From extropians-request@extropy.org Sat Oct 16 21:17:29 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA28970; Sat, 16 Oct 93 21:17:27 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 AA04775; Sat, 16 Oct 93 21:17:20 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA25293; Sun, 17 Oct 93 00:11:57 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA25288; Sun, 17 Oct 93 00:11:38 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA24972 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Sun, 17 Oct 1993 00:11:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 00:11:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199310170411.AA24972@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: October 17, 373 P.N.O. [04:11:14 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sun, 17 Oct 93 Volume 93 : Issue 289 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] (fwd) Proof that correct morality is objective. [2 msgs] CHILDREN: Public School Sports [1 msgs] ExI Sports (was: RECOVERY: What's Glove Got to Do With It?) [1 msgs] GAMES: teaching kids games [2 msgs] INSURANCE: experiences good/bad? [1 msgs] META: Failures of the List Justice System [3 msgs] OUTREACH: As long as it's fun.... [1 msgs] OUTREACH: As long as it's fun.... [2 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51669 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 2:44:31 EST From: mike@highlite.gotham.com (Mike Wiik) Subject: META: Failures of the List Justice System Allow me a few comments on some specific points: Tim May writes: > I recently got angry at Mike Wiik and flamed him. Just one flame. [...] > Mike Wiik's post just struck me as too much of a pot shot from > someone who has not been contributing much to the list...and it > smacked of his "gun-toting Nazis" charge levelled at me a while back. I freely and cheerfully admit that I made reference to "gun-toting Nazis" shortly after joining the list, more than a year ago. I cannot recall any such post directed specifically against Tim May. Tim May indeed referred to himself as a GTN in response to one of these posts. If I recall correctly, I at that time also posted an apology for my typical newbie behavoir. As for me "not contributing much" Tim's certainly correct. I don't talk much, either. Typical Norwegian, perhaps? :) > So why was I charged? And found guilty? A thin-skinned person > complained, and Harry just mechanically applied the rules, which allow > no room for deviation. [...] > 7. Repeat filers of charges, the "thin-skinned," need to have some > costs incurred. Or to be told not to file so many suits. > (Would apply to me, except I've completed my experiment and doubt I'll > file any charges anytime soon.) Aha. I'm thin-skinned, but Tim's doing an experiment. From my view, it's the reverse. I've filed a total of one charge, on an allegedly well-respected list member, based on obvious flaming and name-calling. At least my experiment didn't cause so much work for Harry. (hopefully). (Then again, the list is denied the benefit of *my* 260 line analysis of why list justice is flawed (short version: seems a-ok to me :) (Of course, Tim's experiment was performed for the collective benefit of the list, whereas mine was performed for secret and selfish reasons which I won't get into:)) -Mike > .......................................................................... > 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. | o==== . : ... : : . |Mail Me Neat Stuff->POB 3703 Arlington VA 22203 --@-- . o o o ... O -O- o o : | mwiik@netcom.com -or- mike@highlite.gotham.com |access 5 & ... : : |----------------------------------------------- mEssAGE fRoM sPAcE ARt stUdiOs | Back and to the left. Back and to the left. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 00:38:05 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: INSURANCE: experiences good/bad? I have a universal life policy with New York Life. I didn't know much about life insurance when I got it, and could have done better. My girlfriend and her daughter will be getting policies with Time, which is also well rated by Weiss* (sp?) and costs somewhat less. $50,000 universal life for a 29 year old non-smoking female costs ~$31 a month. This may be paid up within a few decades depending on interest rates. According to Consumer Reports, the average person doesn't keep the same insurance policy for more than 13 years, for one reason or another, so they warn against taking too much stock in what will happen 20-30 years down the line. For more info on games insurance agents play when "informing" you about universal life insurance, see the August 1993 Consumer Reports. (Term life is in the July issue, and whole life in September -- additional tidbits in each. Reprints available by writing CU/Reprints, 101 Truman Ave., Yonkers, NY 10703-1057.) I suggest shopping around and making a well informed decision, since it's so easy to give in to inertia once you've(I've) made a mediocre decision. When getting universal quotes, ask for the target premium so they don't give you a low quote which may(will) go up in the future. Briefly: the premium is important, but CR says to also look at the "guaranteed cash-surrender value" for an indication of what will happen if you change insurance companies. Kennita ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 07:51:59 UTC From: an39031@anon.penet.fi Subject: (fwd) Proof that correct morality is objective. Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald) Message-ID: Followup-To: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory Organization: The Liberty Trust Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 18:22:40 GMT A proof that moral judgments, when done correctly, are judgments of objective fact: Suppose Joe needs to enter into a contract with one of two men, either Peter or Paul. Both Peter and Paul have in the past broken a major promise, though under very different circumstances, both Peter and Paul have killed a man, though under very different circumstances. Joe needs to decide which one is most likely to keep his word and least likely to harm Joe. None of the promises involve similar things. Peter promised to do certain things in return for a large sum of money. He failed to do the things he promised, and he later killed the person who gave him the money in a surprise attack. Paul promised to do certain things, in return for not having his arms and legs broken. He failed to do the things he promised, and he later killed the person who threatened him in a surprise attack. Obviously Joe should contract with Paul, not with Peter. But why is it obvious? Paul's actions were different from Peters actions because Paul's actions were *morally* different from Peters actions. Consciously or unconsciously we evaluated the actions of Peter and Paul, and concluded that Peters actions were gravely evil, and therefore were a sign that he was likely to do similarly evil things in future. Paul's actions were not gravely evil. The issue was not killing or breaking promises, but *wrongful* killing and breaking of promises. We concluded that Paul's actions were different from Peter's actions because they were *morally* different. We concluded that our intended relationship with Paul would be different from the relationship he had with the person he killed because it would be *morally* different, and that if we were to have that relationship with Peter it would be *morally* similar to the relationship Peter had with the person that he killed. Someone who came to a different conclusion would not merely have different arbitrary subjective values about what constituted evil, as one person might like chocolate ice-cream and another person vanilla ice-cream. A person who came to a different conclusion, who thought that Paul and Peter's deeds were similar, would not merely have different subjective tastes, he would be deluded or foolish. He would be wrong. In correctly concluding that Peters actions were morally different from Paul's actions we consciously or unconsciously used various principles of natural law (I am using the phrase "natural law in" the sense that Thomas Aquinas and John Locke used it - that law which is rightly enforceable in a state of nature, not in the sense of physical law - for a discussion of natural law see ftp.netcom.com:/pub/jamesd.) Among the principles of natural law that we used, consciously or unconsciously, were that contracts should be honored, but that a contract should be for value or it is no contract - that coercion is wrong, but that self defense is right. If someone arbitrarily assumed different principles of natural law, he would make incorrect predictions about peoples behavior, he would be less accurate when he attempted to predict the future behavior of Peter and Paul. If someone arbitrarily assumed incorrect principles of natural law, he would be making incorrect assumptions about the nature of man. For example if he falsely assumed that self defense was merely another form of coercion, as has been claimed in debates on the right to keep and bear arms, he would falsely conclude that Paul was as inclined to violence as Peter. If he also falsely assumed that a contract need not be for value, as has often been asserted in debates on the social contract, then he would falsely conclude that a relationship of trust existed between Paul and the extortionist, and would therefore falsely conclude that Paul was untrustworthy. We can easily and correctly infer moral truths from facts about the world, and can easily and correctly infer facts about the world from moral truths. Everyone does this all the time, and those who claim it is impossible to do this, do it as much as anyone else. To predict the behavior of inanimate objects we use, consciously or subconsciously, a theory of such objects. To predict the behavior of other men, we use, consciously or subconsciously, a theory of mind. Such a theory must contain the categories of good and evil. A theory without these categories will fail to predict other peoples behavior in precisely those cases where it is most important to us to predict their behavior. Because any reasonably accurate theory of mind needs to employ these categories, and because deeds need to be attributed to these categories reasonably accurately, good and evil are true universals, just as "man" or "tiger" are true universals. It is possible to be wrong in our judgments. We need to make our judgments objectively correct. We can achieve judgments that are mostly accurate, though there is no simple mechanical rule for doing so. The fact that it is sometimes difficult to determine what is the true judgment is no reason to think that such things as correct, objectively true, moral judgments do not exist.. To predict men's future conduct from their past conduct, we need to categorize their deeds, in order to say that one deed is like another and one deed is unlike another, to say that one person is like another and one person is unlike another. The most important category is moral. To predict that conduct which it is most important and most difficult to predict, we need to judge men and deeds as moral or immoral. Plainly therefore there exist correct and incorrect categorizations. The categories are not arbitrary. Arbitrary categories are not useful in predicting conduct. Correct categories are plainly useful in predicting conduct, and must be based on sound theories of men and the world, rather than arbitrarily created from nothing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesd@netcom.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 07:30:28 -0400 From: habs@panix.com (Harry S. Hawk) Subject: (fwd) Proof that correct morality is objective. >A proof that moral judgments, when done correctly, are >judgments of objective fact: >Suppose Joe needs to enter into a contract with one of two >men, either Peter or Paul. >Peter ... failed to do the things he promised, and >he later killed the person who gave him the money in a >surprise attack. >Paul ... failed to do the >things he promised, and he later killed the person who >threatened him in a surprise attack. Ah... I think the conclusion that the poster of the message made could be fasle. To take a view that could be also false... I can say... Paul is a mobster, he hangs with bad company, one of the "guys" threatened him, and he killed him - the whole exchange a result of his "mafia" involvement, clearly not the sort of person to contract with. Peter is an honest man. After agreeing to do what he was paid, he found that if he finished his assignment the end result would be that he would be hurting his best friend and his family. Upset that someone would contract with him to do this, he kills that person instead of hurting his friend. Clearly Peter is the the sort of person one should contract with. -- Harry S. Hawk - Extropian habs@extropy.org In Service to Extropians since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 13:44:13 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: META: Failures of the List Justice System I agree with most of Tim's post and certainly with his spirit. BUT one thing grates on me considerably: > Even Mike Price's "Dr. Death" fake-German > accent ("zee penalty iss death") didn't bother me [...] > he was in some sense painting me as a kind of Nazi Okay, let's stick to facts shall we? My persona of Judge Death said: "The crime iss life. The ssentence isss death" Where did "zee" come from? The repeated sss's indicate a _lisp_ NOT a German accent - and how did Judge Death turn into the concentration camp Dr Death? For those of you not in the know there is a very popular comic in the UK called 2000 AD, which features the adventures of a certain Judge Dredd. I quote: "In the 22nd century, massive crime, unemployment and overblown population 400 million inhabitants led the citizens of Mega-City One to abolish democracy and install in its place the Judge System to keep law and order." And where is Mega-City One? In what was once the US, surrounded by miles of radioactive desert and badlands. The society portrayed is a grotesquely funny parody, with Judges handing out summary justice. Judge Dredd is like Mr A or Rorschach from Watchmen, part hero and part anti-hero, driven by a strong sense of justice to kill perps. In this weird dystopia one of Dredd's enemies is a character from "another dimension" called Judge Death. In Judge Death's world the crime problem has been solved by the extermination of all life. Hence his catch phrases of "there are no innocents" (echoing Tim's very words) and, you've guessed it:"The crime iss life. The ssentence isss death". And, oh yes, he has a lisp. His logic of total extermination and guilt by association was a logical extension of what Tim was proposing (that you are an aggressor if you cooperate with one, therefore as guilty) hence an ideal character to parody Tim's postion through. Put it down to our zany British humour. I would not bother to issue such a tedious nitpick (after all, I do have some Neocalvinist sympathies) but this is vexing me considerably at the moment. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 09:31:27 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: OUTREACH: As long as it's fun.... Last night I got my hair braided. This provided me more than three hours of outreach opportunity. I didn't go there expecting to do this -- I figured I'd watch movies or read Illuminatus!. But when I heard the freewheeling discussion going on around me, I decided "What the hell?", and when a statement something like "everybody dies" came up, I tossed in something like "Not me", and we were off to the races. The cast of characters was: Me -- neophyte Extropian, experienced bigmouth Braider -- moderately scientific-minded woman; the one I was scoping out Braider's Teenage Daughter/Assistant -- the one I was hoping to reach; quiet Braider's Female Friend -- a "don't confuse me with the facts" deathist I did most of my talking with BFF. There was not a moment of silence for the 3+ hours after we got going, and for a reasonable part of that time, both of us were talking at once (the sort of discussion where "Don't get me started" is semantically equivalent to "And they're off!"). It kept my mind going as well as my mouth, and was fun to boot. As outreach goes, this was reaching _way_ out. These were _not_ what Nick would call "low-hanging fruit", but it seems a good way to stay on your toes, if you can keep your temper, your sense of humor, and your wits about you. We only spent a brief time on cryonics or nanotech per se, and none on politics. The theme of the evening, as it happened, was "The Advance of Medical Science and Its Effect on the Inevitability of Death". BFF gave me a lot of opportunity to express my thoughts to everyone; she'd say things like "if I found out I had AIDS, I'd _want_ to die" (that's where cryonics came into it) and "We'll never be able to get rid of disease" and "you can't control when you die". She was very fond of the terms "always" and "never" (Never say "Never say 'Never see _Never Say Never_ again' again" again. Sorry -- onward.). I found myself stuck on a basic point. BFF considered statistics irrelevant to reality, and faith basic to (approximately identical with) reality. To wit: because some people die as babies, and some die at age 110, there is no such thing as an average life expectancy. B, who works in a hospital, was on my side on this one (she clearly understood that even if noone dies _at_ age 70, the _average_ can still be 70). BTD/A was being a good girl -- I think she was well trained not to butt in on adults' discussions -- so I'm not sure whether she got it (she's in high school, so I hope so). This made it difficult to support my claims, because without reference to statistics, there's no way that I could see to claim to be able to increase the human lifespan without seeming to claim to be omnipotent. I tried anyhow, because B and BDT/A seemed to be following me even if BFF wasn't. It also came out later in the evening that they were Christians (this caught me by surprise, given earlier discussion in which all three agreed with me that "death is as bad as it gets"). BFF was hot on Revelations. I may or may not have made an impression on the other two by pointing out that if you pointed to any given date since the book was written, there were wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famine, etc. happening at the time, but BFF was having none of it. "How do I know those things happened?" "How do you know what you see on TV happened?" "I don't." "How do you know what's in that book happened?" "I _KNOW_." (Ah, Christianity.) Here one of my weaknesses came out -- I don't _KNOW_ _anything_, which is a liability in a certainty-equals-veracity situation. I haven't argued with a Christian in so long that none of my arguments against it were ready to hand, and it probably wouldn't have been a good idea to antagonize her on so basic a level, anyway. They accepted the premise of tiny machines checking all your cells to see if they are OK much more easily than I expected, but BF decided "we" (the human race?) would never actually do such a thing because "they" (apparently doctors and insurance companies) would keep it from happening so they could continue to rip us off (thankfully I saw what was coming and diverted us back onto a scientific track, saving us from an evening of debating the Clinton health plan). B helped me out by throwing in home blood pressure and blood sugar testers as an example of ways that health care is getting cheaper and more self-directed; that was encouraging. BF stopped me once. (approximately) "You say I have faith in this book, but you have faith in science." What arguments I might have had against this would have depended on the kinds of data that she had already rejected. Also, she was right ("in some sense" -- RAW). I believe that science will progress to the point where humans conquer death (for all practical purposes). I believe that the indomitable human spirit will steer us to a future among the stars. I believe that I can live for an indefinite period of time. And I believe them for a value of "believe" that may not be best for me or for what I stand for. Pointing that out is probably the biggest favor she did for me all evening. The upshot of the evening was that, having spent hours almost yelling at each other, heavily in disagreement, we all ended up smiling and acknowledging that we'd had a stimulating and enjoyable discussion. Was anything accomplished? I learned some things about myself and about how some people in the real world think. I hope they learned some things, too, and that at least I opened a chink that some more knowledge may seep into. But hey -- even if I didn't, I was a captive audience anyway, and it beat watching music videos. As long as it's fun, why not? Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 09:50:53 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: ExI Sports (was: RECOVERY: What's Glove Got to Do With It?) >What games/sports are recommended for extropians to teach their >kids? Ultimate Frisbee is a great game. It takes endurance and agility, teamwork and eye-hand coordination, and uses an honor system. I played it for years in graduate school and thought it was much better for "character" than either ice hockey or soccer. I think Ultimate is more suitable for high school, or maybe junior high, kids than elementary school kids (somehow the sentence suggested younger kids to me). For younger kids I'd suggest New Games and other cooperative goal-oriented games where everybody can win (there are books of them, but I don't know the titles). Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 09:52:22 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: GAMES: teaching kids games (BTW: I've been wondering this for a while: how old is the game of "bully in the pen?") How does one play "bully in the pen"? Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 10:22:17 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: CHILDREN: Public School Sports Kennita's Dynamically Optimistic post about softball being better than the team sports in school leads me to suggest that most of the problems of school sports are caused by their statist nature. This may be (likely is?) true, but I came across the same problems in private school and private college. I think many of them have to do with people having something to prove, either for themselves (in the second case) or through their children (in the first). It may also have to do with simple lack of maturity, whatever that means. Also, Physical Education is structured to provide a physically fit pool from which conscripts can be drawn in wartime. This means that there tends to be an emphasis upon warlike, team sports, rather than sports in which people play alone. This sounds like an indictment of team sports per se. Teams, teamwork, and learning to deal with adversarial situations all have positive aspects. sports that are for the development of fitness and character for the individual's sake, not the sake of others, the team, the school, etc. This is not entirely the fault of the sport -- it is a product of how people relate to the sport, and how they think people can best be motivated to excel at the sport. It doesn't work for some people (like me, for instance). If I designed a physical education curriculum, I would probably place heavy emphasis upon the most defensive martial arts as well as upon "solo" sports that are more oriented towards competing against yourself in order to improve your performance, your health, etc. In other words, I'd make self-improvement the primary goal, including the sheer fun of playing the game! I think I'd also go for self-improvement, and I'd do it in the realm of team sports -- teaching people to encourage others, to lead by example, to cultivate an infectious positive attitude, to create the order of a well-functioning team from the chaos of a group of individuals with unique strengths and weaknesses. Not to knock track, running, swimming, etc., but those you can do at home or on your own, or with just a coach. Team sports require a team, and school is a convenient place to assemble one. Making kids play each game a few times would not be as bad if they were not also required to excel, pushed past their limits, denigrated when they fail, etc. I'm noticing how my goddaughter (age 20 months) first says "no" to everything, then thinks it over (and sometimes has to do it anyway even if the answer is still "no", like going to the potty or picking up toys). Adults have enough breadth of experience to make more considered choices about what to do and not to do, and it's unreasonable to coerce them. Where kids cross the line from one status to the other is not clear. How much of the "no" is rebellion, and how much is fear of the unknown? How does one best deal with both in raising an Extropian child? Kennita Watson | Do I want to live forever? Maybe not, but give kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think HEx: KNNTA | it over. - KLW, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 13:33:54 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: GAMES: teaching kids games Kennita Watson writes: >How does one play "bully in the pen"? Well, it goes by various names, a lot of which have escaped me. Basically, you start with a field with end zones, a bit like a football field, (except a bit smaller than a regulation high school football field; this is a game for grade school level students, BTW). At the start of the game, everyone's in the end zones except for the bully. Everyone has to run from one end to the other, The ends are "safe" zones, but elsewhere the bully can tackle a person, at which point he has to join him in his task to tackle everyone else. It eventually ends when everyone's a bully in the pen and there's one person running across... and he gets tackled. PHil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 14:21:17 -0700 From: davisd@auburn.ee.washington.edu Subject: OUTREACH: As long as it's fun.... > This made it difficult to support my claims, because without reference > to statistics, there's no way that I could see to claim to be able to > increase the human lifespan without seeming to claim to be omnipotent. > I tried anyhow, because B and BDT/A seemed to be following me even if > BFF wasn't. > > kwatson@netcom.com | me one or two hundred thousand years to think I don't know that it is even necessary to show that lifespan has been increasing. Challenge BFF to show that people have to die. As a kid, I always figured that death by old age should be avoidable. As you grow, you get bigger, stronger, smarter, and better able to resist disease. Always seemed to me that if you could get better, you should certainly be able to stay the same. Just have to figure out how. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 17:52:59 From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby) Subject: META: Failures of the List Justice System Harry sez: > 6) I feel the jury idea needs to be debated. The problem with such > an thing is that any verdict will draw "light" from those who oppose > it and on this list that can be tough. The Jury perhaps should be > anonymous. One thought I have about a proposed jury system connects to a recent discussion we were having about paying for the list. Membership in a "jury duty" pool is a rendering of services to the list, and as such should be compensated for. Reductions in list premiums would be one way to accomplish this. Alternatively, [...] > 8) I think we should move to a fee based legal system. It should > cost to file charges AND those who are guilty should be given > a choice of a cash fine and/or a penalty. If the verdict upholds the > view of that list member who made the suit, that list member should > get part or all of their money back. Jurors could be compenstated out of this pool as well. The problem with this idea is that we need a running digital cash protocol to use it (though I guess we could use thornes as a makeshift in the meantime). However, the biggest problem with this system is that it actually requires accusers to pay up front. Such payments are appropriate in a PPL where the offense is a personal tort. In other words, posting a bond to file suit is appropriate for those who are seeking compensation for being flamed. Of course, the current list penalties do not compensate the victim, but the creating of a tort PPL for flaming is another issue. What the list penalties do is attempt to provide a public good (a high list S/N ratio), and requiring these bond payments is very problematic if we are trying to protect a public good. There is a serious free rider problem in requiring people to pay to benefit not themselves, but the list as a whole. Why should I choose to bear (to an economically efficient level) all the costs and risks of list litigation when I will not capture all the benefits? Of course, this free rider problem already exists without charging for list justice, because it takes time to prepare a suit, and the opportunity costs may already be prohibitive, especially when it is probably easier (cheaper) to ::exclude someone and satisfy one's personal concerns about S/N. However, charging people who might otherwise be taking action to "benefit the list" as a whole (for whatever reasons their personal utility function holds) is only going to reduce, at the margin, those who would otherwise file suits that benefit all of us, due to the extra costs of posting a bond (setup costs, the risk that you will lose, etc.) The more appropriate way to handle this free rider/underincentives to file suit problem is to *reward* plaintiffs (beyond the punishment of the defendant) who file successful suits. This is the concept behind treble damages and punitive damages -- by providing plaintiffs an award over and above their compensatory damages, you increase their incentives to file suit (to compensate for the systematic disincentives to sue, such as litigation costs, etc.). In such a framework, it would be appropriate to require plaintiffs to post a bond, because then they are taking the risks not only for the benfit of the list, but for their own benefit as well. Punitive damages have their own problems, however, in that they result in over-avoidance by potential defendants. One has to balance the costs under-posting against the benefits of a higher S/N ratio. (I imagine most of us would rather not see a "chilling effect" on people's postings, but that's a matter for debate). All this assumes that the current quasi-litigation system is an efficient way to achieve a high list S/N. I believe the crux of Tim May's argument is that it is not. He may be right (and probably is, IMO), but it is unclear what to replace it with -- the old saw about democracy being a horrible form of government, but beating all the others. The fact that list litigation happens in spurts of activity (so far, when Tim and Perry have wanted to make meta-points about it) does not mean that it is ineffective, as "random but severe enforcement" works as a deterrent (whether enforcement is severe enough is another topic of debate). However, while that may deter "old-hands", new members are likely to be unfamilar with prior litigation experiences, and so won't be effectively deterred. Also, the lack of explanation/precedent make Harry's decisions unpredictable, and thereby increase the uncertainty in the system. Here, I have to agree with the suggestion that a *short* opinion is highly preferable, e.g. "X called Y an asshole. Calling someone an asshole is flaming, and punishable by a 24 hr. suspension." This allows the rest of us to keep abreast of what the current status of the law is, and so not break it *unknowingly* -- how many people are going to ::resend for a message that probably is no longer archived, and then attempt to puzzle out why it was sanctionable? What are our alternatives to the current system? I don't have any orignial thoughts to offer right now. I do agree that "tabling" flame-prone discussions seems to work pretty well, though this puts a burden on Harry to determine when such discussions are likely to get/are getting out of hand. Neither this nor the current system is a PPL, however. That will only come when we can figure out how to determine the costs of reducing the list S/N, and then make the offender bear those costs. All this has to be done with a minimum of transaction costs to the aggreived parties, else they wil never act to recoup their losses from the offender (especially given the free rider problem). The list software is a first step towards this, but many issues remain to be solved before we reach a solution. Just my $.02, Tim tim.hruby@his.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 16:04:23 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: OUTREACH: As long as it's fun.... > This made it difficult to support my claims, because without reference > to statistics, there's no way that I could see to claim to be able to > increase the human lifespan without seeming to claim to be omnipotent. > I tried anyhow, because B and BDT/A seemed to be following me even if > BFF wasn't. I don't know that it is even necessary to show that lifespan has been increasing. Challenge BFF to show that people have to die. God put death in the world because Eve ate the apple. End of discussion. How useful is that? My purpose was not to get into a theological discussion, but to attempt to impart some scientific information. There are open minds, and there are closed minds, and there are closed minds that have been assaulted with a baldfaced assertion that the Bible is plain wrong and have as a result boarded the windows, barred the doors, dropped the portcullis, filled the moat, and released the dogs. Maybe with a closed mind you can at least lob an idea in through a window. Kennita ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 00:10:02 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: Sun Oct 17 00:10:02 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) Market Summary as of: Sun Oct 17 00:00:02 EDT 1993 Reputations of members of the Extropians mailing list: [ Note: Contact hex-request to have a reputation placed on this list. ] Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding AMARA .10 .50 - 10000 - ANTON .61 .63 .63 10000 1943 ARKU .30 .31 .30 10000 5301 BLAIR .01 1.20 .01 10000 26 BROOX .01 1.00 - 10000 - DEREK .06 .19 .19 100000 18430 DROSE - .15 - 10000 - DRS - .15 .15 10000 2600 DVDT .75 1.75 1.70 10000 10000 E .80 1.00 .90 10000 8011 ESR - - - - - FCP .06 1.30 1.50 80000 15345 GHG .02 .30 .20 10000 8180 GODII .01 1.00 - 10000 - GOEBEL .01 .25 1.00 10000 767 H .40 .76 .76 30000 10290 HAM .60 .90 .90 20000 15918 HANNO .15 .24 - 10000 500 HFINN 1.50 6.00 .01 10000 1005 IMMFR .25 .70 .80 10000 1838 JFREE .02 .50 .50 10000 3200 JOHN .30 .40 .35 10000 600 JPP .26 .29 .26 10000 3500 KARL .50 1.50 2.00 10000 1000 KNNTA .12 .19 .26 100000 9900 LEFTY .30 .40 .40 10000 4751 MARCR - - - - - MLINK - .01 .01 1000000 102602 MWM - 1.50 .01 10000 1260 N 5.00 9.00 9.00 10000 4750 P 22.50 25.00 1.50 1000000 94 PETER - .01 1.00 10000000 600 PRICE - .01 .01 10000000 1410 R .40 .80 .70 10000 6100 RJC .65 2.00 1.00 10000 5200 ROMA - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - SAMEER .30 .75 .61 10000 9810 SHAWN .55 .55 .01 10000 25 TIM .10 .60 .50 10000 2104 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 1.00 10000 102 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other reputations: Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding 1000 .05 .40 .20 10000 5000 110 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 150 .01 .10 .10 10000 1750 1E6 .20 - .20 10000 8825 1E9 .01 .09 .20 10000 7000 200 .02 .20 .10 10000 5075 80 .01 - - 10000 - 90 .01 - .10 10000 2000 ACS .10 .15 .12 10000 3223 AI .01 .09 .10 10000 2000 ALCOR - .25 .20 10000 3675.00 ALTINST - .25 .05 10000 4000 ANARCHY .20 .90 1.00 10000 1100 BIOPR .01 .09 .05 10000 3000 BITD .01 1.00 - 10000 - BLACK - .10 .10 100000 6000 CHUCK - - - - - CYPHP .20 .40 .30 10000 10000 D&M - - - 10000 - DC1000 - .10 - 10000 - DC200 - .15 .10 10000 1500 DC7000 - .10 - 10000 - DCFLOP .15 - .15 10000 6000 DRXLR .75 .90 .80 10000 4545 EXI .11 .25 1.54 10000 3025 FAB - - - - - GOD - .10 .10 10000 3000 GUNS - .90 1.00 10000 3900 HART - 1.99 2.00 10000 9000 HEINLN .28 .30 .30 10000 6600 HEX 100.00 101.00 100.01 10000 4158 KLAUS - .45 .45 100000 36004 KPJ - - - - - LEARY .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 LEF .10 .35 .10 10000 5214 LIST .40 10.00 .75 10000 5000 LP .25 .30 .50 10000 5625 LSOFT .50 1.00 .50 10000 9550 LURKR - .01 - 100000 - MED21 .01 .30 .30 10000 5399 MMORE - 1.25 .10 10000 3000 MNSKY - 1.80 - 10000 - MORE .38 1.25 .75 10000 2660 NEWTON - .50 .20 10000 1000 NLAW - .50 - 10000 - NNLAW - .50 - 10000 - NSS .02 .03 .01 10000 25 OCEAN .15 .18 .20 10000 6600 OOMPH - 20.00 22.00 20000 - PENNY - .08 1.50 10000 2500 PGP - 1.00 1.00 100000 2100 PLANET .01 .02 .02 10000 4000 PPL .30 .45 .30 10000 4600 RAND .18 .20 .20 10000 3900 RAW - .05 - 10000 - SSI .15 .20 .20 10000 5200 TCMAY .38 .40 .38 10000 6200 TRANS .01 .90 .60 10000 3211 VINGE .01 1.00 .75 10000 3449 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #289 *********************************