 December 1993. I except Perry from eligibility for taking this wager because I do not wish to place him at moral hazard by giving him an incentive to release a substandard FAQ. Instead I appoint Perry as the judge of the wager (to be settled with a post beginning "Here it is!"). (I realize that Perry could accept the bet through a front agent, but I doubt that such a trifling amount would be worthy of his notice.) dV/dt Does anyone recall when, exactly, Perry first agreed to generate the FAQ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 15:08:43 -0400 From: Jeff Fabijanic Subject: META: Preaching to the choir (was: Using Bets to...) I write, Dave K. responds: >>Perhaps other people come here for different reasons - some may desire a >>place of acceptance, where theirs are the views of the "majority". I don't >>need unthinking support of my validity - if I did, I'd be a moderate >>Democrat. >Irrelevant and intentionally provocative. You're right here. I intended the comment, and the one that followed shortly thereafter, to be sporting, but in retrospect I see how the tone could be mis-taken. I apologize for any confusion. >The purpose of the list is not, >as you seem to think, unanimous agreement on all issues. I don't think this, and it precisely because of this that I am a bit bewildered by the strong negative response by some list members to a call for clarification, not on an axiomatic principle, but on a specific factual point. >The purpose of >the list is a common ground to discuss the things we _don't_ agree on, >without having to put up with endless defense of the things on which we do >agree. I understand this quite well. I'm no blushing newbie to the ideas of extropic thought, anarcho-capitalism or libertarian philosophy. I was not attempting to support the concept of a government letter delivery monopoly. I was simply calling into question what appeared to be an inadequately supported *assumption* that such a monolpoly existed through force of law. The point of the original thread, that fraud of the USPS is a legitimate anarcho-capitalist action, could be seen to hinge on this point. >I think Lefty's comparison to a graduate course is apt. I agree that there are strong parallels. Having taken more than a few grad courses myself, I will say that in such venues, unsupported claims rarely go unchallenged. >p.s Duncan Frissell has done what no one else has been able or willing to do >- he has given me a solid reference to an actual point of law which can now >And none of the rest of us have access to Lexis or a good libertarian >bookstore, I suppose. The operative word is definitely "willing" and not >"able", Jeff -- you seem to have ignored the point of Tim's post: that the >purpose of a bet is to provide a financial incentive to do the work of >assembling the proof. Now Duncan has gone and given that information away >and robbed Perry of the chance to fleece yet another unsuspecting pigeon. Unsuspecting pidgeon? Hmmm, now who's baiting whom ;)? My original post asked if anyone had a reasonable reference to support the claim being made. The list membership is obviously well-read and diverse enough that I felt fairly confident that a solid reference might be on hand and quickly produced. Instead, my request seemed to engender a wagon-circling response on the part of some, and challenge fromPerry to provide a proof by negative evidence. I have pointed out the problems with attempting proofs of this sort in several recent posts. >I don't think that pursuing the "put up or shut up" strategy is anything to >be ashamed of. Neither do I, if it is a fair wager. I never said it was. I have simply pointed out that the manner in which Perry stated his challenge is ambiguous and unprovable. If you are going to offer a bet as an incentive to finding answers, you need to do it in such a way that the taker is encouraged to be as thorough and exact as possible. [side-discussion of new(?) uses for alt.extropian] >What we would need is for a few volunteers from this >list who _don't_ mind arguing the basics (Jeff springs to mind as a perfect >candidate! :-), Sigh. I hardly think that my request for a proper reference in the postal debate qualifies as "arguing the basics". I have said several times already and now will say again - "I do *not* think that the government has any business delivering mail." See, I'm a good little anarcho-capitalist. But I do not support what I feel to be the implied belief that some of those who have been following this thread seem to hold, to wit "If no one is offering a particular service but the government, it follows that the government *must* be enforcing that monopoly through force of law." Likely, yes. Certain, no. All I asked for was a simple reference to an existing point of law. Several people were helpful in providing such references. Many seemed to feel that hearsay and forceful statements should suffice in place of facts. - Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:16:25 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas > Does anyone recall when, exactly, Perry first agreed to generate the FAQ? > I don't know the _first_ time, but the most recent and memorable time was, let me think....ah, yes, July 8th, 1993. -Tim -- .......................................................................... 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. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 14:16:12 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: ECON: What's wrong with a service economy? More data for Mr. Hamilton, same data source as my last posting: Year Exports Imports Capital Autos Consu- Capital Autos Consu- Goods mer Goods mer ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1983 67.2 16.8 13.4 40.9 40.8 44.9 1988 109.2 29.3 23.1 101.4 87.7 95.9 1992 176.7 47.1 50.4 134.2 91.8 123.0 'Capital Goods' excludes automotive 'Autos' includes parts 'Consumer Goods' excludes automotive Year Exports Imports Merch. All Merch. All ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1984 224 302 258 405 1988 322 444 441 552 1992 448 636 533 667 'Merch' = all merchandise 'All' = all goods and services * Amounts in billions of current dollars Draw your own conclusions from the data above. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 15:17:28 -0400 From: Jeff Fabijanic Subject: stealing from the post office Perry writes: >Jeff Fabijanic says: >> Dave K. writes: >> >> >Oddly enough, no one has ever accepted one of Perry's bets. Why do you >> >suppose that is? >> >> Because they're ambiguous and badly-phrased? > >No, it can't be that, because I've always made it clear that I'd >happily negotiate terms and to make them precise. And yet you have neglected to do so in this case. I asked for several, very specific clarifications on the nature of the bet. I assumed, and still assume, that you made the bet in good faith, but I haven't seen any response to my request yet. >>>I'll happily hold the kitty while this is resolved. >> >>Thanks;) But as I have recently mentioned, Perry has still not responded to >>my request for clarification of the bet parameters. > >Thats because Duncan Frissell posted the proof that I would have >supplied you with, thus making the point moot. Unless you are still >willing -- I'll always take a free $1000. My statements on the innadequacy of negative proofs still stand. What harm is there in clarifying the terms of the wager, if it seems so certain that I would lose if I decided to take it? At the very least, it would provide a precedent for future wagers. - Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:23:24 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas > I will bet $10 (or 10,000 Thornes) that Perry hasn't completed the FAQ to > his own satisfaction and released it by 25 December 1993. I except Perry > from eligibility for taking this wager because I do not wish to place him > at moral hazard by giving him an incentive to release a substandard FAQ. > Instead I appoint Perry as the judge of the wager (to be settled with a > post beginning "Here it is!"). (I realize that Perry could accept the bet > through a front agent, but I doubt that such a trifling amount would be > worthy of his notice.) > dV/dt > Does anyone recall when, exactly, Perry first agreed to generate the FAQ? An interesting wager. Problem: it is inappropriate to allow Perry as the judge for the same reason you exclude him from participation in the wager. Whether he has a $10 incentive or not to publish a FAQ, it can still be done in a substandard or inappropriate manner. I'd wager that his reputation is more important than $10. Curious: I never knew until recently that Perry was writing a FAQ. Where will he be going for material? ExI, list archives (assuming someone kept some), combination of various sources, or just good ol Perry? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:26:27 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas From: dkrieger@synopsys.com (Dave Krieger) I will bet $10 (or 10,000 Thornes) that Perry hasn't completed the FAQ to his own satisfaction and released it by 25 December 1993. .... dV/dt I'll take that bet. The $10 version, since the last post I saw on the subject had entry into the Thorne market going for $1.00/100 Thornes, and I don't have any. At even odds I'd go for Thornes, just to get into the market, but not at 10:1. Kennita Kennita Watson | "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc -- we gladly kwatson@netcom.com | feast on those who would subdue us. Not just pretty | words...." -- The Addams Family ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 12:59:09 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Why smoking should be mandatory Ayn Rand was quite right in calling smoking a good thing. And in light of the new National Health System, a social duty. A common argument against riding motorcycles without helmets is that "we all pay" for the accidents and head injury care. Many of my family and friends trot out this argument whenever the issue comes up. (When I say that motorcycle riders who choose not to wear helmets are responsible for their own choices, and can shop for whatever insurance or health care policies they wish to pay for, I am tolk that this is simply not what a "just" and "compassionate" society does. The I ask them if they want to just ban rock climbing, skateboarding, mountain biking, skiing, hang-gliding, and motorcycles themselves? And los of other "dangerous" things that "we all pay for." This causes them to worry a bit and usually to fall silent, until they come up with some other illogical notion.) By this logic of reducing "costs" to society, smoking of cigarettes should be encouraged, perhaps even made mandatory. Smoking has these beneficial effects on the overall cost to society: * smokers are more prone to sudden fatal heart attacks, often when they are in their 50s and 60s. * lung cancer typically develops after about 20-30 years of smoking, meaning most cases occur in folks over 45. * neither sudden fatal heart attacks nor lung cancer are especially expensive to treat. Fatal heart attacks cost only a few thousand dollars (for ambulance fees), and lung cancer is generally a death sentence, with little that can be done in the several months of life that remain. Chemotherapy is available, but is fairly cheap (and ineffective...many would argue the chemo. is just a near-placebo). (Nonfatal heart attacks can be expensive, especially with heart bypass surgery and heart transplants. Under Hillary's Plan, however, we can expect to see such treatments banned, except for politicians--all patients are equal, but some are more equal than others.) * that is, these diseases are very cheap to treat, typically not consuming the $200-500K per year of treatment that some diseases consume. (AIDS is quite a bit more expensive, suggesting we should require all gays to register and to complete a 4-pack-a-day "tobacco maintenance" regimen, with breath tests to ensure compliance.) * best of all, by striking people in their 50s and 60s, smoking-related terminal diseases remove people from the Social Securiy, Medicare, and corporate pension plans just as they are beginning to take money out of them. Society wins by encouraging smoking. In fact, by current logic, we should _require_ smoking. Anyone who does not smoke is being selfish and is "costing the system" by extending their lives and thus increasing the chance they'll develop some more expensive disease. Random smoking tests and employer-required smoking tests ("breathe into this bottle") could be used to enforce this 3-pack-a-day system. This would also provide more of a rationale for the tobacco subsidies. Rand was on to something. -Klaus! von Future Smoker -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 13:22:31 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas >From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) >Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas >X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on September 20, 373 P.N.O. [19:26:11 UTC] >X-Message-Number: #93-9-1039 > > From: dkrieger@synopsys.com (Dave Krieger) > > I will bet $10 (or 10,000 Thornes) that Perry hasn't completed the FAQ to > his own satisfaction and released it by 25 December 1993. > .... > dV/dt > >I'll take that bet. The $10 version, since the last post I saw on the >subject had entry into the Thorne market going for $1.00/100 Thornes, >and I don't have any. At even odds I'd go for Thornes, just to get >into the market, but not at 10:1. Note that Rowan etc. is only _selling_ at 100:1... he explicitly said he would _not_ buy them back at that price. I think the market value of the Thorne is closer to 1000:1 than 100:1. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:29:50 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: Using Bets to Incentivize J.>Final note - Perry has not as yet provided me with the wager J.>specifics I requested. Until he does so, I will not undertake to search J.>the body of law to establish the point. And as far as I'm concerned, J.>until I or someone else does, the question I raised - "Does the J.>government actually enforce a letter delivery monopoly through force of J.>law" will remain unanswered. J.> Jeff The reason that people were a little short with you is that this is old stuff. The existance of postal monopolies in every country on earth is not something unusual or unkown. That was always a traditional monopoly area and I, for one, have read articles in conservative and libertarian books and periodicals for decades on the subject. If you accepted our statements without formal proof, it would not be a matter of faith but perhaps a matter of accepting authority. Not in a bad way on a vital topic but in the same way I would accept what Tim May had to say about the physics of microprocessor design. He knows that topic, we know about PO privitization which is a libertarian topic considerably older than the hills. The other problem with your proof request is that the USCA isn't online except for Lexis and Westlaw subscribers so we would have to physically travel to the law library leaving our computers behind we are loathe to do this. I any case, here at great personal expense is some more proof: Law scan results for: POSTAL EXPRESS STATUTES System is searching the Congressional Record Abstracts database, copy- righted 1993 by Capitol Services, Inc., Washington, DC and available through Dialog Information Services, Inc. Accessing Network...........Completed. Accessing Database Host.....Completed. Logging on..................Completed. Logging on (second step)....Completed. Selecting Database..........Completed. Submitting Search...........Completed. There are 3 item(s) which satisfy your search phrase. You may wish to PRINT or CAPTURE this data if possible. Heading # 1 Searched: 09-20-1993 14:46 ^S/^Q: stop/start; ^T: Paging OFF; ^C/(esc): interrupt (^ = CTRL/CONTROL key) 1979232 CRANE urges passage of HR 86, repeal postal Private Express statutes; letter. Source: 99-101 Page: E3531 JULY 25, 1985 Subfile: EXTENSION OF REMARKS Descriptors: POSTAL-PRIVATE CARRIERS (4003) Heading # 2 1978580 CRANE urges passage of HR 86, repeal postal Private Express statutes; letter. Source: 99-101 Page: E3531 JULY 25, 1985 Subfile: EXTENSION OF REMARKS Descriptors: POSTAL-PRIVATE CARRIERS (4003) Heading # 3 193228 * HR 86 CRANE, repeal postal Private Express statutes; C/PO; stmt E4. Source: 99-001 Page: H69 JANUARY 3, 1985 Subfile: HOUSE PROCEEDINGS Descriptors: POSTAL-PRIVATE CARRIERS (4003) System is now searching Books in Print, copyrighted 1993 by R.R. Bowker Co., a division of Reed Reference Publishing, New Providence, NJ and available through BRS Information Technologies. Accessing Network...........Completed. Accessing Database Host.....Completed. Logging on..................Completed. Logging on (second step)....Completed. Selecting Database..........Completed. Submitting Search...........Completed. There are 1 item(s) which satisfy your search phrase. You may wish to PRINT or CAPTURE this data if possible. Heading # 1 Searched: 09-20-1993 14:48 ^S/^Q: stop/start; ^T: Paging OFF; ^C/(esc): interrupt (^ = CTRL/CONTROL key) AN 0025006XX. 9001. ME Haldi-John. TI Postal Monopoly. An Assessment of the Private Express Statutes. AE Johnson-Joseph-F. Jr. PD 1974. PR PAP $7.50. 0-8447-3123-4. PB Am-Enterprise. SC OUT OF PRINT (OP). 01-90. SU GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: LAW: GENERAL (001156). POSTAL SERVICE (00374647). PG 70.. PRESS TO SELECT 1 Review results again 5 Start a new search / return to scan results menu 6 Leave System Total charges thus far: $19.00 -> 6 Duncan Frissell Staff Sergeant Civil Air Patrol (Ret.) --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:29:51 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: GUNS: Buy now E >An effective gun ban would require the elimination of machine tools E >and computers as well, for with these, you can 'roll your own' weapons. E > E >Dani Eder Yeah. I can't wait for my 3-D molecular deposition "printer" so I can run off a bunch of Streetsweepers. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 16:54:11 -0400 From: Jeff Fabijanic Subject: Using Bets to Incentivize Thank you Duncan. Your first post was helpful, this last one was beyond the call. I am even now planning my foray to the library... - Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:02:08 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: stealing from the post office Jeff Fabijanic says: > Perry writes: > >Jeff Fabijanic says: > >> Dave K. writes: > >> > > >> >Oddly enough, no one has ever accepted one of Perry's bets. Why do you > >> >suppose that is? > >> > > >> Because they're ambiguous and badly-phrased? > > > >No, it can't be that, because I've always made it clear that I'd > >happily negotiate terms and to make them precise. > > And yet you have neglected to do so in this case. I asked for several, very > specific clarifications on the nature of the bet. AFTER Duncan had made it moot. As I've said, though, I'm still willing to negotiate terms if you are foolish enough to still want the bet. > I assumed, and still > assume, that you made the bet in good faith, but I haven't seen any response > to my request yet. You answer your own question by quoting me. > >>my request for clarification of the bet parameters. > > > >Thats because Duncan Frissell posted the proof that I would have > >supplied you with, thus making the point moot. Unless you are still > >willing -- I'll always take a free $1000. > > My statements on the innadequacy of negative proofs still stand. What harm > is there in clarifying the terms of the wager, if it seems so certain that > I would lose if I decided to take it? Because I don't want to waste my time in clarifying terms that you obviously will not now take. If you ARE genuinely still a non-believer in the illegality of alternate postal services, in spite of Duncan's post, I will gladly reinstate the bet. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 14:20:52 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: META: Preaching to the choir (was: Using Bets to...) >From: Jeff Fabijanic >Subject: META: Preaching to the choir (was: Using Bets to...) >X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on September 20, 373 P.N.O. [19:08:55 UTC] >X-Message-Number: #93-9-1034 [quoting me:] >>The purpose of >>the list is a common ground to discuss the things we _don't_ agree on, >>without having to put up with endless defense of the things on which we do >>agree. > > >I understand this quite well. I'm no blushing newbie to the ideas of extropic >thought, anarcho-capitalism or libertarian philosophy. I was not attempting >to support the concept of a government letter delivery monopoly. I was simply >calling into question what appeared to be an inadequately supported >*assumption* that such a monolpoly existed through force of law. The point of >the original thread, that fraud of the USPS is a legitimate >anarcho-capitalist action, could be seen to hinge on this point. I interpreted your remarks as a defense of basics-debating in general, not as specific to the postal monopoly issue. Your remarks seemed to be specifically directed at my "Farewell, Michael Morgan" post. >>I think Lefty's comparison to a graduate course is apt. > >I agree that there are strong parallels. Having taken more than a few grad >courses myself, I will say that in such venues, unsupported claims rarely go >unchallenged. Unless the claim regards something so basic as Lefty's example of integrating to get the area under a curve, with which competent students would already be familiar. >My original post asked >if anyone had a reasonable reference to support the claim being made. The >list membership is obviously well-read and diverse enough that I felt fairly >confident that a solid reference might be on hand and quickly produced. What kind of response time were you expecting? Some of us on the list have lives. (Not me, fortunately.) You _did_ get a solid reference, and quickly by any reasonable standard. Not all of us keep our reference libraries of anarcho-lib literature at work, FCOL. >>I don't think that pursuing the "put up or shut up" strategy is anything to >>be ashamed of. > >Neither do I, if it is a fair wager. I never said it was. You said you were "unproud" to have used the technique yourself: >By offering a wager which most >people would find prohibitively expensive, Perry *appears* to be using a >psychological ploy to quell debate. I'm not saying that he is, just that I >have met in my life many people who use tactics of a similar nature >(unproudly, I admit that I've done so myself). >Sigh. I hardly think that my request for a proper reference in the postal >debate qualifies as "arguing the basics". I was referring more to remarks like these: >So for me, as a young man of extropian bent, it is much more useful to see >the extropian points supported and referenced, rather than the non-extropian >ones. [...] To do the reverse would seem to be preaching to the choir. >I have said several times already >and now will say again - "I do *not* think that the government has any >business delivering mail." See, I'm a good little anarcho-capitalist. Glad to hear it. Please spare us the patronizing tone. >But I >do not support what I feel to be the implied belief that some of those who >have been following this thread seem to hold, to wit "If no one is offering a >particular service but the government, it follows that the government *must* >be enforcing that monopoly through force of law." I don't recall anyone advancing that argument (except you, as a straw man). We were all familiar with the existence of the statutory prohibitions (those of us who spoke up, at least), and we did you the courtesy of assuming, incorrectly, that you were capable of checking this for yourself before issuing opinions about it. I don't typically feel the need to provide a reference supporting such statements as "It's illegal to drive 95 miles per hour" or "Growing marijuana is prohibited in California" because I assume that my correspondents are familiar with these facts. >All I asked for was a simple reference to an existing point of law. Several >people were helpful in providing such references. Many seemed to feel that >hearsay and forceful statements should suffice in place of facts. If Perry tells me he witnessed a traffic accident on the way to work this morning, I do not phone NYPD to verify it. My experience of Perry tells me that he is a competent enough observer not to mistake, for example, the shooting of a motion picture, with a real traffic accident. Similarly, if Lefty reports that the soi-disant "Justice" department has requested that the files on the Waco killings be sealed, I don't feel the need to run to the library and check the Congressional Record. When Klaus! tells me that "gullibility" actually _is_ in the dictionary, I needn't run to my Funk and Wagnalls to find out for sure. :-) The very point of having high standards of proof is that the list becomes a source of information to which I can assign a fairly high confidence rating. (Where else on the Internet are you going to find such high standards for citation and crediting of sources? Tim Starr, despite the abuse we occasionally heap on each other, deserves special recognition for his broad familiarity with the anarcho-lib literature and his punctilious recognition of his sources. [TIM on HEx.] When he logs in and checks his mail, you'll get chapter and verse on the postal monopoly laws, I'm sure.) I'm satisfied that this topic is talked out if everyone else is. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: META: Preaching to the choir (was: Using Bets to...) a conscious being, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > We should create a talk.extropians instead (we've got the votes to do I want to strongly agree with Mr. Metzger post. I don't think we should use alt.extropians, when we have the votes to create a valid, good "talk" news group... /hawk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:30:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: WAGER: No FAQ by Newtonmas I will wager $30 that Perry will not complete a solid first cut FAQ in 1 month. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 16:40:21 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: GUNS: Buy now If Mr. Metzger is talking about rifling of the barrel, that requires a 'boring bar' and a several axis milling machine. The bar has a carbide bit on the end perpendicular to the bar axis, and cuts a groove the width of the rifling. The barrel is held in an indexing chuck, which spins the barrel along it's axis. The bar is coaxial with the barrel and inserted into it for it's length, then translated off-axis for the depth of cut (around 0.005" per cut), and drawn back out while the barrel is rotated at a slow rate, cutting a spiral groove. Repeat as many times as necessary with greater offsets to produce the rifling depth you need. Then index the barrel as many degrees as necessary to get the next spiral. Repeat until you get all the grooves cut. Requires one rotation axis for the barrel and two translation axes for the cutter, making a 3 axis machine. 3 axis machines are not very expensive. You can get 5-axis machines for making really complex parts. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 16:44:23 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: SPACE: DC-X Flies Re: maglev in a tunnel Nothing wrong with the idea unless low cost is an objective of the design. Dani ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:51:19 -0500 From: pgf%srl06@srl06.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: just when you thought you were the strangest guy on the block... (Note: I'd like to change the subject line, but I haven't changed the topic from when this thread started. What should I do, given the new list software? What's most polite?) (Note: We don't have answers to that yet, really; we will before we can gain real productive use of the list software.) (Hey! I have an idea: maybe some sort of prefix...) Tim opines: >The examples cited here are not convincing to me. I lived for a year >just outside of Monaco and have visited Liechtenstein. Both are tiny, >essentially about on a par with a large shopping mall. Prince Ranier >of Monaco is about the equivalent of a City Manager, except his post >is totally ceremonial. Sorta like if Cade were a repubic unto itself, I guess. Or maybe Coteau. Or Coteau-Holmes (different town). I just realized there's only one other list member who's lived in this area long enough to know that these places are literally just wide spots in the road around New Iberia. Anyway. On to more important stuff... >What monarchists like to call monarchies, mostly in Europe (present or >past), are not where the real monarchies are. (The kings and queens >are only titular monarchs, with no power.) >The real monarchies are in Africa, with the hereditary despots ruling >in classic monarchy style. Not places I'd want to live. They're not *quite* monarchies per se; the european-created political blocks tend to have two or three different tribes that are indigenous to the area, and they've been bitten by the nationalism bug pretty bad, the way Europe was back in... well, today too... as a result you have one ethnic group out of three or four that has political power, and the others suffer from disenfranchisement and its symptoms in a centralized socialist/mercantilist economy: poverty, undercapitalization, limitations on property or trade rights for a specific tribe (hey! just like the Spanish did to the Catalans!), or in extreme form disasters like famine (hey! just like Ireland and Scotland!). Whether or not these nationalistic states are ruled by monarchies or fake versions of democracy within the ruling tribe doesn't really matter that much. Just my .02p +-----------------------+Here, all too soon the day! |"Standard Disclaymore" |Wish the moon to fall and alter our tomorrow. |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |I should know, heaven has her way; +-----------------------+Each one given memories to own. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 18:02:45 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: SPACE: DC-X Flies Dani Eder says: > Re: maglev in a tunnel > > Nothing wrong with the idea unless low cost is an objective of the > design. Well, my real question is not whether the capital is cheapest but whether the (cost)/(kg lifted) ratio is minimized. It would seem that electromagnetic systems have more potential in terms of long term cost... Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 18:03:46 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: GUNS: Buy now Dani Eder says: > If Mr. Metzger is talking about rifling of the barrel, that requires > a 'boring bar' and a several axis milling machine. The bar has a > carbide bit on the end perpendicular to the bar axis, and cuts a groove > the width of the rifling. [...] > the grooves cut. Requires one rotation axis for the barrel > and two translation axes for the cutter, making a 3 axis machine. > 3 axis machines are not very expensive. You can get 5-axis > machines for making really complex parts. Can you get these computer controlled, and how expensive are they? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:11:07 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: GUNS: Buy now Gun range restrictions? I don't really have a place to shoot out here, but there is an expensive private range in Lafayette. Are the gun ranges in California private or public? What's the status of hunting out there? +-----------------------+Here, all too soon the day! |"Standard Disclaymore" |Wish the moon to fall and alter our tomorrow. |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |I should know, heaven has her way; +-----------------------+Each one given memories to own. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:18:03 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: talk.extropians... NOT! Why not sci.extropians? pgf ;-) ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #263 *********************************