Eudaemonists Archive 2003 August

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:01 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!

Friends,

In light of recent events on the Extropy list, I decided to get my butt
moving on the list I proposed a few weeks back. My only hangup was that
with the current list software built into my web hosting service, you
have to hit 'Reply to all' to get the message to go back to the list,
the default 'reply' will only send the message to the sender. I know
that can be changed, but I am still working on figuring out how, until
then, remember to hit 'Reply to all' (and to delete the original sender
in the 'To' field, unless you want a message going to the list and to
the Sender)

That being said, I want to welcome everyone to my new list, which I have
called 'Eudaemonists' After Aristotle's concept of total human well
being through the pursuit of rational humanistic endeavors. The
capacity to reason is the single largest differentiator between humans
and other beings on this Earth, and as such it is the most uniquely
human. To embrace humanity, one must embrace the uniqueness that we
hold, one must embrace reason. Similarly, the capacity to recognize and
reflect upon the deepest workings of nature, and of beauty, and passion
are powerful and primary human definers. To me, to embrace reason,
nature, beauty, and passion is to be a Eudaemonist.

For those who do not know me well, allow me to introduce myself. I am a
27 year old living in North Eastern Connecticut. As you gather from my
posts on the extropy list, my interests are in Science, physics,
politics, history, ethics, philosophy, motorcycles. I am also
interested in Computer animation, music, poetry, art, and film. Some
intellectual inspirations of mine have been Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Carl
Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Robert Forward, Michael Fumento,
Paul Davies, Kip Thorne, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Matt Ridley,
Richard Dawkins, Immanual Kant, John Stossel, Virginia Postrel... Among
many others.

Although I am reluctant to call myself part of any 'isms' some isms that
I share a majority of general descriptions with are humanism,
skepticism, libertarianism (neo), atheism, I would have previously said
'Extropianism' but I'm not sure about that one anymore, given the
behavior of official representations of that particular 'ism', and, of
course, Eudaemonism!

Although I am most Vocal on the extropy of matters of politics, my
deepest interests lie in Physics and Inventing. I am currently working
for the Lifeboat Foundation (www.lifeboat.com) as their lead Animator,
Modeler. I am designing and constructing in 3D a plausible self
sustaining space colony, some of the images are currently available on
their site. I am also in the process of building a recumbent
motorcycle, and plan to market and manufacture small numbers of the
vehicle. Other than that, I cant think of anything more to say about
myself. If you'd like, please present a similar introduction of
yourself.

I hope everyone finds the list valuable and intellectually stimulating.
I hope that this list will be friendly toward productive endeavors as
well, as I will surely toss out some ideas and ask a lot of questions
pertaining to things I am working on.

Enjoy

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:09 AM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!

Michael Dickey writes

> Friends,
>
> In light of recent events on the Extropy list, I decided to get my butt
> moving on the list I proposed a few weeks back. My only hangup was that
> with the current list software built into my web hosting service, you
> have to hit 'Reply to all' to get the message to go back to the list,

Whatever. Reading the rest of your post concerning your interests
and activities, let me say that I am looking forward greatly to
further exchanges here! Due to the recent fiasco on Extropians,
I just have not been in the mood to post anything there. Maybe
things will improve there, maybe not, but it shouldn't matter here.

> As you gather from my
> posts on the Extropy list, my interests are in Science, physics,
> politics, history, ethics, philosophy, motorcycles. I am also
> interested in Computer animation, music, poetry, art, and film. Some
> intellectual inspirations of mine have been Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Carl
> Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Robert Forward, Michael Fumento,
> Paul Davies, Kip Thorne, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Matt Ridley,
> Richard Dawkins, Immanuel Kant, John Stossel, Virginia Postrel... Among
> many others.

Sounds great. Hmm, more than one of those reminds me of something...
Now which should I post on? :-) Okay, probably later tonight (when
the East Coast is asleep :-(

Lee

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:09 AM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!

Michael Dickey writes

Sounds great. Hmm, more than one of those reminds me of something...
Now which should I post on? :-) Okay, probably later tonight (when
the East Coast is asleep :-(

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:28 AM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!

Sign me up guys, sign me up. Tonight I had another run in with "the board" because I objected to some idiots attacking one of our members that is no longer on the Extropy list. Ron Harrison LOL Honest to God, I don't know whether to fall down laughing at those guys or sit down and cry. <G>

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:31 AM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

I would like people's reactions---either gut instinct or
cool rational analysis---to the following game. Your
answer will help me learn more about Nash equilibria.

You can play Rows or you can play Columns. You don't know
ahead of time Who you will be---so you think about what you
would do in either case. Here is the payoff matrix:

C1 C2

R1 2,3 1,5

R2 0,1 0,1

(For those who are not seeing this in fixed font, sorry.
It's a square array of pairs of numbers.) For example,
let's suppose that you are playing Rows and you play R1
and Mr. Columns plays C2. Then you get 1 dollar and he
gets 5 dollars.

The idea is that each pair represents first the payoff
Rows gets and second the payoff Columns gets. It's
a convention that the one on the left is Rows' payoff
and the one on the right is Columns' payoff.

Okay, now you may wish to think of that as thousands of
dollars instead of single dollars so that it is *important*
to do the best for yourself.

Now you got $1,000 say, and the guy playing Columns got
$5,000. Well, that's a nice game to play, but if you
are going to play a lot of times with this guy, it may
occur to you that he is being selfish and when you play
R1 he should play C1. Then you would get $2,000 and he
would get $3,000.

Now he maybe is always going to play C2. You may wish
to "punish" him for being so greedy by playing R2. True,
then you get 0 but he only gets 1, and this lets him know
your dissatisfaction.

You may imagine this as "the two people never meet face to
face" but only are informed of each other's plays.
You may also imagine that you are trying to save human lives
and the adversary is trying to save trees. The important
thing is to do as best you can, for the long run, assume
he is rational and *wants* his winnings as badly as you
want yours.

What would you do as Rows? What would you do as Columns?

Thanks,
Lee

P.S. To send this, I just replied All to Michael's message
and edited the subject line to change the subject, leaving
[eudaemonists] alone.

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:31 AM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

I would like people's reactions---either gut instinct or
cool rational analysis---to the following game. Your
answer will help me learn more about Nash equilibria.

You can play Rows or you can play Columns. You don't know
ahead of time Who you will be---so you think about what you
would do in either case. Here is the payoff matrix:

C1 C2

R1 2,3 1,5

R2 0,1 0,1

Okay, now you may wish to think of that as thousands of
dollars instead of single dollars so that it is *important*
to do the best for yourself.

Now he maybe is always going to play C2. You may wish
to "punish" him for being so greedy by playing R2. True,
then you get 0 but he only gets 1, and this lets him know
your dissatisfaction.

What would you do as Rows? What would you do as Columns?

Thanks,
Lee

P.S. To send this, I just replied All to Michael's message
and edited the subject line to change the subject, leaving
[eudaemonists] alone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:19 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Korean War Question

At first I did not want to buy Ann Coulter's new book
"Treason" because I figured it would just be a rant
against liberals. But then in a bookstore I opened
it up at random and found a lot of very good info.

Well, yes, the first chapter is just a rant (to me).
But then she talks about how Evans is going to write
a definitive book about McCarthy, and it may turn out
that you cannot fault McCarthy much, if at all.

Anyway, I think I have found an error on her part, but
am not sure. She states that the U.S. Army in the
Korean War actually crossed the Yalu. That was new
to me. Anyway, google doesn't really say, and so I'm
having to ask. She's off the hook if at least one
soldier got to the other side. I have read where
some part of the U.S. Army was "to the Yalu" though,
but haven't yet read that it was crossed at all.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:52 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Here is a question that has just occurred to me that
I could not possibly post to the Extropians because
of all the usual catcalls and hoots. I would end
up spending all the time debating the propriety of
the question!

IN this worst-case scenario, many new people are
discovered in adjacent dimensions or on nearby
planets in some way. But their intelligence and
capabilities run the full gamut from ourselves
(and our geniuses) all the way down to sub-animal.
Some manage to get by with almost no intelligence
at all, picking fruit in naturally occuring
orchards.

But higher level humans (companies) have taken control
of those forests, and feed the human-types from pig
troughs. Meanwhile, what to do about voting rights,
civil rights, drivers licenses, etc.? Recall that
the range of intelligence is completely uniform,
with no natural separations.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:09 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:31 AM
> To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
> Subject: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem
>
>
> I would like people's reactions---either gut instinct or
> cool rational analysis---to the following game. Your
> answer will help me learn more about Nash equilibria.
>
> You can play Rows or you can play Columns. You don't know
> ahead of time Who you will be---so you think about what you
> would do in either case. Here is the payoff matrix:
>
> C1 C2
>
> R1 2,3 1,5
>
> R2 0,1 0,1
>

Hmm, tough call. I would have said I would always play R1, but I would
surely get annoyed that he kept playing C2. I would probably try to
follow the tit for tat with an occasional cooperate that always wins
non-zero sum game competitions year after year. In other words, start
by playing R1, and if he plays C2, I would play R2 as long as he played
C2, then would play an occasional R1, if he switched to C1, I would
stick with R1 as long as he stuck with C1.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:17 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

> > C1 C2
> >
> > R1 2,3 1,5
> >
> > R2 0,1 0,1
> >
>
> Hmm, tough call. I would have said I would always play R1,
> but I would surely get annoyed that he kept playing C2. I
> would probably try to follow the tit for tat with an
> occasional cooperate that always wins non-zero sum game
> competitions year after year. In other words, start by
> playing R1, and if he plays C2, I would play R2 as long as he
> played C2, then would play an occasional R1, if he switched
> to C1, I would stick with R1 as long as he stuck with C1.
>
> Michael
>
>

For more info on non-zero sum game theory, see Richard Dawkins 'The
Selfish Gene' or Matt Ridleys' 'The Origins of Virtue' Both excellent
books. On a side note, I was thoroughly disappointed that 'A Beautiful
Mind' (A movie based on John Nash) made absolutely no attempt to explain
how powerful and valuable his contributions were. I believe they could
have easily been made presentable and understandable as a concept to the
audience. His work created the entire field and concept of non-zero sum
games, and laid the ground work to understand the evolution of
cooperation and virtue.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:32 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Libertarians who loathe Israel

A while back I spent a good amount of time in a debate on Isreal,
arguing that the majority of its behavior is morally sound, and
realizing the sickining situation in which the terrorist arafat and his
thugs brainwash palestinians children into murderous suicide bombings
purely on the racist conviction that no Arab can live under a jewish
state! Despite the fact that many Palestinians would, surprise, prefer
to live under the only democracy in the middle east instead of yet
another Islamic theological totalitarian nightmare. - Michael

Here is a good article on...

Libertarians who loathe Israel

- Excerpts -

"Israel's economy is by no means ideal, it is not much different from
Western Europe's Third-Way economies. Still, most libertarians find
Israel particularly repugnant. With a respectable per capita GDP of
roughly $17,500, compared to the Palestinian Authority's $1,000, Israel
apparently has nothing to recommend her. The PA, on the other hand -
with no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no
sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights - wins the
sympathies of legions of freedom lovers hands down."

"Consider the Israeli fence now inspiring hyperbolic hysteria among
libertarians. What can a leadership do to stop its people from being
blown up in the streets as they go about their daily lives? ...The
comparisons between the Israeli fence and the wall between East and West
Berlin is theatrically invoked: "Mr. Sharon, tear down that wall," rings
Raimondo's cleverly adapted Reagan classic. (An equally plaintive plea
from Israelis went unheard. So I'll make it for them: "Mahmoud Abbas,
alias Abu Mazen, aka Yasser Arafat, stop blowing up Israelis.")"

"In a last-ditch attempt to physically stop attacks on its civilian
population, Israel began erecting a security fence along the West Bank.
Yet a mechanical barrier is construed by the gifted libertarian writer,
Justin Raimondo, as "an act of aggression ... a land grab of huge
proportions ..." What most reasonable people would view as a desperate
defensive measure is to Raimondo a symbol of Israeli sadism."

Raimondo thereafter follows with an idealized description (omitting
opportunity costs) of the wonders the wall can't thwart: "Markets
conquer all; they leap over walls, over oceans, to create the most
complex, interconnected, international division of labor possible ..."
...I, too, love free markets. But open borders are not a prerequisite
for free trade. People can trade goods very well without trading places.
Moreover, and forgive me for chuckling...Israel needs the economic
powerhouse that is the PA like China needs trade with a tribe of
rain-forest-dwelling pygmies."

- End excerpts -

from - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34057

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:28 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!

Ron wrote

> Sign me up guys, sign me up. Tonight I had another run
> in with "the board" because I objected to some idiots
> attacking one of our members that is no longer on the
> Extropy list.

You did? Someone wrote you offline? Can you say what the
essence of their "warning" or whatever was? (I realize
that it is not proper to quote their email.)

Thanks,
Lee

> Ron Harrison LOL Honest to God, I don't know whether to
> fall down laughing at those guys or sit down and cry. <G>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:32 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Mitch writes

> [Lee wrote]
> > IN this worst-case scenario, many new people are
> > discovered in adjacent dimensions or on nearby
> > planets in some way. But their intelligence and
> > capabilities run the full gamut from ourselves
> > (and our geniuses) all the way down to sub-animal.
> > Some manage to get by with almost no intelligence
> > at all, picking fruit in naturally occurring
> > orchards.

> Basically the answer, should be for us to Uplift the
> sub-creatures; unless there is a compelling reason
> not to mess with them.

The idea is that that is not possible. See, we really
are lucky that humans diverged from each other so
recently, evolutionarily speaking. What if there was
already a tremendous continuum between us and almost
completely unconscious humans (i.e. with whom we could
still mate)?

Ron writes

> Do I understand the question? The essence of man is in his
> intelligence not his shape. If these former men have lost
> all but animal intelligence then just like today they lose
> all rights and privileges. Their having human shape does
> not entitle them to have us pretend they have human intelligence.

Well, basically I agree. But how is it to be administered?
What would you do? Give everyone an IQ test? (That is what
I would do.) But then what? What rights are given to whom?
And I wonder what happens if we just let nature take its
course (but that would definitely mean slavery just for
starters!).

Lee

P.S. I think that Mitch forgot to "Reply to All" and so
only I got his message.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:09 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Libertarians who loathe Israel

Michael writes

> A while back I spent a good amount of time in a debate on Israel,
> arguing that the majority of its behavior is morally sound, and
> realizing the sickening situation in which the terrorist Arafat and his
> thugs brainwash Palestinians children into murderous suicide bombings
> purely on the racist conviction that no Arab can live under a Jewish
> state! Despite the fact that many Palestinians would, surprise, prefer
> to live under the only democracy in the middle east instead of yet
> another Islamic theological totalitarian nightmare.

For me, the Palestinians behave definitely worse that the
Israelis, but remember that the Israeli terrorists used to
blow up buildings and kill civilians when it was *their*
only recourse. (Or so they felt at the time.)

But despite the advantages of the Israeli position---and the
"luxury" I guess of not having to kill civilians anymore---
it is essential on moral and economic grounds for us to always
support Israel, e.g., guaranteeing its right to exist.
But that does not mean that we have to endorse the things
they do that make the situation worse, such as their colonizing
parts of other countries. (Maybe those are bargaining chips
---so I don't know, maybe that's all right.)

By a number of people's definitions, I am both a racist and
an anti-Semite. That's because I do not hesitate to react
negatively to groups when it is called for. I would be willing
to extend the benefit of doubt to Libertarians who are against
Israel, because unless it's part of a pattern of anti-Semitism,
then I don't have a problem with that per se (I merely think
that they are wrong, because it conflicts with my position
as above).

In fact, is there evidence that the Libertarians going against
Israel also show other symptoms of true anti-Semitism, e.g.,
discrimination against or hatred of Jews as a group?

Well, I didn't really see any such "loathing" referenced in the
article! So categorizing these libertarians as "hysterical"
in their opposition to the fence is rather overdoing it.

But except for that defensiveness, and attribution of attitudes
that may not be true, this is a *great* article. It contains
extremely good advice for both Israel and the U.S.

Penetrating to a deeper level, in my opinion, the article
considers the "rights" of just anyone to work just anywhere
they please. If all the Israelis were like me, for example,
a wall would have been erected a LONG TIME ago, and no Arab
whatsoever would be allowed on *our* side of it. (My answer
is so extreme that you wouldn't even call it apartheid. You
call it "separate countries".)

The only way that Israel will remain for the Jewish people
is if they stop trafficking with Arabs in their midst. They
can trade across borders all they want, but it's just asking
for trouble to include non-Jews in their population. Likewise,
if I were an Arab, I would have nothing to do with Israel.
We would wall them up, and perhaps not even trade with them
until we got our land back.

But what I am proposing will never happen, of course, any more
than I could have stood on the shores of South Carolina in
1700 and said "we should not be bringing black people here".
Or I could stand on the California/Mexico border and say
basically the same thing. But the libertarians are right
(and the author wrong) about one thing. In the end, economics
triumphs. People ultimately care a lot more about money
than anything.

Lee

> from - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34057

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:00 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

Michael writes

Thanks Michael! This is informative. (I hope that some others
say what they would do.) If you don't mind one more question ;-)
(what am I, Columbo?)

Here is a description of the Ultimatum Game if you have
never heard of it. Say you live in California, and it's
announced that some guy in New Jersey is going to be
selected at random by some billionaire or some corporation
or somebody fleeing Nigeria with a lot of loot (or something).

Once this random selection is made, the guy in New Jersey
received a check for $100,000 which, however, he may not
cash until he has split some unknown part of it with some
random guy from California. Here is how that works: he
picks some portion of the 100 grand---any portion at all---
writes a check, and sends it on to the referee who will
pass it to the random guy in California. If the Californian
is "happy" with his share, then the Californian merely deposits
the check. If the Californian is *not* happy, the Californian
merely tears up his check. The downside for the New Jersey
guy is that this action invalidates his own check!

For example, if I were the guy in New Jersey, I might send
a fair portion of the $100,000. I would not want to insult
the Californian, because unless he cashes his check, mine
is invalid! If I were the guy in California and received
a ridiculously small amount---say one dollar---I would
probably just tear up the check. To hell with the stingy
New Jersey guy, he can just lose his $99,999 for being so
greedy.

So: question A: if you were the Californian, what is the
least amount that you would accept?

Question B: if you were the New Jersey guy, what is the
portion you would send.

(It is forbidden that each learns the other's identity, nor
can they communicate in any way.)

Thanks to all who will answer.

Lee

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:00 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

Michael writes

Thanks Michael! This is informative. (I hope that some others
say what they would do.) If you don't mind one more question ;-)
(what am I, Columbo?)

So: question A: if you were the Californian, what is the
least amount that you would accept?

Question B: if you were the New Jersey guy, what is the
portion you would send.

(It is forbidden that each learns the other's identity, nor
can they communicate in any way.)

Thanks to all who will answer.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:46 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Korean War Question

Mike Lorrey writes

> > Anyway, I think I have found an error on her part, but
> > am not sure. She states that the U.S. Army in the
> > Korean War actually crossed the Yalu. That was new
> > to me. Anyway, google doesn't really say, and so I'm
> > having to ask. She's off the hook if at least one
> > soldier got to the other side. I have read where
> > some part of the U.S. Army was "to the Yalu" though,
> > but haven't yet read that it was crossed at all.

> At one point in the war, we had pushed all the way to the Yalu as
> organized infantry along a consolidated front. Recon missions went
> across, as well as pilot recovery missions. This was during MacArthur's
> reign, and he made some probes and lots of conventional bombing
> missions into chinese territory specifically because the Chinese were
> so heavily engaged in saving the NK behinds with heavy support and
> training. Most of the enemy that drove south later that year were in
> fact chinese troops and not North Koreans.
> It was only when MacArthur proposed nuking Chinese targets to win the
> war that he was deposed by Truman. Can't say I blame MacArthur, there
> probably would have been less loss of life if he had done so.

Thanks, Mike. I guess Ann Coulter is vindicated. So far
none of my books says anything about those reconnaissance
missions.

Lee

P.S. It looks as though Mike did not "Reply to All".
This is turning out to be harder than it looks for
people to remember to do.

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:46 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Korean War Question

Mike Lorrey writes

Thanks, Mike. I guess Ann Coulter is vindicated. So far
none of my books says anything about those reconnaissance
missions.

Lee

P.S. It looks as though Mike did not "Reply to All".
This is turning out to be harder than it looks for
people to remember to do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:06 PM
To: matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Libertarians who loathe Israel

There are, unfortunately, a significant number of white supremacists
and other racists who are trying to cloak themselves as libertarians.
You can usually find them pushing NORFED dollars (worth 50 cents on the
dollar) and selling/giving out copies of thinly veiled newspapers
published by various racists and conspiracy theorists.
They seem to be descended in many cases from the old Know Nothing Party
and various Populist organizations from the midwest and west.

--- matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:
> A while back I spent a good amount of time in a debate on Isreal,
> arguing that the majority of its behavior is morally sound, and
> realizing the sickining situation in which the terrorist arafat and
> his
> thugs brainwash palestinians children into murderous suicide bombings
> purely on the racist conviction that no Arab can live under a jewish
> state! Despite the fact that many Palestinians would, surprise,
> prefer
> to live under the only democracy in the middle east instead of yet
> another Islamic theological totalitarian nightmare. - Michael
>
> Here is a good article on...
>
> Libertarians who loathe Israel
>
> - Excerpts -
>
> "Israel's economy is by no means ideal, it is not much different from
> Western Europe's Third-Way economies. Still, most libertarians find
> Israel particularly repugnant. With a respectable per capita GDP of
> roughly $17,500, compared to the Palestinian Authority's $1,000,
> Israel
> apparently has nothing to recommend her. The PA, on the other hand -
> with no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no
> sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights - wins the
> sympathies of legions of freedom lovers hands down."
>
> "Consider the Israeli fence now inspiring hyperbolic hysteria among
> libertarians. What can a leadership do to stop its people from being
> blown up in the streets as they go about their daily lives? ...The
> comparisons between the Israeli fence and the wall between East and
> West
> Berlin is theatrically invoked: "Mr. Sharon, tear down that wall,"
> rings
> Raimondo's cleverly adapted Reagan classic. (An equally plaintive
> plea
> from Israelis went unheard. So I'll make it for them: "Mahmoud Abbas,
> alias Abu Mazen, aka Yasser Arafat, stop blowing up Israelis.")"
>
> "In a last-ditch attempt to physically stop attacks on its civilian
> population, Israel began erecting a security fence along the West
> Bank.
> Yet a mechanical barrier is construed by the gifted libertarian
> writer,
> Justin Raimondo, as "an act of aggression ... a land grab of huge
> proportions ..." What most reasonable people would view as a
> desperate
> defensive measure is to Raimondo a symbol of Israeli sadism."
>
> Raimondo thereafter follows with an idealized description (omitting
> opportunity costs) of the wonders the wall can't thwart: "Markets
> conquer all; they leap over walls, over oceans, to create the most
> complex, interconnected, international division of labor possible
> ..."
> ...I, too, love free markets. But open borders are not a prerequisite
> for free trade. People can trade goods very well without trading
> places.
> Moreover, and forgive me for chuckling...Israel needs the economic
> powerhouse that is the PA like China needs trade with a tribe of
> rain-forest-dwelling pygmies."
>
> - End excerpts -
>
> from - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34057
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:27 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; matus@matus1976.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War Question

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:27 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; matus@matus1976.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War Question

Lee,
Yes, I can accept that explanation. Even with my limited experience I
am well aware that sometimes we do things that don't show in the newspapers.
A recon mission and a pilot rescue mission has the right ring to it.
In fact several of them would not surprise me.
Ron Harrison
From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:40 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Reply To all

>
> P.S. It looks as though Mike did not "Reply to All".
> This is turning out to be harder than it looks for
> people to remember to do.
>
>

Its my fault, I am still trying to figure out how to update the Reply
header on the server. Im no expert, so please bare with me =(

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:42 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Dumbass extropian list

> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:29 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Please change subject line when topic alters (was:
> RE: Synthetic Diamonds)
>
>
> At 11:39 AM 8/13/03 -0400, Michael Dickey and others wrote stuff like:
>
> >Witness the banning of DDT,
> >done with entirely good intentions, has now lead to the
> death of more
> >than 20 million people, mostly children in Africa, which otherwise
> >would not have died. At the height of DDT spraying deaths
> from malaria
> >numbered in the single to low double digits every year. Now they
> >number in the millions.
>
> This has nothing to do with Synthetic Diamonds, unless a
> radical new method of either killing or breeding mosquitos
> has been developed.
>
> Damien Broderick

What an ASS!!! Hello, 20 million dead kids!!! Oh, what, the subject
line was incorrect, WHO GIVES A FUCK!

*shakes head*

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:33 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

Michael writes

> > I would like people's reactions---either gut instinct or
> > cool rational analysis---to the following game. Your
> > answer will help me learn more about Nash equilibria.
> >
> > You can play Rows or you can play Columns. You don't know
> > ahead of time Who you will be---so you think about what you
> > would do in either case. Here is the payoff matrix:
> >
> > C1 C2
> >
> > R1 2,3 1,5
> >
> > R2 0,1 0,1
>
>
> Hmm, tough call. I would have said I would always play R1,
> but I would surely get annoyed that he kept playing C2.

Yes, me too. Not only that, but I think in the situation
Rows deserves better.

> I would probably try to follow the tit for tat with an occasional
> cooperate that always wins non-zero sum game competitions year
> after year.

Yes, you would want to signal him that you were open for
"negotiations". That is, that you were not completely
intractable.

> In other words, start by playing R1, and if he plays C2,
> I would play R2 as long as he played C2, then would play
> an occasional R1, if he switched to C1, I would
> stick with R1 as long as he stuck with C1.

Well, you are more resolute than I. I would think---
for some strange reason that I have not been able
to pin down exactly---that he deserved to get his
5 points often. So I would stop defecting against
him (i.e., playing Row 2) if he gave me, say, one
time in five or so.

It's weird. It's a little like "he's gotta show me
some respect!". I bring up that intuition and the
emotion behind it because this *does* involve our
emotions IMO. It's not IMO entirely a math problem.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:51 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Blackout

A good portion of the eastern coast is experiencing a blackout,
primarily New York City!

Anyone know the cause of this blackout? The news reports suggested it
was still unclear, though it could have been a computer virus/worm.

The skyscrapers of New York go dark... Does this remind anyone else of
the end of Atlas Shrugged? Eerie. Hopefully this blackout has nothing
to do with runaway idiotic politics, such as the anti-scientific crusade
against nuclear power, if it turns out to be a supply problem, I will be
worried.

Michael Dickey.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:16 PM
To: matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Blackout

--- matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:
>
> A good portion of the eastern coast is experiencing a blackout,
> primarily New York City!
>
> Anyone know the cause of this blackout? The news reports suggested
> it was still unclear, though it could have been a computer
virus/worm.
>
> The skyscrapers of New York go dark... Does this remind anyone else
> of the end of Atlas Shrugged? Eerie. Hopefully this blackout has
> nothing to do with runaway idiotic politics, such as the
anti-scientific crusade against nuclear power, if it turns out to be a
supply problem, I will be worried.

It has apparently cascaded down from some Canadian power lines in
northern NY state and Ontario and has wiped out power from Ohio to
Connecticut.

I was a bit worried when I turned on the tube this afternoon after work
and saw footage of millions of people evacuating NYC on foot cause all
the subways and trains are inoperable and the traffic lights have
snarled up traffic. I thought another 9/11 had occured. I'm rather
surprised that NY doesn't have some sort of emergency system in place,
considering how much people pay in taxes there.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:09 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Re: (offlist) RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Lee,
That is absolutely okay. Bear with me, Lee, I will get the hang of
this.
Ron.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:23 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Ron writes

> [Lee writes]
>
> What rights are given to whom? And I wonder what happens if we
> just let nature take its course (but that would definitely mean
> slavery just for starters!).
>
> That is not academic. The Bell Curve and Richard Epstein both warn us
> of rapidly (my characterization) with the both 5% on the IQ curve. We are
> rapidly approaching the day when those folks are totally unemployable and their
> choice is either living in public housing on the dole or being an inmate
> somewhere.
> You made the problem sound a little abstract IMHO but in fact it is RL
> and growing.

Yes, but sometimes problems are actually handled better in the
abstract, because you get to see what principles you wish to
endorse.

True, in our Real Life situation, we are lucky that humans are
quite a discrete group. I am reading Steven Pinker's totally
great and awesome "The Blank Slate". He really puts Lewontin,
Gould, and the rest of them in their place. It's quite obvious
that he agrees with The Bell Curve.

All right, here is my tentative answer. Comments welcome.
This is the case where we find ourselves living in a world
where human intelligence is uniformly distributed between
us on the high end and less-than-animals on the other.
We must imagine that some humans in this scenario are
totally mindless, at about the level of starfish. The
lowest type are humans who live in forests and know only
enough to raise their arms, grab fruit and stuff it in
their mouths. After grazing like this for hours, they
fall asleep. That's it. No other cognition.

What would happen if the government does not interfere depends
on culture. What the Mexicans would do is different from what
the Romanians would do is different from what the Americans
would do. In the long established Libertarian tradition of
assuming that *everyone* is a middle class white person of
no particular religious background, I predict what (passes
for) "my people" would do.

Just as they put money above everything---which has its good
and bad aspects---many folks would have nothing whatsoever to
do with those they considered inferior, and which in truth are
(in this hypothetical scenario) inferior.

But even more would attempt to make money from them somehow,
and so numbers of them would be used as elephants are used in
some parts of the world. Now, not all humans are as smart as
elephants in this scenario, so I am speaking about the ones
that would be almost as useful as elephants. Their drivers
would take them into the forests to gather fruit, clear land,
dig ditches, and so on. The brightest of the elephant class
humans would also be marketed as personal slaves, because they
will follow people obediently and carry things, provide shade,
and be useful if physical effort is required. Big strong ones
would sell at a premium.

The very dumbest would be herded out of the forests and killed
because they were just in the way.

(If you doubt me, consult evolution: imagine two nearby communities
A and B. A is very abstemious and won't abide slavery. B will.
The history of the deep south will be repeated: those that use the
slaves will profit, and their memes will spread.)

What would communities do with people who were very stupid but
smarter than elephants? I predict that it would depend on how
well they spoke. If they could get about a 90 on an IQ
test, then they would be considered "one of us", and given full
civil rights. If they could speak, but could not pass the test,
then they'd be property---but property that could not legally be
mistreated. Their "legal guardians" (we tend to use euphemisms
a lot) would be prohibited from harming them excessively or letting
them come to harm.

Again---this is *only* a prediction of what would happen without
much government. Again, I say that this would happen because it
would be the evolutionarily superior outcome. Please understand
that this has nothing to do with morality: in some environments,
criminal gangs are the evolutionarily superior outcome (e.g.
Chicago in the 1920's).

Those who could not speak (and had IQs less than 90) would be
treated exactly as we treated animals in the 19th century.

Okay---that's my prediction for what would occur if government
doesn't do something. Do you have suggestions for what you would
like government to do?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:29 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

<<. Please understand
that this has nothing to do with morality: in some environments,
criminal gangs are the evolutionarily superior outcome (e.g.
Chicago in the 1920's). >>

En-too-see-asm's Bonk!

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:39 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

In a message dated 8/15/2003 7:23:47 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Okay---that's my prediction for what would occur if government
doesn't do something. Do you have suggestions for what you would like government
to do?

Lee,
Yes, I saw something just today on John Taylor Gatto's Odessey group
site
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/newsletter/frames.htm
It appears that theoretically there are three responses to oppression.

1. Taking power away from the oppressor and giving it to the oppressed as a
class. Usually these folks dream of a dictatorship of the oppressed with
themselves as the dictator. We saw a lot of that theorizing in a list many of us
just frequented.
2. Taking power away from the oppressor and giving it to themselves so they
can protect the oppressed.
3. Taking power away from the oppressor and returning it to the oppressed.
Personally I see the revolution of '76 as being of the third type. I
would like to see us again take this direction. One of the problems is that
we have a huge percentage of our population that sincerely and deeply believe
they will be better off with a "savior" to defend them.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:00 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Mitch writes

<<. Please understand
that this has nothing to do with morality: in some environments,
criminal gangs are the evolutionarily superior outcome (e.g.
Chicago in the 1920's). >>

> En-too-see-asm's Bonk!

Was there supposed to be a link under that first word?
It didn't come out that way. But if there was not,
then I don't get the reference. What is En-too-see-asm?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:17 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Lee:
<<Was there supposed to be a link under that first word?
It didn't come out that way. But if there was not,
then I don't get the reference. What is En-too-see-asm?

Lee>>

Oh! That was a reference to your depiction of criminal gangs in 1920's Chicago as being evolutionary, or darwinian in development. En-too-see-asm's was how
Robert Di Nero spoke the word, enthusiasm, when he played Al Capone, (Kevin Costner played Elliot Ness) and the film also featured, Sean Connery (as an Irish American police captain!). De Niro was giving a speech to his underworld friends on the sanctity of American baseball, when stepped up behind a rival, and bashed in the back of his head with a Louisville Slugger. "Baseball is one of my En-too-siasms'
-Bonk! " The other gangster is slumped over, and a trail of red wine or blood flows on the tablecloth.

See, if have to explain a joke.... ;-)

Mitch
From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:27 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

Michael wrote

> For more info on non-zero sum game theory, see Richard Dawkins 'The
> Selfish Gene' or Matt Ridleys' 'The Origins of Virtue' Both excellent
> books.

Oh yes, I read them both.

> On a side note, I was thoroughly disappointed that 'A Beautiful
> Mind' (A movie based on John Nash) made absolutely no attempt to
> explain how powerful and valuable his contributions were.

But the book "A Beautiful Mind" is great! It does a fine job
of describing to people who know nothing of mathematics what
Nash was doing. (Besides, the book is great on other grounds.)

I thought the movie stank for a different reason (though I do
agree with yours). It merged fantasy and reality---trying too
hard to get in his head without just telling what happened---
and as a result, I have no idea of whether or not he really
was ever at any point working for the government.

From the book (as far as I've read), he worked for RAND and
needed a security clearance, but that was it.

> I believe they could have easily been made presentable and
> understandable as a concept to the audience. His work
> created the entire field and concept of non-zero sum
> games, and laid the ground work to understand the evolution of
> cooperation and virtue.

Well, Von Neumann and Morgenstern had attempted to analyze
cooperative games. Also Von Neumann attempted to analyze
non-cooperative positive sum games by introducing a fictitious
player, so that then you could (I guess) treat it like a zero-
sum game.

But Nash evidently went quite a bit beyond that. Interestingly,
the author attributes it to his highly self-oriented individualistic
personality. He discovered the Nash Equilibrium which is a better
way of coming to a decision about who should get what. I can apply
it in some games, but I don't know how to apply it to the game
above.

Besides, in one game I will describe later, it doesn't seem to me to
provide a human-desirable answer. (And take "human" in the *widest*
way: sentient evolutionarily derived entity.)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:36 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario

Mitch writes about "en-too-zia-sms":

> Oh! That was a reference to your depiction of criminal gangs in 1920's
> Chicago as being evolutionary, or darwinian in development.
> En-too-see-asm's was how Robert Di Nero spoke the word, enthusiasm,
> "Baseball is one of my En-too-siasms' [when he smashed some guy]

Yeah, I caught a few minutes of that movie the other
night, but not that part. I had forgotten how good
the acting was... and even the pronunciation! ;-)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:18 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] [eudaemonists@matus1976.com] Front Page Mag

All-

A good article on the liberal equivalent of the National Review, the Nation, and its history of supporting monstrous totalitarian regimes.

FrontPage magazine.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:36 PM
To: MaxPlumm@aol.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] [eudaemonists@matus1976.com] Front Page Mag

Max:
<<All-
A good article on the liberal equivalent of the National Review, the Nation, and its history of supporting monstrous totalitarian regimes.
FrontPage magazine.com >>

Max, at least The Nation has been consistantly wrong about foreign policy issues, for the last 80 years. They might be considered a perfect, reverse, compass. Just follow the advice of it's authors and do exactly the opposite. You can't get closer to True North, than that! Thanks.

Mitch

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:53 PM
To: Spudboy100@aol.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] [eudaemonists@matus1976.com] Front Page Mag

One of my favorite paragraphs from the article:

"At the conclusion of World War II, the political Left grew increasing vocal in its support for Stalin’s USSR. Predictably, The Nation’s articles began bleating the Stalinist line, arguing fervently against waging (or really retalitating in) the Cold War. Such erroneous inklings are clearly present in a 1930 edition of The Nation (vol.131, 3397), in which Oswald Garrison Villard questions whether or not, “the United States should make effective its disapproval of both the Russian and Italian dictatorships to aid in bringing them down in a collapse which would enable the masses of both countries to erect more democratic governments.” Rather than topple or contain oppressive monsters like Stalin and Mussolini, Villard suggests perhaps the West should address domestic issues such as reforming the United States’ penal system."

I forgot to mention in my initial post how much this passage reminded me of the debate Michael and I had over on Extropians with that profound geopolitical strategist and thinker, Damien Broderick. Mr. Broderick suggested it was inappropriate for "us" (the citizens of the US, Western Europe, and Australia) to be concerned with arbitrary executions in present day Vietnam, or the quality of life during the "Red Terror" regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia from 1974-91, because we have pot smokers in US jails, and they are far more deserving of "rescue" than those suffering "outside our sphere of influence."

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:34 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Reading "The Blank Slate" --- perhaps *the* book in my life in which
the author deploys more intelligence than in any other book I've ever
read --- Pinker nonetheless echoes a number of misconceptions.

He just echoed Jefferson's "Inalienable rights". (Pinker's entire point
of the chapter is that we must not allow our moral standards to depend
upon mere scientific truths that may or may not crop up in biology, a
very valid point.) But here, for example, it bugs me the way people
endorse something patently false.

"Inalienable" means (I just looked it up) "not subject to forfeiture",
not transferable. Well, duh, I have news for Mr. Jefferson and everyone
else. Just read a little history and you'll see how *alienable* any
rights, legal or otherwise, actually are!

What causes even the most intelligent among us to misspeak
about important issues???

Or am I missing something?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:10 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

Max writes

> I forgot to mention in my initial post how much this passage
> reminded me of the debate Michael and I had over on Extropians
> with that profound geopolitical strategist and thinker, Damien
> Broderick. Mr. Broderick suggested it was inappropriate for
> "us" (the citizens of the US, Western Europe, and Australia)
> to be concerned with arbitrary executions in present day
> Vietnam, or the quality of life during the "Red Terror" regime
> of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia from 1974-91, because we
> have pot smokers in US jails, and they are far more deserving
> of "rescue" than those suffering "outside our sphere of
> influence."

What else do you expect from someone blinded by ideology?

Have you read "Treason" by Ann Coulter? But even without
that, one has to feel a little sorry for aged liberals
who grew up thinking the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss innocent,
that there was moral symmetry between Communist regimes
and ours; and who have been feeling the FULL WEIGHT of
the pendulum as it swings back. Many suffer much more
even than Damien, and are reduced to shrill, unthinking
demagoguery.

However, I am much more selfishly concerned with the
following. By what means can we ascertain that we in
in 2003 are not making similar errors in judgment and
perception to theirs of 1953?

Had leftists had the intelligence in 1953 to ask the same
questions about 1903, they might have saved themselves.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:23 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

Yes, especially effective I found the presentation of the liberals'
views on North Korea from the fifties through the eighties. They
have to be pretty embarrassed about that!

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: MaxPlumm@aol.com [mailto:MaxPlumm@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:18 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] [eudaemonists@matus1976.com] Front Page Mag

All-

A good article on the liberal equivalent of the National Review, the Nation, and its history of supporting monstrous totalitarian regimes.

FrontPage magazine.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:29 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

This link describes Nash and his work rather
well, leaving out very little of the technical
detail in the book (which is not a whole lot).

http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/i7238.html

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:27 PM
> To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
> Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem
>
>
> Michael wrote
>
> > For more info on non-zero sum game theory, see Richard Dawkins 'The
> > Selfish Gene' or Matt Ridleys' 'The Origins of Virtue' Both excellent
> > books.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:24 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

In a message dated 8/16/2003 1:23:04 AM Central Standard Time, lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Yes, especially effective I found the presentation of the liberals' views on North Korea from the fifties through the eighties. They have to be pretty embarrassed about that!

### Do you remember that yesterday I discovered an article detailing the three categories for the removal of oppression? Very briefly they were:
1. Those who wish to remove power from the oppressor and give it to the oppressed as a class. These usually become dictators on behalf of the people.
2. Those who wish to remove power from the oppressor and give the power to themselves.
3. Those who wish to remove power from the oppressor and give it to the people as individuals.
The left portrays us as oppressors and wishes to go to either a class one or class two government -- that is what they have to sell.
There is a two hundred year old modern history of failed attempts by the left to set up their form of government. They have no successes. At best they have some surviving governments that are on a downward trajectory. Those governments have ruled a few dozen countries, several hundred "settlements" and probably thousands of apartment communes -- all failures.
Obviously the left wing can not sell that record of failure. So rather than get trapped by reality they change the name of everything, describe their new system in very abstract terms and start all over.
But your question was about embarrassment? The 200 year history of their movement is that they never get embarrassed.
But why don't they suffer embarrassment? Even having Kruschev lay out the miserable history of Stalin didn't stop them. I think we have to look to Ayn Rand for the explanation. Please correct me if I am wrong, I haven't read Miss Rand for some years. As I recall her analysis there are two major motives for those advocating the class one and class two solutions. First is the thug at heart that hopes either to become the dictator or at least very close to the top of that pyramid. They may be motivated by a lust for power, wealth or sex (the three traditionals) but the end game is the power. Second is the mooch that hopes someone will give him something he couldn't earn by himself.
Those two classes will find the attraction of their goals more powerful than the embarrassment of any past failures. They will invent new terms to describe themselves, deny their parentage, and in glowing abstract terms start selling their snake oil all over.
Ron Harrison

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:55 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

> Ron writes
>
> > [Lee writes]
> >
> > What rights are given to whom? And I wonder what happens if we
> > just let nature take its course (but that would definitely mean
> > slavery just for starters!).
> >
> > That is not academic. The Bell Curve and Richard Epstein
> both warn us
> > of rapidly (my characterization) with the both 5% on the IQ
> curve. We are
> > rapidly approaching the day when those folks are totally
> unemployable and their
> > choice is either living in public housing on the dole or
> being an inmate

Ron, I think you confuse two separate issues, unemployABLE and choosing
to not work. The growing attitude amongst the ghetto and low-income
cultures is the exact opposite of working hard to accomplish things.
This is not just among blacks, but mostly low income neighborhoods
(which blacks comprise the majority of for various reasons) On this
subject, I would highly recommend Dinesh Disouza's book 'Whats so great
about America'

As Max Plumm may elaborate on, the democrats have fostered a welfare
culture amongst the low income houses, essentially punishing people
financially for staying in traditional nuclear families (single parent
households number in the 70% range for blacks today, while in the 50's -
late 70's it was around 20%) Blacks born to middle class families
consistently perform worse than Asians who were born in low income
neighborhoods. ALL of this has to do with culture, I doubt any kind of
genetic influence plays any significant role in this sad trend.

Lee said:
>
> True, in our Real Life situation, we are lucky that humans
> are quite a discrete group. I am reading Steven Pinker's
> totally great and awesome "The Blank Slate". He really puts
> Lewontin, Gould, and the rest of them in their place. It's
> quite obvious that he agrees with The Bell Curve.
>

OH MY GOD! ARE YOU SAYING BLACKS ARE INFERIOR! This is harmful to the
community Lee, Your booted!!! (Whoa, sorry channeling crazy extropians
again)

Anyway, As I said above, I highly doubt any genetic difference plays a
significant role in the intelligence distribution amongst races. Its
certainly scientifically plausible that there is a correlation, but with
any genetic influence few genes , if any, play absolute control over us.
Instead I think certainly cultures are fostering attitudes of laziness,
demonizing intelligence, and building self esteem purely on false
external premises.

I have yet to read 'The Bell Curve' or Goulds counter, but I take your
word that Pinker presents a compelling case that there are genetic
distributions amongst races (all races are, after all, genetically
different) But when any statistical average, the predictive power is
inverse to the sample size.

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:59 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

> Michael wrote
>
> > For more info on non-zero sum game theory, see Richard Dawkins 'The
> > Selfish Gene' or Matt Ridleys' 'The Origins of Virtue'
> Both excellent
> > books.
>
> Oh yes, I read them both.
>
> > On a side note, I was thoroughly disappointed that 'A
> Beautiful Mind'
> > (A movie based on John Nash) made absolutely no attempt to
> explain how
> > powerful and valuable his contributions were.
>
> But the book "A Beautiful Mind" is great! It does a fine job
> of describing to people who know nothing of mathematics what
> Nash was doing. (Besides, the book is great on other grounds.)

Good to know, I shall have to read it since I don't think I understand
his contributions as well as I could or should.

>
> I thought the movie stank for a different reason (though I do
> agree with yours). It merged fantasy and reality---trying
> too hard to get in his head without just telling what
> happened--- and as a result, I have no idea of whether or not
> he really was ever at any point working for the government.
>

I remember watching not knowing the premise of it (that he was a
schizophrenic), but the second they started talking about a Nazi H bomb
I figured out that nearly all of his government work was hallucinatory.
As I understood, post war intelligence reported that we spent more money
spying on the Nazi nuclear bomb program than they actually spent on the
program. Perhaps because they didn't think to highly of that Jewish
science?

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:55 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Michael writes

> > Ron writes
> > > The Bell Curve and Richard Epstein
> > > both warn us of rapidly (my charact-
> > > erization) with the both 5% on the IQ
> > > curve. We are rapidly approaching
> > > the day when those folks are totally
> > > unemployable and their choice is either
> > > living in public housing on the dole or
> > > being an inmate

Just this morning, I resolved to investigate
this with the other active minds here, and
so I go over to my computer and find, quite
coincidentally:

> Ron, I think you confuse two separate issues, unemployABLE and choosing
> to not work. The growing attitude amongst the ghetto and low-income
> cultures is the exact opposite of working hard to accomplish things.
> This is not just among blacks, but mostly low income neighborhoods
> (which blacks comprise the majority of for various reasons) On this
> subject, I would highly recommend Dinesh Disouza's book 'Whats so great
> about America'

But there are also two issues here:
(1) (Ron's): Given the reality of the present distributions
of people with bad attitudes and liberals with
bad philosophies, what will happen (or what should
we do)?
(2) (Michael's): What is the true explanation for what is
going on, and what memes should be spread
(adopted) to fix it?

> As Max Plumm may elaborate on, the democrats have fostered a welfare
> culture amongst the low income houses, essentially punishing people
> financially for staying in traditional nuclear families (single parent
> households number in the 70% range for blacks today, while in the 50's -
> late 70's it was around 20%) Blacks born to middle class families
> consistently perform worse than Asians who were born in low income
> neighborhoods. ALL of this has to do with culture, I doubt any kind of
> genetic influence plays any significant role in this sad trend.

I am sure that there *is* a genetic component. Asian
kids in California, for example, just think better than
white kids. Statistically speaking, of course.

But I agree that our present real *problem* would be
ameliorated to an infinite degree if people's attitudes
(e.g., the poor) were improved.

> Anyway, As I said above, I highly doubt any genetic difference plays a
> significant role in the intelligence distribution amongst races. It's
> certainly scientifically plausible that there is a correlation, but with
> any genetic influence few genes, if any, play absolute control over us.
> Instead I think certainly cultures are fostering attitudes of laziness,
> demonizing intelligence, and building self esteem purely on false
> external premises.

Yes. There is also a deep economic issue here (that I
know will provoke argument here). If country A is
inferior to country B in terms of being able to produce
commodities, then it is still optimal for country A to
make *whatever* it makes best, and to trade with country
B, even if this helps country A significantly more than
it helps B, so long as B does get better off. (This takes
us back to game theory issues!)

> I have yet to read 'The Bell Curve' or Gould's counter,

Forget Gould. He is ancient history already. Read
Pinker if you have time.

To read The Bell Curve, follow this instruction which
was originated by a fellow in my book discussion group
who was pressed for time. I checked, and it will work.

Each chapter of The Bell Curve begins with a page long
italicized portion. This brilliantly summarizes the
contents of the chapter. Skip the rest of the chapter
because it basically only provides the data for the
conclusions of the italicized portion.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:07 PM
To: matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

Michael writes

> > I thought the movie stank for a different reason (though I do
> > agree with yours). It merged fantasy and reality---trying
> > too hard to get in his head without just telling what
> > happened--- and as a result, I have no idea of whether or not
> > he really was ever at any point working for the government.
>
> I remember watching not knowing the premise of it (that he was a
> schizophrenic), but the second they started talking about a Nazi H bomb

No, I'm pretty certain that the [imaginary] spooks said that
there was a Russian conspiracy to bring in A-bombs into American
cities across our borders. I really perked up at that.
Naively, I thought that I was learning something about
the 1950's cold war.

But who knows exactly what fantasies Nash had? This was
pure invention on the part of the screenwriters. IMO.

> I figured out that nearly all of his government work was hallucinatory.
> As I understood, post war intelligence reported that we spent more money
> spying on the Nazi nuclear bomb program than they actually spent on the
> program. Perhaps because they didn't think to highly of that Jewish
> science?

Making bombs is hardly Jewish science. ;-) Some German
physicists didn't want to learn Einsteinian relativity
because it was "Jewish physics". This harmed them, but
maybe not so bad about the bomb. They were hurt much
more by the exodus of top-flight scientists (most of
them Jewish) to the Anglosphere. But Heisenburg's
efforts to build the bomb were doomed anyway. Only the
U.S. had the industrial capacity to build bombs at that
time. The U.S. was so powerful that it built two (2!)
of them! One was an American type bomb with American
engineers grinding out a gaseous diffusion bomb (the
Little Boy) and a totally separate type European bomb
(plutonium) that was greatly assisted by all the math
talent coming from Europe (the Fat Man). The American
bomb was so straightforward (despite the incredible
effort) that they didn't even need to test it---they
just dropped it on Hiroshima. The European bomb was
very complex, and so they tested it at Alamogordo first.

Lee

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:24 PM
To: matus@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Michael,
You wrote, "Ron, I think you confuse two separate issues, unemployABLE
and choosing to not work. The growing attitude amongst the ghetto and
low-income
cultures is the exact opposite of working hard to accomplish things. This is
not just among blacks, but mostly low income neighborhoods (which blacks
comprise the majority of for various reasons) On this subject, I would highly
recommend Dinesh Disouza's book 'Whats so great about America'

Michael,
Nope, I am talking about the bottom 5% on the IQ curve. As to the
mischief that has been played by politicians I agree with you.
Maybe I am overly sensitive to the issure of the job market for the
bottom
5% of the Bell Curve. However, I spent my career working in factories. At
last count my consulting experience had taken me into over 100 factories to
work for a period of time. That was about 10 years before I retired. After
that I got tired of counting.
One of the very noticeable things about the introduction of Japanese
Management Techniques has been the disappearance of the little service jobs
within industry. It used to be that even a small factory or shop would have a
janitor. Today most of those jobs are gone. It used to be that every filling
station had a number of "pump jocks" I did that to get through school. Now
those are gone. Those were the jobs the bottom rung of the IQ ladder depended
upon for employment.
But, you are right, above that level you do find the ones that don't
want to work.
Ron h.
From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:31 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Ron wrote

> The Bell Curve and Richard Epstein both warn
> us of rapidly (my characterization) with the
> both 5% on the IQ curve. We are rapidly
> approaching the day when those folks are
> totally unemployable and their choice is
> either living in public housing on the
> dole or being an inmate.

I have a new thought, thanks to the existence of
this list. For years, the paradox I have occasionally
referred to is the above, namely, (i) can you imagine
any consistent way that things might be in the future
(ii) can you, given (i), see any possible way we could
get there? I readily admitted failure here.

Okay, so let's suppose Michael's problem is solved,
and somehow everyone gets religion. This could
happen, though it is unlikely. Suppose that Bush
triumphs again, the liberals go into decline, and
everyone sees that Jesse Jackson and his type are
wrong and worthless. *Everyone* knuckles down and
works as diligently as possible; the libraries are
crowded with poor people attempting to improve.
Then here is the bad thing that would happen:

Poor people do their level best, taking work at
whatever wage is offered. The baskets they make,
the servant work around the house they do, the mass
scenes in movies, brings in only a pittance, and
they can afford to live only in tents and must walk
five miles a day to and from work. Their problem is
their IQ and failure to have learned a lot when
their brains were young and flexible.

But even though *their* children learn better, it
is too late, because advanced AIs make being a
servant not useful any longer, make crowd scenes
in movies unnecessary, and make baskets way better
than can be made by hand for almost free. As Ron
says, slowly everyone gets squeezed out except
the GT (gifted and talented).

Solution 1: the GT become so rich (their machines
make so much) that charity for the rest
of us gives us all the books, videos,
VR, drugs, and computers we could want.

Solution 2: the GT are taxed to provide all that to
the rest of us.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:36 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Fwd: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Sorry guys, I forgot.
Ron Harrison
From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:36 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Fwd: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

OOps found another that I didn't address correctly
From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 1:54 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] War on Terrorism, last great war

Max said:

All-

A good article on the liberal equivalent of the National Review,
the Nation, and its history of supporting monstrous totalitarian
regimes.

From that article

"However, just as the end of the Cold War justified the Reagan
Administration's firm hand to the international community, the spread of
democracy in the Middle East, much to the chagrin of the political Left,
will be the Bush Administration's legacy. "

I argued many times on the extropy list that this war, the 'War on
Terrorism' will be the last great war the world will see (unless we come
across some communist murderous expansionist alien civilization
*shiver*) Primarily because this is essentially a war between the most
fundamentally opposed idealogies, stagnating oppresion, and west
influenced technology and economic progress. Of course, the Luddits may
pose a threat in the future, and we can expect no help in combatting
them from the donothing extropians.

In the spirit of Mr Lorreys predictions, I predict that Iraq will be a
stable successful market based democracy, and additionally that not only
will Iraq become a stable progressive western democracy, that other
totalitarian islamic regimes will start to topple around them, since
their oppressive leaders will no longer be able to convince its people
that their woes lie solely in the blame of the oppression of the west.
Here, they will see, that a democratic market based economy will lead
them to much better lives, and their discontent over their
fundamentalist regimes will grow and grow as the people of Iraq live
better and better lives. I am sure the vast majority of the surrounding
arab populations have adapted a 'wait and see' attitude, but no doubt
governments are starting to get concerned that their time will be
running out. Unfortunately, this would give neighboring totalitarian
governments incentive to make sure a democratic progressive Iraq is not
successful. But as I said on my extropy posts, I believe Iraq will
become 'A Shinning beacon of democracy in an Arab sea of tyranny and
oppression' Gives us ten years and well be taking vactions to Iraq.

Hopefully I will have as good of a track record at predictions as Mike
Lorrey.

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:05 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

Ron writes

> [Lee writes]
> > However, I am much more selfishly concerned
> > with the following. By what means can we
> > ascertain that we in in 2003 are not making
> > similar errors in judgment and perception
> > to theirs of 1953?
>
> You have asked a real "wow" question. Actually I
> break your question into two parts:
> 1. Can we save ourselves from the reality of offending?
> 2. Can we save ourselves from the charge of offending?

I do not understand how the issue of
offending others connects with all this.
I disapprove of offending others,
unless they are offended by opinions
different from theirs.

I care only about the truth, and am not
yet into devising strategy for how to
spring the truth on liberals in an
unoffensive way, if that is where you
are coming from.

Lee

> With good judgement we can avoid giving actual
> offense. It will be difficult to do this in
> each and every case. We are too many and we
> will make too many judgements to avoid wrong
> sometime someplace. We have our occasional
> dimwit. We can't prevent those people from
> occasionally doing something wrong. But
> hopefully we can correct most of those errors
> before they do great harm. When it comes to
> the charge of giving offense there is no way
> on Earth we can avoid that. The left uses
> false charges as a technique everyday and
> they will use it on us also.
> Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:32 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

Ron wrote

> There is a two hundred year old modern history of failed
> attempts by the left to set up their form of government.
> They have no successes....

> But your question was about embarrassment? The 200 year
> history of their movement is that they never get
> embarrassed.

> But why don't they suffer embarrassment?

No particular individual exhibits embarrassment
unless he is a very superior individual. Physicists
who could not accept Einstein's relativity were not
embarrassed; they just got old and died. A friend
of mine's father---a diehard leftist of the 1950's
---died in 1986, still convinced that Stalin was
innocent and it was all a CIA plot to defame him.
My still-very-liberal friend is embarrassed about
this. That same liberal friend retorted to me after 9-11
when I said "Well, the Church committee wrecked the
CIA."

"That was a mistake," he conceded. So it *does*
happen. My friend, however, will go to his grave
convinced that capitalism is unfair, and that
poverty is the root of all our ills. Once we
adopt ideologies, we cannot learn easily.

> I think we have to look to Ayn Rand for the
> explanation. Please correct me if I am wrong,
> I haven't read Miss Rand for some years. As
> I recall her analysis there are two major
> motives for those advocating the class one
> and class two solutions.

1. Those who wish to remove power from the
oppressor and give it to the oppressed
as a class. These usually become
dictators on behalf of the people.
2. Those who wish to remove power from
the oppressor and give the power to
themselves.
3. Those who wish to remove power from
the oppressor and give it to the people
as individuals.
-Ron Harrison quote from somewhere

> First is the thug at heart that hopes either
> to become the dictator or at least very close
> to the top of that pyramid. They may be
> motivated by a lust for power, wealth or sex
> (the three traditionals) but the end game is
> the power.

People are the same everywhere. Bush and
Clinton are no different. They have just
internalized from a young age that you may
defame your opponents, but you can't
arrest and kill them. Lenin was no thug,
but he had to act like one to stay in power.

> Second is the mooch that hopes someone
> will give him something he couldn't earn
> by himself.

Yes, many proles vote Democratic to get a piece
of the pie given to them on a silver platter.

> Those two classes will find the attraction
> of their goals more powerful than the
> embarrassment of any past failures. They
> will invent new terms to describe themselves,
> deny their parentage, and in glowing abstract
> terms start selling their snake oil all over.

Yeah, but like the Bell Curve says (I am
re-reading the last chapter at your suggestion---
you finally got through my thick skull with your
nagging about the GT), they're possibly irrelevant.
The well-to-do and smart classes are and will be
acquiring more and more power. Who knows what
they will do?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:48 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Lee,
YOu offered us Solutions 1 & 2. Let me offer a third one.
Solution #3. Genetic engineering progresses to the point we can lift some or
all of the unemployable people into the normal or hopefully the GT ranks.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 2:58 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Front Page Mag

In a message dated 8/16/2003 1:04:45 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: I do not understand how the issue of offending others connects
with all this. I disapprove of offending others, unless they are offended by
opinions different from theirs.

Lee,
I am concerned with actually giving offense to inoffensive people.
But I don't think we will give offense nearly so often as we will be accused of
it.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:10 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

Since I hoped this list would be friendly to productive endeavours I
wanted to run an idea I had by you guys. I posted this on the extropy
list a while back to no fanfare whatsoever (surprising I know)

> Natasha said:
>
> "We may never change the way a many in the Greenpeace
> community or the Rifkin community, or the Leon Cass
> community, but we can design ways that will help people
> communicate about the problems more effectively."
>
> This brings up a potential method for countering these memes
> I have tossed around occasionally.
>
> Suggestion, list the major proponents of non-extropic memes
> (start with obvious ones to minimize debate over extropic vs.
> non extropic) and keep an eye on their public appearances.
> If they are to be on a radio show, have some good counters
> ready to be called in and voiced. If they publish an
> editorial, find an extropian nearby to publish a counter. If
> they are on TV, hope it's a call in show and voice opposing
> opinions, or ask powerful questions to get listeners
> thinking. If they are to appear publicly, put a few fliers up
> outlining counter arguments, send letters to editorials of
> local publications, be present at public lectures to ask
> tough questions, etc. etc.
>
> People assisting in this effort might take up an individual
> anti-extropic person as his 'target' and just update other
> volunteers relevant to next appearance as to anti-extropic
> persons appearance. Each person could pick his one target to
> get intimately familiar with said targets typical arguments,
> and could assist others in preparing questions, flyers, or
> commentaries ready to be launched at the anti-extropic
> individual. Each individual would be responsible for
> responding to any anti-extropic memes that arise In his/her
> immediate vicinity (say, area code) Obviously in more
> populace areas more volunteers would be needed so as to not
> monopolize the time of any one volunteer. I think with
> enough people, this could have a pretty significant positive
> impact, yet still only require 10 - 20 minutes each week on
> average from volunteers.
>
> Michael Dickey
>

Comments? Bad idea, good idea?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:50 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

Michael discusses his ideas for anti-Luddite and
anti-Extropian activism:

> list a while back to no fanfare whatsoever (surprising I know)

Not surprising it got no responses. People favorably
inclined just probably acted instead of talked.

> Suggestion, list the major proponents of non-extropic memes
> (start with obvious ones to minimize debate over extropic vs.
> non extropic) and keep an eye on their public appearances.
> If they are to be on a radio show, have some good counters
> ready to be called in and voiced. If they publish an
> editorial, find an extropian nearby to publish a counter.

This requires coordination. You, Natasha, Mike Lorrey,
and some others may have both the time, the energy, and
the inclination for this. When I read this on the
list, I didn't understand that you meant *geographical*
action teams. Hmm. Maybe not a bad idea for our activists.

> If they are on TV, hope it's a call in show and voice opposing
> opinions, or ask powerful questions to get listeners
> thinking. If they are to appear publicly, put a few fliers up
> outlining counter arguments, send letters to editorials of
> local publications, be present at public lectures to ask
> tough questions, etc. etc.

I do not know why neither Mike Lorrey nor Natasha responded.
It sounds like an Extropian "strike team" might have
potential. But it would take people's time.

> People assisting in this effort might take up an individual
> anti-extropic person as his 'target' and just update other
> volunteers relevant to next appearance as to anti-extropic
> persons appearance. Each person could pick his one target to
> get intimately familiar with said targets typical arguments,
> and could assist others in preparing questions, flyers, or
> commentaries ready to be launched at the anti-extropic
> individual.

Rush Limbaugh occasionally complains about "marathon
callers" or something---I think that I have got the
wrong term. Anyway, some collection of leftists that
tries to either pester rightwing talk show hosts, or
coordinate call-ins cogently presenting alternative
views.

> Each individual would be responsible for
> responding to any anti-extropic memes that arise In his/her
> immediate vicinity (say, area code) Obviously in more
> populace areas more volunteers would be needed so as to not
> monopolize the time of any one volunteer. I think with
> enough people, this could have a pretty significant positive
> impact, yet still only require 10 - 20 minutes each week on
> average from volunteers.

Man, I get so sick of myself hastily reading an email,
and then thinking I got the main idea, and starting
to respond. I now sheepishly see that you were ahead
of me.

Anyway, maybe Mike Lorrey will tell you what he thinks.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:56 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Ron writes

> You offered us Solutions 1 & 2. Let me offer a third one.
> Solution #3. Genetic engineering progresses to the point
> we can lift some or all of the unemployable people into
> the normal or hopefully the GT ranks.

That's the right idea, but I doubt it can play out the
way you think. The same tech that can raise an IQ 80
person to 130 can raise an IQ 110 person to 170 or 180,
I'll bet. Life is not fair, and the more you have, the
(vastly) more you get.

Still, that's just what we should do: everyone, especially
me, should be much, *much*, much smarter.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:12 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

In a message dated 8/16/2003 2:10:08 PM Central Standard Time,
matus@matus1976.com writes: I think with enough people, this could have a pretty significant
positive impact, yet still only require 10 - 20 minutes each week on average
from volunteers.

You might like to look up:
http://www.premier1.net/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM

It is called the Delphi Technique. Even when we aren't facing the
Delphi Technique the article still describes a very useful technique for
disrupting anyone that is trying to feed us baloney.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:59 PM
To: matus@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] War on Terrorism, last great war

From your keyboard to Allah's ear's Mike. Being a pessimist, I will fill this post with such.

1) Iraq, being encapsulated in Islamic and Arab culture will be ever corrupt, ever violent. The best we can hope for, in the next 25 years there, is a stable regime, that represses Jihadism.

2) Michael, joining Frank Fukuyama, is forecasting the end of history, may indeed be correct that Terrorism will be the last large conflict fought for the next dozen centuries. However, what starts out as a battle against militant Islam (their battle against us) may end up with something equally as bad, with Nuclear Guerilla warfare, being funded and fought by crazzies in another generation. Maybe they will be "kluxers" or Neo-commies, who will attempt to throw the final punch against the Republic?
I don't know; however I do hope that the Islamist fundamentalist threat gets ended soon.

Michael writes:
<< the spirit of Mr Lorreys predictions, I predict that Iraq will be a
stable successful market based democracy, and additionally that not only
will Iraq become a stable progressive western democracy, that other
totalitarian islamic regimes will start to topple around them, since
their oppressive leaders will no longer be able to convince its people
that their woes lie solely in the blame of the oppression of the west.
Here, they will see, that a democratic market based economy will lead
them to much better lives, and their discontent over their
fundamentalist regimes will grow and grow as the people of Iraq live
better and better lives. I am sure the vast majority of the surrounding
arab populations have adapted a 'wait and see' attitude, but no doubt
governments are starting to get concerned that their time will be
running out. Unfortunately, this would give neighboring totalitarian
governments incentive to make sure a democratic progressive Iraq is not
successful. But as I said on my extropy posts, I believe Iraq will
become 'A Shinning beacon of democracy in an Arab sea of tyranny and
oppression' Gives us ten years and well be taking vactions to Iraq.

Hopefully I will have as good of a track record at predictions as Mike
Lorrey.

Michael Dickey>>

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 8:48 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com; lcorbin@tsoft.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Appologies to Lee since I merely replied to his post.

Lee:
<<But even though *their* children learn better, it
is too late, because advanced AIs make being a
servant not useful any longer, make crowd scenes
in movies unnecessary, and make baskets way better
than can be made by hand for almost free. As Ron
says, slowly everyone gets squeezed out except
the GT (gifted and talented).>>

Here are 3 dark horse developments that alter your scenario, Lee. Any one these occurances would alter your forecast. All this would put the human species on a completely level playing field. Throw in social presssure to "act white" or even better "act Asian" to achieve a better education; plus funding of public and private improvements in training and classroom education and we'd be on our way. Where, I wonder?

Case 1> Moravec's 3rd generation robots arrive decades or centuries later than he
predicts, because of the difficulty of AI and Robotic engineering.

Case 2> Intelligence gets "evened out" between now and 2150 AD because of the
technology of 'Brain Grafting' which is really genetic engineering where
people's standard I.Q. can be lifted 12-20 points, especially in
mathematics.

Case 3> Externally used or internally implanted supercomputers, using material we
only dream of now, lifts the human intelligence and capabilities, nearly 100
undeviated I.Q. points. This results in the rise of technical applications,
that people on this list drool about!

-Mitch

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 11:17 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve and IQ

Mitch writes

> Apologies to Lee since I merely replied to his post.

Oh, no apology necessary! I have done this at least once
myself, and only discovered the error after someone replied
to my message. We will continue to make this error. So
if you notice that someone has just replied to you, then
the right thing---I guess---is just to tell them to try
again! :-)

> [Lee writes]
> > But even though *their* children learn better, it
> > is too late, because advanced AIs make being a
> > servant not useful any longer, make crowd scenes
> > in movies unnecessary, and make baskets way better
> > than can be made by hand for almost free. As Ron
> > says, slowly everyone gets squeezed out except
> > the GT (gifted and talented).

> Here are 3 dark horse developments that alter your scenario, Lee.

Excellent.

> Any one these occurrences would alter your forecast. All this
> would put the human species on a completely level playing field.
> Throw in social pressure to "act white" or even better "act Asian"

Ah what a relief to know you and I won't be bugged by whiners
complaining about remarks like that!

> to achieve a better education; plus funding of public and
> private improvements in training and classroom education
> and we'd be on our way. Where, I wonder?

It all sounds so great. Sure it's non-optimal compared to
(i) the establishment of a benevolent Singularity and (ii)
nanotech that unfreezes me from my cryonic suspension, but
it is a LOT better than some other things that could happen.
Besides, having studied Rome recently, I am just thrilled
to be *here* at all, and anything that can perpetuate *this*
is just marvelous.

> Case 1> Moravec's 3rd generation robots arrive
> decades or centuries later than he
> predicts, because of the difficulty
> of AI and Robotic engineering.

This leaves us in the status quo, where the usual
think-tanks go. The U.S. has GNP growth of about
3 percent a year forever, and things---good now---
just keep getting better.

> Case 2> Intelligence gets "evened out" between
> now and 2150 AD because of the technology
> of 'Brain Grafting' which is really
> genetic engineering where people's
> standard I.Q. can be lifted 12-20
> points, especially in mathematics.

This satisfies society's (and my) urge towards
egalitarianism. Now despite that, I do have to
admit that it is a shame that not *everyone*
can get smarter in your scenario, but you have
given a plausible way that it might happen.

If so, then the U.S. GNP probably starts to rise
at 4 to 5 percent a year (all those memetically
challenged people start to contribute too! how
great!).

> Case 3> Externally used or internally implanted
> supercomputers, using material we
> only dream of now, lifts the human
> intelligence and capabilities, nearly 100
> undeviated I.Q. points. This results in
> the rise of technical applications, that
> people on this list drool about!

Your last two scenarios would be great as regards
my prospects for surviving this century. Are there
any challenging questions that arise with respect
to these scenarios?

I guess that we have to explore the impacts of the
Murray/Herrnstein class stratification that Ron
describes. More about this later when I finish
the last chapter of The Bell Curve.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 1:51 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] The Survivors

I just had an interesting phone discussion with Robert
Bradbury (I had several questions concerning Dyson
shells and Dyson sphere---by the way, he's pretty
outraged by the current state of the Ex list).

He mentioned how only China and India have much
incentive to get into space now, and how historically
it'll probably be they who dominate the colonization
of the solar system.

I'm afraid that this is all true. The U.S. is
demographically doomed, (like Europe), and had a
glorious and rather long lived past, but not much
of a future. Well, such is life, and for many of
us we just don't get to be immortal. But so be it.

Now, some ethnic groups appear to have "what it
takes" to be highly technological and some don't.
Regardless of the birth rates in the Arab world,
they'll never match the Chinese supremacy in
coming centuries. (Well, "never" is a long time,
but "something" is sure to happen first, e.g.,
uploading, Singularity, or something.)

In the book "World on Fire" the author Amy Chua
describes what's happening in other countries and
how economically dominate minorities rule almost
everywhere. All throughout southeast Asia, for
example, it's the Chinese. In Latin America, it's
a small number of white people on top (both
economically, and (there) politically).

The U.S. will become in about 50 years like the
Latin American countries with a very dominant white
minority. But China and India will continue to have
economically dominant *majorities*. They can attain
what the U.S. has now.

Japan prided itself on its Go players, their equivalent
of chess. Japanese Go was the strongest in the world
for more than a century. But recently the Chinese have
overtaken them. The Chinese are just too smart and too
numerous, and it is inevitable that world dominance must
go to them in Go, (and even in chess before too long).

That's also how it will work out politically, economically,
militarily, and technologically in the long run.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 2:41 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] IQ and Bell Curve

In a message dated 8/17/2003 10:17:37 AM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: I guess that we have to explore the impacts of the
Murray/Herrnstein class stratification that Ron describes. More about this later when I
finish the last chapter of The Bell Curve.

Lee
You might also like to see Richard Epsteins book about simple rules
for a complex world. He approaches the same problem from a legal viewpoint.
Mr. Epstein is a prolific writer on legal systems. He comes to the same
conclusion about the bottom 5% via a different means.
Ron Harrison

for RE's book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674808215/qid=1061136952/sr=1-1
0/ref=sr_1_10/102-5806768-6025712?v=glance&s=books

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:11 PM
To: matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

--- matus <matus@matus1976.com> wrote:
> Since I hoped this list would be friendly to productive endeavours I
> wanted to run an idea I had by you guys. I posted this on the
> extropy
> list a while back to no fanfare whatsoever (surprising I know)
>
> > Natasha said:
> >
> > "We may never change the way a many in the Greenpeace
> > community or the Rifkin community, or the Leon Cass
> > community, but we can design ways that will help people
> > communicate about the problems more effectively."
> >
> > This brings up a potential method for countering these memes
> > I have tossed around occasionally.
> >
> > Suggestion, list the major proponents of non-extropic memes
> > (start with obvious ones to minimize debate over extropic vs.
> > non extropic) and keep an eye on their public appearances.

I actually set up a database to do this on my old CTHD yahoogroup. Its
gone now, but the idea is sound. Setting up databases of groups,
individuals, and events, tied in on a relational database would be an
invaluable intelligence tool for mapping out the luddite movement.
Having it open for list members to add and edit information as it comes
across their own assimilation of local and regional news would maximize
the power of us as a network.
Additionally, mapping out memes, policies, as well as assets of groups
(like PR offices, chapters, and training camps, etc) would be a help as well.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:12 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:18 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com
Cc: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> Reading "The Blank Slate" --- perhaps *the* book in my life in which
> the author deploys more intelligence than in any other book I've ever
> read --- Pinker nonetheless echoes a number of misconceptions.
>
> He just echoed Jefferson's "Inalienable rights". (Pinker's entire
> point of the chapter is that we must not allow our moral standards to
> depend
> upon mere scientific truths that may or may not crop up in biology, a
> very valid point.) But here, for example, it bugs me the way people
> endorse something patently false.
>
> "Inalienable" means (I just looked it up) "not subject to
> forfeiture", not transferable. Well, duh, I have news for Mr.
> Jefferson and everyone
> else. Just read a little history and you'll see how *alienable* any
> rights, legal or otherwise, actually are!
>
> What causes even the most intelligent among us to misspeak
> about important issues???
>
> Or am I missing something?
>

You are missing the legal application of 'inalienable'. While
*exercise* of such rights make be prevented by any application of
force, that does not negate that human beings still have such rights as
an inherent property of their existence. Take an individual out of a
situation of repression and put him in freedom and he is still able to
exercise the rights that he was prevented from exercising in his prior
environs. The fact that s/he is still able to exercise rights after
living in repression shows that those rights were not 'alienated'.
Alienating means to *permanently* forfeit or confiscate, like removing
a persons eyes or tongue or ears to alienate their ability to see or
speak or hear.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 9:27 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/17/2003 7:18:28 PM Central Standard Time,
mlorrey@yahoo.com writes: He just echoed Jefferson's "Inalienable rights". (Pinker's
entire point of the chapter is that we must not allow our moral standards to depend
upon mere scientific truths that may or may not crop up in biology, a very
valid point.) But here, for example, it bugs me the way people endorse
something patently false.

Mike,
I think this also parellels the territory that Leo Strauss was taking
in except Dr. Strauss was dealing with Natural Rights.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 11:20 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Mike writes

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > He just echoed Jefferson's "Inalienable rights".
> > (Pinker's entire point of the chapter is that
> > we must not allow our moral standards to depend
> > upon mere scientific truths that may or may not
> > crop up in biology, a very valid point.) But
> > here, for example, it bugs me the way people
> > endorse something patently false.
> >
> > "Inalienable" means (I just looked it up) "not
> > subject to forfeiture", not transferable...
> > Just read a little history and you'll see how
> > *alienable* any rights, legal or otherwise,
> > actually are!
> >
> > What causes even the most intelligent among us
> > to misspeak about important issues???
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> You are missing the legal application of 'inalienable'. While
> *exercise* of such rights make be prevented by any application
> of force, that does not negate that human beings still have
> such rights as an inherent property of their existence.

We've probably been around this one before (I was with someone
on the ex-list). You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction.
You will concede that they have no identifiable or tangible
existence. For me, properties can be said to exist when the
meaning of words invariably points to something identifiable
in the universe. Hence, for example, a rock can have an attribute
of hardness (when compared to grass, for example), or a human
being can be held to have the attribute of intelligence (when
compared to a rodent). You will fail to find upon the closest
examination of any human such a property as a "right".

> Take an individual out of a situation of repression and
> put him in freedom and he is still able to exercise the
> rights that he was prevented from exercising in his prior
> environs.

There is a property of "being able to do X" for any X, but
it's a function of time. A human may have the freedom to
breathe deeply, but only at a specified time. Rights do
not exist until people are smart enough to claim that they
do, and even then they don't, I say, except for legal
rights which may exist in some societies and not others.
You admit, of course, that the legal rights disappear
upon some occasions (unfortunately).

> The fact that s/he is still able to exercise rights after
> living in repression shows that those rights were not
> 'alienated'. Alienating means to *permanently* forfeit
> or confiscate, like removing a persons eyes or tongue or
> ears to alienate their ability to see or speak or hear.

Well, if there is such a legal meaning of the word, then
it's a pity that the laws cannot be conceived in this country
in a manner than ordinary people consulting dictionaries
can understand.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:05 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Game Theory Problem

(I accidentally sent an earlier version of this to Michael alone)

Michael writes

But who knows exactly what fantasies Nash had? This was
pure invention on the part of the screenwriters. IMO.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:05 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/17/2003 10:20:03 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction. You will
concede that they have no identifiable or tangible existence.

Lee,
I am not sure if Leo Strauss would agree with this. I will assume
that rights or natural rights depend upon Natural Law. Now admittedly that just
pushes things back a bit.
However we have to admit two things.
1. That natural rights are a persistant idea that has endured through the
ages.
2. That we cannot find any natural right that is universally agreed upon
across time.
Strauss, I believe, says that failing to get agreement on what are
Natural Rights is not in anyway disproof of their existance. Given the history
of man the number of civilized men is but a fraction of the total population.
We would not expect barbarians or villeins to necessarily agree with us about
natural rights.
Nor, can we fault ourselves for our inability to stand on one foot
while we call out the entire list of natural rights without prior deliberation.
We can't stand on one foot and state all laws of physics now known or to be
discovered by the end of time.
But if there is no Natural Right or Natural Law to be violated or to
use as a guidepost then we are are the mercy of what ever any court,
legistlature or dictator tells us is the law.
But admittedly Natural Right or Law is "through a glass seen darkly."
Still, it is the best we have.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:14 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Lee Corbin's Goodbye on Extropy List

In response to Lee's goodbye, Extropy Vice Pres greg burch had not much
interesting to say. Here was my response to him.

Michael

Greg Burch said:

> I'm very sorry to see Lee leave the list, but I have to count
> it as a mistake on Lee's part. The mistake arises from what
> the concept of free speech means in the specific context of
> this forum.

I personally do not think the issue lies primarily with a question of
free speech. It's a question of an apparent wanton and arbitrary
expulsion of someone who happens to present generally unpopular
political opinions, and more specifically political opinions which
apparently counter opinions of extropy board members. In addition, I
can hardly find it reasonable to suspect that Mr. Lorreys banning had
nothing to do with calling to task the unproductive and inactive nature
of members of this mailing list, and official extropy activities.

> There will be even more disagreement about whether, rather
> than a single post, an overall approach to posting justifies
> exclusion.

> Persistent combativeness and lack of
> politeness can and should be a factor - an important factor -
> in applying the sanction of exclusion in a private, focused
> forum. Someone whose posts are consistently personalistic
> and which generate continuing personal unpleasantness can't
> stay in a semi-public, semi-private forum forever without the
> overall tone of the forum being degraded.

Nor can apparently vague, arbitrary, and explusions suspicious of a
personal vendetta not degrade the overall tone of this mailing list.

>
> I know there is a core disagreement among some people about
> whether values of politeness and personal tone should be a
> factor in list governance. To those who maintain that they
> should not, I urge you to consider that the packaging of
> ideas IS important and that a community can be and will be
> judged by the manners it tolerates.

And it is also judged by the manner in which it tolerates dissenting
voices. I find it hard to believe the Mr. Lorrey is the single worst
perveryor of deragotary implications, personal attacks, or general
un-productive un-civilized discourse. I invite any one to view
Humanias' vitriloic emotional rants of the past few months presented
against those who supported the War in Iraq.

> The very act of enforcing minimal
> standards of tone and style itself generates unpleasantness
> and ill-feelings among many. But this is also a challenge of
> freedom: Real liberty is perforce accompanied by the duty to
> realize such values,

Indeed, which is why it would be good to present a reasonable and
understandable case for Mr. Lorrey's explusions, or else people of
similar political persuasions or even those who feel they may one day
not be in good favor with the 'right' people may persistently feel the
sword of Damaclees is perpetually hanging over their heads by an ever
thinning thread. Even in your post justifying his expulsion, we still
see no clear and reasonable case made about it, just some vague comments
about maintaining the integrity of the list. Coupled with Natasha's
previous comments about 'harmful to the community', some do not feel
this bodes well for the integrity of discourse on this list or the value
of continuing to be a member of it.

> To return to the concept of free speech, I urge subscribers
> to consider that ExI is not a government, and the values and
> rules regarding governmental regulation of speech don't
> necessarily translate into matters of private list
> governance.

No one is saying you cant do what you want as a private organization,
but don't expect it to not reflect negatively on the integrity of the
list. It is a private forum to be done with by the owners what they
will, but fortunately unlike governments, we can freely choose to leave.
I hope extropy does not see a mass emmigration, but given past events I
cant see how there wont be at least some.

This is a private forum, not a government, but that doesn't mean we have
to sit by and not protest the apparent change from an open, progressive,
and free discussion to one of e-gulags and enemies of the e-states.

Of course, if we dissent, much like in oppressive governments, we may
simply be e-disappeared.

> Mike Lorrey's exclusion: Ultimately he
> is free to post elsewhere, create his own forum, post web pages, etc.
>

Indeed, and some of us have all ready created our own lists.

> Finally, I urge those who are unhappy to look again at
> Natasha's post: New organization for our discussions is in
> the works and any exclusion from this forum is temporary.

Sure, but the precedent has been set.

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 1:59 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com
Cc: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> Mike writes
>
> > --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > > He just echoed Jefferson's "Inalienable rights".
> > > (Pinker's entire point of the chapter is that
> > > we must not allow our moral standards to depend
> > > upon mere scientific truths that may or may not
> > > crop up in biology, a very valid point.) But
> > > here, for example, it bugs me the way people
> > > endorse something patently false.
> > >
> > > "Inalienable" means (I just looked it up) "not
> > > subject to forfeiture", not transferable...
> > > Just read a little history and you'll see how
> > > *alienable* any rights, legal or otherwise,
> > > actually are!
> > >
> > > What causes even the most intelligent among us
> > > to misspeak about important issues???
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > You are missing the legal application of 'inalienable'. While
> > *exercise* of such rights make be prevented by any application
> > of force, that does not negate that human beings still have
> > such rights as an inherent property of their existence.
>
> We've probably been around this one before (I was with someone
> on the ex-list). You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction.
> You will concede that they have no identifiable or tangible
> existence. For me, properties can be said to exist when the
> meaning of words invariably points to something identifiable
> in the universe. Hence, for example, a rock can have an attribute
> of hardness (when compared to grass, for example), or a human
> being can be held to have the attribute of intelligence (when
> compared to a rodent). You will fail to find upon the closest
> examination of any human such a property as a "right".

On the contrary, you can discern many natural rights resulting from
properties of human beings. This was first formulated by Aristotle's
dialogues long ago.
For example, we have the ability to speak and communicate, and to
choose to not speak, we therefore have a right to speak as well as to
choose to be silent.
Humans are generally gregarious, social animals, and are able to choose
what other humans to socialize with, therefore they have a right to
associate, and to choose who to associate with.
To quote Aristotle,"Man has neither claw, nor fang, nor stinger, nor
hoof. He has only the hand. Any weapon or tool which he can wield with
the hand is his natural right." (ergo rights to keep and bear arms and
to use technology).
Human beings are alive, and therefore have a right to life.

I can go on and on, but you get the gist.

>
> > Take an individual out of a situation of repression and
> > put him in freedom and he is still able to exercise the
> > rights that he was prevented from exercising in his prior
> > environs.
>
> There is a property of "being able to do X" for any X, but
> it's a function of time. A human may have the freedom to
> breathe deeply, but only at a specified time. Rights do
> not exist until people are smart enough to claim that they
> do, and even then they don't, I say, except for legal
> rights which may exist in some societies and not others.
> You admit, of course, that the legal rights disappear
> upon some occasions (unfortunately).

Legal rights can be taken by force for some period, so what? ANYTHING
can be taken by force. To use your analogy of a rock having a right to
be hard, I can use force to pound and blast that rock into gravel,
sand, and even its constituent atoms until it is hard no longer.

>
> > The fact that s/he is still able to exercise rights after
> > living in repression shows that those rights were not
> > 'alienated'. Alienating means to *permanently* forfeit
> > or confiscate, like removing a persons eyes or tongue or
> > ears to alienate their ability to see or speak or hear.
>
> Well, if there is such a legal meaning of the word, then
> it's a pity that the laws cannot be conceived in this country
> in a manner than ordinary people consulting dictionaries
> can understand.

Hah!!! You bet. Was just in court today on such a dispute.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:46 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Ron writes

> [Lee writes]
> > You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction. You will
> > concede that they have no identifiable or tangible existence.
>
> ... we have to admit two things.
> 1. That natural rights are a persistent idea that
> has endured through the ages.

Mike informs us that the idea has been around since Aristotle.
Of course, Aristotle is hardly taken as infallible these days ;-)
I wonder if it has been an ideal recognized outside the West.

> 2. That we cannot find any natural right that is universally agreed upon
> across time.
> Strauss, I believe, says that failing to get agreement on what are
> Natural Rights is not in anyway disproof of their existence. Given the history
> of man the number of civilized men is but a fraction of the total population.
> We would not expect barbarians or villeins to necessarily agree with us about
> natural rights.

Of course; but as you imply, they had not discovered numerous things,
such as the rings of Saturn, that we can see more clearly.

> Nor, can we fault ourselves for our inability to stand on one foot
> while we call out the entire list of natural rights without prior deliberation.
> We can't stand on one foot and state all laws of physics now known or to be
> discovered by the end of time.

Yes.

> But if there is no Natural Right or Natural Law to be
> violated or to use as a guidepost then we are the
> mercy of what ever any court, legislature or dictator
> tells us is the law.

I don't understand. How are we not at the mercy of our
fellows one way or another? If the courts of the state
of California judge me guilty of crimes, then I am at
their mercy, natural rights or no, correct?

> But admittedly Natural Right or Law is "through a glass
> seen darkly." Still, it is the best we have.

Of course, conservatives are always saying that without
religion a society crumbles away after a while, and liberals
are always saying that if behavior is proved to be mostly
genetic in origin, then Social Darwinism is proved, and
the weak will go to the wall.

Those dire predictions could turn out to be correct; who
really knows? It's all so complicated. But I don't think
so, and my intuition assures me that we will be okay
accepting, speaking, and defending the truth no matter
where it leads.

Just how does denying Natural Law or "natural rights"
necessarily lead to trouble?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:10 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Mike writes

> > We've probably been around this one before (I was with someone
> > on the ex-list). You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction.
> > You will concede that they have no identifiable or tangible
> > existence. For me, properties can be said to exist when the
> > meaning of words invariably points to something identifiable
> > in the universe. Hence, for example, a rock can have an attribute
> > of hardness (when compared to grass, for example), or a human
> > being can be held to have the attribute of intelligence (when
> > compared to a rodent). You will fail to find upon the closest
> > examination of any human such a property as a "right".
>
> On the contrary, you can discern many natural rights resulting from
> properties of human beings. This was first formulated by Aristotle's
> dialogues long ago.

All right, thanks for that.

> For example, we have the ability to speak and communicate, and to
> choose to not speak, we therefore have a right to speak as well as to
> choose to be silent.

I shall try to apply this reasoning to a number of
parallel instances. My intuition beforehand suggests
that your reasoning is too broad.

Let's see. An entity has the ability to make love to
another of its own species, and to choose whether or
not to mate with a particular specimen. Therefore it
has a right to do so.

A human has the ability to travel to an uninhabited island
and to choose whether or not to burn down all the forest
and kill all the wildlife on that island. Therefore, the
human has a right to do so.

A citizen of a hard-pressed country has the ability to
cease contributing to the economy, thereby making the
country easy prey to threatening outsiders. Therefore,
the citizen has a right to his economic capital that
may not be violated by others of his nation/community.

> Humans are generally gregarious, social animals, and are able to choose
> what other humans to socialize with, therefore they have a right to
> associate, and to choose who to associate with.
> To quote Aristotle, "Man has neither claw, nor fang, nor stinger, nor
> hoof. He has only the hand. Any weapon or tool which he can wield with
> the hand is his natural right." (ergo rights to keep and bear arms and
> to use technology).

Therefore, according to Aristotle, a human being who is clever
enough to make and house with his hand a number of nuclear
weapons on his property has the right to do so.

> Human beings are alive, and therefore have a right to life.

Not at all---it depends on a huge number of circumstances
that ought to be determined by civil law. For example,
a man may betray his country in time of war, or a man
may commit a serious criminal act, or a man may be old
and ready to die, and the only way for us to guarantee
his "right" to live is to expend effort on his behalf.

> I can go on and on, but you get the gist.

Me, too.

> Legal rights can be taken by force for some period, so what? ANYTHING
> can be taken by force. To use your analogy of a rock having a right to
> be hard, I can use force to pound and blast that rock into gravel,
> sand, and even its constituent atoms until it is hard no longer.

Then it is no longer a rock. A rock has the fixed property of
being hard relative to other things, except in highly extenuating
or unusual circumstances. Sadly, for 99% of the human race
throughout history---hardly an unusual state---the amazing "right"
you speak of was nowhere in sight.

It is difficult for an unbiased observer to discern such a
thing. I believe that two facts account for the illusion
that there exist Natural Law and natural rights. One is
(as Ron was getting at) that it make our case for such
legal rights sound stronger than it is; so for the sake of
expediency, we make an inflated claim. Two, the doctrine
of abstract rights was formulated in provincial areas, e.g.
Athens or early Western Europe, before the diversity of
anthropological realities was well known.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:47 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] You Do What You Have To Do To Survive

According to Jake Page's great book "In the Hands of
the Great Spirit: the 20,000 year history of the
American Indian",

In 1743, a Catawba elder whom the English called
King Haglar complained to the colonial authorities:
"You sell it [alcohol] to our young men...they get
very drunk with it... and commit those crimes that
is offensive to you and us and all through the effect
of that drink. It is also very bad for our people, for
it rots their guts and causes our men to get very sick
and many of our people has lately died by the effects
of that strong drink."

(The chief's English wasn't perfect, but much better
than my Catawba.)

If I had been Chief Haglar, I would have formed a
committee of men (if necessary in secret), and we
would have done WHATEVER WE HAD TO DO to correct
this problem. If it meant total militarism and
regimentation of the tribe, then so be it.

And if any of the young men so much as mentioned
his natural right to buy alcohol from the whites,
we would have, that very day, sold him to the
Iroquois.

(The Iroquois at this time either tortured their
captives and killed them, or tortured their captives
and adopted them into the tribe. The main thing,
for the Iroquois, was to make sure that the torture
got done.)

Then eventually we would have taken up farming and
done whatever it was that the whites were doing to
get economically competitive and to have equally
large families as they. But of course this would
have never happened, because even as chief I would
have failed to find enough sensible people in my
tribe to carry this out.

(But the Cherokees did carry this out: they built
villages in North Carolina along the plan of the
whites, complete with schools, farms, newspapers,
and their own written language. So Andy Jackson
went in and deported them all. I've always thought
him a bastard, but then, perhaps he was just
looking out for his people, the Scots-Irish of
the region, who did not like efficient competition.)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:21 AM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] You Do What You Have To Do To Survive

Lee:
<<(But the Cherokees did carry this out: they built
villages in North Carolina along the plan of the
whites, complete with schools, farms, newspapers,
and their own written language. So Andy Jackson
went in and deported them all. I've always thought
him a bastard, but then, perhaps he was just
looking out for his people, the Scots-Irish of
the region, who did not like efficient competition.)
Lee>>

He (jackson) was basically a criminal. much akin to Milosevic, circa 1828.. So much for free-enterprise and competition. The envy of the Americans of that period was a vicious thing. Mark Twain even wrote of it bit of it in his Tom Sawyer book; where Finn's father thought it wasn't right for a child to have a better life then his father. Too sad.

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:36 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] You Do What You Have To Do To Survive

Mitch writes

> He (Jackson) was basically a criminal. much akin
> to Milosevic, circa 1828.. So much for free-
> enterprise and competition. The envy of the
> Americans of that period was a vicious thing.
> Mark Twain even wrote of it bit of it in his
> Tom Sawyer book; where Finn's father thought
> it wasn't right for a child to have a better
> life then his father. Too sad.

Incredible. Do you have more examples? You and
good old MT (a liberal of his time---his mind set
was that if he had been born today he would have
been a liberal, I think) are focusing on a rather
perverse and widespread attitude?

If I had been Jackson, I would not have minded
this small number of Cherokees who were adopting
white ways and who appeared to want to assimilate.
But I will have to find out more about that incident.
The worst case is if "they" were different than my
people, and would not assimilate.

But isn't it also true that Jackson's people were
so anti-Indian of any kind that they would not
have permitted assimilation?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:38 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Natural law

In a message dated 8/18/2003 9:46:19 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: I don't understand. How are we not at the mercy of our fellows
one way or another? If the courts of the state of California judge me guilty of
crimes, then I am at their mercy, natural rights or no, correct?

Lee,
As usual you get your probing wit right at the awkward spot and ask a
very good question.
Naturally if 10,000 of my fellow citizens decide to lynch me either in
the street or judicially there is little I can do.
It is also true that a good politician or snake oil salesman can turn
day into nite. A prosecutor or a judge can find a basis for anything they
wish to do.
But if there is not natural law, things we believe are right and wrong
conduct, then I have nothing to appeal to.
But if there is natural law or natural rights I have something besides
the will of the prosecutor, the judge or my fellow citizens to appeal to.
Let me see if I can make the cheese a little binding. If you insist
that your logic is the supreme value and there is no natural law standing
higher than yours it seems to me that you are maintaining that you are the natural
law and we are back where we started. Now we know the highest appeal we can
make is to the Law of Lee.
But if we cut loose from natural law or rights, the right to "Life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then we are at the mercy of any smooth
talking crowd swaying totalitarian that comes down the pike.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:10 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Doing what you have to do -- Cherokees

In a message dated 8/19/2003 7:21:20 AM Central Standard Time, Spudboy100@aol.com writes: I've always thought him a bastard, but then, perhaps he was just looking out for his people, the Scots-Irish of the region, who did not like efficient competition.) Lee

Lee,
That is one of those comments that isn't in the least offensive but doesn't require some expansion.
Generally the Cherokee got along very well with the Scot & Irish (all the Celts basically but especially the Scots) but disliked the English. The reason was a similarity in social and governmental structure as well as a similar level of civilization.
In those days it is said the tribal elders had a deliberate policy of encouraging assimilation with the Celts (two ways). Today at least some Cherokee are attempting to pull together the Celt-Cherokee people. Those people feel the Celt-Cherokee marriage has produced a very desirable culture for living life.
However the whites of the period saw a Cherokee living in good log houses (the standard of the time and place). Some of those have survived and the workmanship is excellent. The Cherokee had good farms located along the waterways -- In that southern heat they like to take multiple dips each day to clean themselves and cool off. In addition the Cherokee in the 1820s learned to write their language. Cherokee is one of the easiest languages in which to achieve literacy. Can you imagine having an alphabet of 85 characters that said the sound they made? You memorize 85 symbols and you are reading anything word you know. As a result literacy swept the nation like wild fire and we were soon more literate than the surrounding whites. Remember you memorize the 85 symbols and you are immediately completely literate.
So yes there was a lot of jealousy fueling the Trail of Tears.
Ron Harrison

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:11 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Now, Cherokee

In a message dated 8/19/2003 9:37:11 AM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: If I had been Jackson, I would not have minded this small number
of Cherokees who were adopting white ways and who appeared to want to
assimilate. But I will have to find out more about that incident. The worst case is
if "they" were different than my people, and would not assimilate.
But isn't it also true that Jackson's people were so anti-Indian of
any kind that they would not have permitted assimilation?

Guys,
Back up and take a deep breath. No one takes exception to your not
knowing in detail the history of the Cherokee US conflict. But let me lay a
little of it on you. That is all I am capable of doing -- a little bit as I am
only a couple of days study ahead of you and I am Cherokee.
In 1800 AD the Cherokee were the largest Indian tribe in the US as
they remain to this day. The richest man in North America was a Cherokee named
James Vann.
Here is a link to a picture of his home you will notice it is not a tepee.
http://ngeorgia.com/parks/chief.html
The Cherokee had all the good farms, we had 200 towns of 30 to 50
families right across the route the Americans had to expand along. We had all the
best farmland. We were scattered along the waterways. We had the wealth.
It was a social and economic advancement to marry into the Cherokee people.
Many people were very jealous and the whites had the guns as well as
the population pressure at their backs.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Natural law

Ron writes

> Naturally if 10,000 of my fellow citizens decide to lynch me either in
> the street or judicially there is little I can do.
> It is also true that a good politician or snake oil salesman can turn
> day into nite. A prosecutor or a judge can find a basis for anything they
> wish to do.
> But if there is not natural law, things we believe are right and wrong
> conduct, then I have nothing to appeal to.
> But if there is natural law or natural rights I have something besides
> the will of the prosecutor, the judge or my fellow citizens to appeal to.

Well, ultimately, in either case you are appealing to them.
For example, if you use your argument of Natural Law, then
you will appeal to them to entertain it.

But I think that we have a lot of things to appeal to besides
that. Things that to me are much clearer.

We can appeal to tradition: it has been shown since the days
of Rome that societies that defend individual rights prosper
more than those that do not. The most telling case has been
made with respect to private property---see Thomas Bethell's
"The Noblest Triumph".

It is also easier than ever to see what modern history and
anthropology teach. (And by modern, I mean post-Boas, post-
Mead, and post notions of the noble savage.) It appears to
follow that almost uniformly the more there is regard for
individual rights, rule of law, and private property, the
more enlightened a society is. This has, I think, become
a common conception, and since no one wants to be "unenlightened",
we can appeal to this too.

> Let me see if I can make the cheese a little binding. If you insist
> that your logic is the supreme value and there is no natural law standing
> higher than yours it seems to me that you are maintaining that you are the natural
> law and we are back where we started. Now we know the highest appeal we can
> make is to the Law of Lee.

Yes, that would be a terrible mistake to argue that something
is right because I or my friends say it is. There has to be
plenty of evidence presented, and thanks to modern scholarship,
it's not lacking.

The main work of the 21st century will be to wait while all the
old 20th century types die, and with them their misguided socialist
views. I am greatly heartened by Pinker's book "The Blank Slate",
because all the deep foundations of liberalism (the bad kind) are
undermined.

> But if we cut loose from natural law or rights, the right to "Life,
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then we are at the mercy of any smooth
> talking crowd swaying totalitarian that comes down the pike.

Those three things should still be argued as entirely beneficial
to society and to law, but not because they are of divine origin
or because of some deep property of humans, but merely because
they work.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:20 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Doing what you have to do -- Cherokees

Ron (who is part Cherokee I recalled) writes

> [Lee writes]
> > I've always thought him a bastard, but then, perhaps he
> > was just looking out for his people, the Scots-Irish of
> > the region, who did not like efficient competition.

> Generally the Cherokee got along very well with the Scot & Irish
> (all the Celts basically but especially the Scots) but disliked
> the English.

This blows me away. It contradicts the book I mentioned that
I am reading, "In the Hands of the Great Spirit". He said there
that basically the whites constituted four ethnic groups in
colonial America: one, the northern Puritans, two, the Middle
States amalgam of Dutch, English, Swedish and so forth, and
three, the Virginia type southern English. That was before
1700. Those people had driven the Indians out of a lot of
the east side of the Appalachians by 1700. Then in 1700 a
new gang appeared, the Scots-Irish.

They were the border people between Scotland and England,
and from Northern Ireland. They were seen as distinctly
lower class by the three groups who were here first. And
they were indeed far less literate, and according to Jake
Page, far more quarrelsome and violent.

They found that they were not welcome in the by-1700
refined part of the states. So they crossed the Appalachians
and didn't care at all that they were violating Indian
territory (he says). He also attributes the worst of
the white/Indian violence to clashes between the Scots-
Irish and the Indians.

> The reason was a similarity in social and governmental
> structure as well as a similar level of civilization.

Well that's pretty amazing.

> In those days it is said the tribal elders had a deliberate
> policy of encouraging assimilation with the Celts (two ways).
> Today at least some Cherokee are attempting to pull together
> the Celt-Cherokee people. Those people feel the Celt-Cherokee
> marriage has produced a very desirable culture for living life.

I have heard that if you find out that someone has some Indian
blood, then most often it is Cherokee. Not only that, but as
I wrote before about the houses, written language, and so on---
which you have elaborated on---it is perfectly clear that there
is something quite flexible and survival oriented in Cherokee
genes or culture. I WANT THAT. That is exactly what is needed
in the future as well as the past.

> However the whites of the period saw a Cherokee living in good
> log houses (the standard of the time and place). Some of those
> have survived and the workmanship is excellent. The Cherokee
> had good farms located along the waterways -- In that southern
> heat they like to take multiple dips each day to clean themselves
> and cool off. In addition the Cherokee in the 1820s learned to
> write their language. Cherokee is one of the easiest languages
> in which to achieve literacy. Can you imagine having an alphabet
> of 85 characters that said the sound they made? You memorize
> 85 symbols and you are reading any word you know. As a result
> literacy swept the nation like wild fire and we were soon more
> literate than the surrounding whites.

That would be the Scots-Irish I bet---who are (I guess) Celtic
but are neither Scotch nor Irish.

> So yes there was a lot of jealousy fueling the Trail of Tears.

Yes. But I would like to know more about that envy or jealousy.
You mentioned that MT described Huck Finn's father of having it
so bad that he did *not* want his son living better than he did.
Are there people like this today anywhere? If not, what made the
people that way then?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:20 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Doing what you have to do -- Cherokees

In a message dated 8/19/2003 4:20:40 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: This blows me away. It contradicts the book I mentioned that I am
reading, "In the Hands of the Great Spirit". He said there that basically
the whites constituted four ethnic groups in colonial America: one, the
northern Puritans, two, the Middle States amalgam of Dutch, English, Swedish and so
forth, and three, the Virginia type southern English. That was before 1700.
Those people had driven the Indians out of a lot of the east side of the
Appalachians by 1700. Then in 1700 a new gang appeared, the Scots-Irish.

Lee,
Having some Cherokee blood (indeterminate, we are too intermixed) does
not make me history's greatest authority on all things Cherokee. You are
going to have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a princess. Or, put another way
listen to a lot of people and go with the preponderance of the evidence and the
logic of your own intelligence.
But, look at the internal evidence of what you said. The English etal
had driven the Indian from the east side of the Appalachians before the
Scots-Irish appeared.
We soon found we much preferred the Scots to the the English. I think
you just explained why. BTW, when I say Celt I am indicating all the Gaelic
people in the British Isles. If there is a better term I will be happy to
adopt it.
I don't want to imply that all Celts were wonderful people as they
weren't nor were all Cherokee. We had some Cherokee that received a death
sentence from our leaders and were executed. Some of our leaders weren't even all
that admirable. I am still working on the history of my Cherokee ancestors but
it appears likely that when we had our big civil war the main body of the
Cherokee drove my ancestors out. They were still trying to be concilitory to the
whites, about 1812 or so, and my ancestors were likely to be found among
those that said we should ally with (damn, it means "Panther across the sky," a
meteor) okay the name came to me, Tecumseh and fight until we were no more or
until you were back in the ocean.
Back to the social structure, here an there in the Sakanagah mountains
(the great blue mountains of God) you will come across hill billy settlements
that may not even know they have Indian blood. They are civilized but they
enjoy their corn squeezings and their mountain music. They are usually
Christian more or less. Hunting and fishing is still a souce of food not sport. In
my own family, on the Indian side, all of us have hunted or fished for food
on occasion but I have never known one that goes for sport. If I was around
good hunting territory I would learn what I needed to put meat in my pot but
that would be the extent of it.
I seem to be on the edge of some good fishing so I may take that up if
it seems economically advantageous.
On the other hand I love to get out and just look at the outdoors.
Oh, if you go on line and search Cherokee you will gradually learn as
much as you ever wanted to know. Let me close by copying out something from
one of the sites for learning the language.
Do-nv-da-go-hv-i Until we meet again. You can pronounce that by using the
Latin vowels and remembering that Cherokee has an extra vowel written with a
V. It is pronounced slightly through the nose like the U in HUH. To do it
even better let your mouth hang open a little. with a small bleep eating grin on
your face and talk with almost no jaw movement.
bye
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:39 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Land of the Murdered

[sent to the extropy list]

Uh-oh.

IRAQ Has World's Highest Government Sanctioned Mass Murder Rate

By Concerned humanist
Staff writer of The Humanist Science World Monitor

Excerpt

"More than 300,000 Iraqis are buried in mass graves, according to a new
report by the Justice for the world Department released Sunday. With a
population of 24 million, that's 1 in 80 people who end up in an
unmarked mass grave, the highest government sanctioned mass murder rate
in the world. If the current trends had continued, then over the life
of the Hussien regime it is likely another 300,000 people would have
ended up in these mass graves. The average Kurd had a 1 in 20 chance of
ending up on the death end of an IRAQ Government action, while the
average Shi-ite had a 1 in 10 chance of ending up murdered."

> Uh-oh.
>
> US Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate
>
> By GAIL RUSSELL CHADDOCK
> Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>
> More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served
> time there, according to a new report by the Justice
> Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in
> the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.
>...

One wonders why, even though the US has the highest incarceration rate
in the world, its still ranked by non-partisan freedom groups as one of
the freest countries in the world? Is this report on the entire world,
or post industrialized nations? Is this based on official govt released
documents, and if so, should we trust the claims made by oppressive
communist regimes who routinely incarcerate or murder political
dissidents?)

Any link Damien?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:36 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] RE: Land of let's only talk about whats wrong with the US

> We agree that: Communists are awful. Terrorists are awful.
> Saddam was awful.

Well, let me be the first to welcome you to our minority viewpoint.
Glad you can admit it. But don't say 'we agree' unless you mean merely
you and I, because other members of this list obviously do not agree
with that statement. Because members of this list have argued in favor
of anarcho socialism, that the 'good guys' won in indochina, that Kuwait
wasn't a legit country because Saddam didn't recognize it, etc. etc. I
will continue to repeat that communists, terrorists, and saddam are
awful and present evidence supporting that statement until I no longer
see such odd statements on this mailing list, or until I come across
convincing evidence suggesting the none of those things are awful.

I know my anti-communists and terrorists articles are quite distracting
to your 'land of lets only talk about whats wrong with the US' possible
vision of this mailing list, but I'm sure recent developments in this
list will help to bring about such a vision.

> It's also awful that other things in parts of the world where
> we have a direct influence are awful.

Indeed, it is. At least in the US, though, the things that will get you
tossed in jail are pretty well established, documented, and supported by
the majority. All one need to is not steal, assault, kill, or deal
drugs.

And as far as influence, as an American my vote obviously was able to
directly influence the continuation of a murderous tyrannical regime.
But this begs the question, is there anything we truly do not have *any*
influence on?

>
> >Any link Damien?
>
> Sorry, that CSM piece was sent to me by someone else, and I
> didn't wish to repost the whole thing in breach of copyright.
>

I wasn't asking for the whole article to be reproduced violating
copyright, I would have liked to seen a link to the article to read more
about the study. I would genuinely be interested to know how they
determined the incarceration rate in other not so open societies, like
communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive theocracies.
E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc.
etc.

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:55 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] "Countering anti-extropic memes"

Ron wrote

> matus@matus1976.com writes: I think with enough people,
> this could have a pretty significant positive impact,
> yet still only require 10 - 20 minutes each week on
> average from volunteers.
>
> You might like to look up:
> http://www.premier1.net/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM
>
> It is called the Delphi Technique. Even when we aren't facing the
> Delphi Technique the article still describes a very useful technique for
> disrupting anyone that is trying to feed us baloney.
> Ron Harrison

It isn't clear exactly what you are advocating. From
that link, it's pretty clear that some people are pretty
good at manipulating other people that they regard as
sheep. It would not surprise me if these idea have been
understood for a very long time, and used by Marxists and
other revolutionaries to achieve their aims.

Naturally, the advice given for "disrupting" the perpetrators
is good; it's what one ought normally do in any case. But
it also would not surprise me if the author himself or herself
indulges in using the very technique he/she describes.

Quite interesting, thanks.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:58 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Bell Curve Predictions

I have almost finished reading the last chapter of "The
Bell Curve", and am taking note of the authors' predictions.
The book was written, after all, in 1993 or so.

I don't think that things are turning out as badly as
they feared (so far). Yes, they were right in that the
homeless are now being treated as they predicted. But
beyond that...

Are more and more people really retreating behind gated
communities? Is crime still going up? Is the underclass
more and more unemployed and unemployable? (Yes, I know,
this last is hard to say.) I wish that someone would
update that book.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:42 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] FW: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East Timor, and North Korea

Typicall stupidity on the extropy list. The 'study' Damien posted
showing that the US had the highest prison population in the world,
inciting him to lable the US as the 'Land of the imprisoned' turned out
to have no data from, surprise, Iraq, Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East
Timor, and North Korea, in fact it had no Data from 17 countries in
total. No doubt they simply just took the countries who did respond for
their word. Oh, whats that Vietnam, you only have 10 people in prison,
sure, lets just jot that on down...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
>[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of matus
>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:17 PM
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq,
>Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East Timor, and North Korea
>
>
>BN wrote:
>>matus wrote:
>>
>>> I would genuinely be interested to know how
>>> they determined the incarceration rate in other not so open
>>societies,
>>> like communist ones, or tyranical dictator ones, or oppresive
>>> theocracies. E.g. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea,
>China, Cuba,
>>> Iraq, Iran, etc.
>>
>>A quick Google finds,
>>
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
>>
>>And here's the report with the 5.6 million figure,
>>
>>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/piusp01.htm
>>
>>Oddly enough, while it has all the data from the body of the
>>CSM article, it doesn't appear to have anything to say about
>>US incarceration rates compared to the rest of the world.
>
>I don't see why that is odd, it's the *US* department of
>Justice, not the World Department of justice. They put the
>information together, its up to others to compare it. Which
>is exactly what CS Monitor and the 'home office' does, or at
>least superficially did. Interestingly...
>
>>
>>Google suggests that a common citation for statistics on world
>>incarceration rates is the Home Office's World Prison Population List,
>>
>>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf
>>
>>In which the USA takes the top spot.
>>
>
>Interesting that on page 4, at the bottom, it says
>
>"No information on; Iraq, Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East
>Timor, and North Korea"
>
>And at the end of the paper
>
>"The list has a number of weaknesses. Its lacks information
>on 17 independent countries"
>
>So, in other words, the US has the highest prison population
>in the world, not counting the notoriously worst countries in
>the world, which wont bother telling anyone what their prison
>population is. Not surprisingly, this is not mentioned once
>in the CS Monitor article.
>
>In doing some googling trying to find info on where some of
>the countries that were listed came from, for example vietnam,
>I came across this
>
>http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/G/GENERAL/GENERAL293N.PDF
>
>"But the fact remained that violations of political and civil
>rights, for the most part, were most severe in the countries
>where domestic NGOs were not allowed to operate: China,
>Vietnam, Burma, Bhutan, Brunei and North Korea. Elsewhere,
>there were areas which were also effectively closed to
>domestic and international human rights investigators,
>including East Timor and parts of Irian Jaya, Tibet, and Khmer
>Rouge-held zones of Cambodia."
>
>So where did the prison population figure for Vietnam come
>from, did they just ask the "Peoples Democratic Republic of
>Vietnam" for a figure, and were provided the figure of 77 in
>100,000! But who cares about accuracy, as long as it makes
>the US look bad, right?
>
>Of China, it says
>
>"Wu Shishen, an editor in the domestic news department of
>Xinhua was sentenced to life in prison for selling a Hongkong
>reporter an advance copy of a speech by Party Secretary Jiang Zemin."
>
>"The Chinese government continued to arrest, detain and
>torture peaceful critics and to interfere with freedom of
>expression, association, assembly and religion. Releases of
>dissidents were carefully timed for political impact, as
>exemplified by the release days before the Olympic decision in
>September of writer and editor Wei Jingsheng after over
>fourteen years of solitary confinement."
>
>Etc. etc. The stories go on and on, for vietnam, laos, Burma...
>
>One wonders where they got the figures for Chinese
>imprisonment as well.
>
>
>Michael Dickey
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:45 PM
To: matus@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] FW: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan...

In a message dated 8/20/2003 12:43:05 PM Central Standard Time,
matus@matus1976.com writes: The 'study' Damien posted showing that the US had the highest
prison population in the world, inciting him to lable the US as the 'Land of
the imprisoned' turned out to have no data from, surprise,

Blame America First. Now push Damien hard on that point and he will reverse
positions blaming you the entire way.
Ron Harrison
From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FW: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan...

Is Damien a US citicizen? I was under the impression that he was
Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence' he has
over the American Justic system!

>
>In a message dated 8/20/2003 12:43:05 PM Central Standard Time,
>matus@matus1976.com writes: The 'study' Damien posted showing
>that the US had the highest
>prison population in the world, inciting him to lable the US
>as the 'Land of
>the imprisoned' turned out to have no data from, surprise,
>
>Blame America First. Now push Damien hard on that point and
>he will reverse
>positions blaming you the entire way.
>Ron Harrison
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:52 PM
To: matus@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] FW: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan...

In a message dated 8/20/2003 1:05:24 PM Central Standard Time,
matus@matus1976.com writes: Is Damien a US citicizen? I was under the impression that he
was Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence' he has
over the American Justic system!

No, I don't believe Damien is an American Citizen. I understand on the basis
of hearsay that he has an American wife.
However, I've never found an Australian that was adverse to telling us
how to run our country. There probably are some.
Ron Harrison
From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:53 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Is Damien a US citicizen? I was under the impression that he was
Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence' he has
over the American Justic system!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:53 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Bell curve predictions

In a message dated 8/20/2003 10:58:39 AM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Are more and more people really retreating behind gated
communities? Is crime still going up? Is the underclass more and more unemployed and
unemployable? (Yes, I know, this last is hard to say.) I wish that someone
would update that book.

Lee,
Who knows that book is probably less than 15 years old. we can at
best observe a short term fluctuation. On the other hand the long term trend has
been going on since 1900 AD to the best of my memory.
I know that in the past 15 years the trend has been to lose good jobs
in the country. I hear that the underclass (IQ) can no longer get jobs
flipping hamburgers. I haven't been into any of the areas of Chicago undergoing
gentrification so I can't say if gated communities are becoming the norm or not.
I know that the ability to keep arms seems to be spreading along with claims
that doing so keeps crime down. But does that denote a better society for the
underclass to make a living in? The papers have been full of claims that the
US incarcerates more people than any other society so I assume guys that
can't make it on the outside are still with us.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:37 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Michael or Ron wrote

> Is Damien a US citizen? I was under the impression that he was
> Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence'
> he has over the American Justice system!

Yes, he's Australian. I would not be surprised to find out
that the U.S. has the highest or nearly the highest rate of
incarceration in the industrialized world. First, the
Americans can afford it; second, the police cannot simply
take matters into their own hands and suppress crime
themselves; third, the U.S. has (I would guess) a higher
percentage of diversity than any other industrialized
country; fourth, the U.S. locks up people for using drugs
when it's not harming anyone except the user; fifth, U.S.
liberals have fostered crime by attempting to deter and
interfere with active prosecution of serious crime, e.g.,
being eager to let the most awful criminals go free on
technicalities, in excess of that same tendency, say, in
Britain.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:46 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Bell curve predictions

Ron writes

> [Lee wrote]
> > Are more and more people really retreating behind gated
> > communities? Is crime still going up? Is the underclass
> > more and more unemployed and unemployable? (Yes, I know,
> > this last is hard to say.) I wish that someone would
> > update that book.
>
> Who knows that book is probably less than 15 years old.

I thought that I mentioned that it was written in 1993 or
thereabouts. I'm asking because I am unsure if things have
gone (in the meanwhile) the way the authors thought.

> we can at best observe a short term fluctuation. On the
> other hand the long term trend has been going on since
> 1900 AD to the best of my memory.

Yes.

> I know that in the past 15 years the trend has been to lose good jobs
> in the country. I hear that the underclass (IQ) can no longer get jobs
> flipping hamburgers.

I didn't know. Why do you suppose not?

> I haven't been into any of the areas of Chicago undergoing
> gentrification so I can't say if gated communities are
> becoming the norm or not.
>
> I know that the ability to keep arms seems to be spreading
> along with claims that doing so keeps crime down. But does
> that denote a better society for the underclass to make a
> living in?

My guess would be yes. The less crime, the less it is seen
as a viable role in life by those growing up, and the greater
the chance that those who are able will do something
constructive (which is better for them, too).

I should post a piece on Levitt that I saw somewhere,
probably on the ex-list a few weeks ago.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:52 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] [Eudaemonists] Levitt's Findings

Oops. I think that it may have been Michael who
posted this a few weeks back. Anyway, whoever did
was kind enough to supply the last paragraph when
I pointed out that it was missing. This is great
if you haven't read it before. Actually, it is
great anyway :-) There is some good, data-backed
analysis of why the U.S. crime rate is down.

Lee

The Probability That a Real-Estate Agent Is Cheating You (and Other Riddles of
Modern Life)

August 3, 2003 By STEPHEN J. DUBNER

The most brilliant young economist in America -- the one so deemed, at least, by
a jury of his elders -- brakes to a stop at a traffic light on Chicago's south
side. It is a sunny day in mid-June. He drives an aging green Chevy Cavalier with
a dusty dashboard and a window that doesn't quite shut, producing a dull roar at
highway speeds.

But the car is quiet for now, as are the noontime streets: gas stations,
boundless concrete, brick buildings with plywood windows.

An elderly homeless man approaches. It says he is homeless right on his sign,
which also asks for money. He wears a torn jacket, too heavy for the warm day,
and a grimy red baseball cap.

The economist doesn't lock his doors or inch the car forward. Nor does he go
scrounging for spare change. He just watches, as if through one-way glass. After
a while, the homeless man moves along.

''He had nice headphones,'' says the economist, still watching in the rearview
mirror. ''Well, nicer than the ones I have. Otherwise, it doesn't look like he
has many assets.''

Steven Levitt tends to see things differently than the average person.
Differently, too, than the average economist. This is either a wonderful trait or
a troubling one, depending on how you feel about economists. The average
economist is known to wax oracularly about any and all monetary issues. But if
you were to ask Levitt his opinion of some standard economic matter, he would
probably swipe the hair from his eyes and plead ignorance. ''I gave up a long
time ago pretending that I knew stuff I didn't know,'' he says. ''I mean, I just
-- I just don't know very much about the field of economics. I'm not good at
math, I don't know a lot of econometrics, and I also don't know how to do theory.
If you ask me about whether the stock market's going to go up or down, if you ask
me whether the economy's going to grow or shrink, if you ask me whether
deflation's good or bad, if you ask me about taxes -- I mean, it would be total
fakery if I said I knew anything about any of those things.''

In Levitt's view, economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers
but a serious shortage of interesting questions. His particular gift is the
ability to ask such questions. For instance: If drug dealers make so much money,
why do they still live with their mothers? Which is more dangerous, a gun or a
swimming pool? What really caused crime rates to plunge during the past decade?
Do real-estate agents have their clients' best interests at heart? Why do black
parents give their children names that may hurt their career prospects? Do
schoolteachers cheat to meet high-stakes testing standards? Is sumo wrestling
corrupt?

And how does a homeless man afford $50 headphones?

Many people -- including a fair number of his peers -- might not recognize
Levitt's work as economics at all. But he has merely distilled the so-called
dismal science down to its most primal aim: explaining how people get what they
want, or need. Unlike most academics, he is unafraid of using personal
observations and curiosities (though he does fear calculus). He is an
intuitionist. He sifts through a pile of data to find a story that no one else
had found. He devises a way to measure an effect that veteran economists had
declared unmeasurable. His abiding interests -- though he says he has never
trafficked in them himself -- are cheating, corruption and crime.

His interest in the homeless man's headphones, meanwhile, didn't last long.
''Maybe,'' he said later, ''it was just testimony to the fact I'm too
disorganized to buy a set of headphones that I myself covet.''

Levitt is the first to say that some of his topics border on the trivial. But he
has proved to be such an ingenious researcher and clear-eyed thinker that instead
of being consigned to the fringe of his field, the opposite has happened: he has
shown other economists just how well their tools can make sense of the real
world.

''Levitt is considered a demigod, one of the most creative people in economics
and maybe in all social science,'' says Colin Camerer, an economist at the
California Institute of Technology. ''He represents something that everyone
thinks they will be when they go to grad school in econ, but usually they have
the creative spark bored out of them by endless math -- namely, a kind of
intellectual detective trying to figure stuff out.''

Levitt is a populist in a field that is undergoing a bout of popularization.
Undergraduates are swarming the economics departments of elite universities.
Economics is seen as the ideal blend of intellectual prestige (it does offer a
Nobel, after all) and practical training for a high-flying finance career
(unless, like Levitt, you choose to stay in academia). At the same time,
economics is ever more visible in the real world, thanks to the continuing
fetishization of the stock market and the continuing fixation with Alan
Greenspan.

The greatest change, however, is within the scholarly ranks. Microeconomists are
gaining on the macro crowd, empiricists gaining on the theorists. Behavioral
economists have called into doubt the very notion of ''homo economicus,'' the
supposedly rational decision-maker in each of us. Young economists of every
stripe are more inclined to work on real-world subjects and dip into bordering
disciplines -- psychology, criminology, sociology, even neurology -- with the
intent of rescuing their science from its slavish dependence upon mathematical
models.

Levitt fits everywhere and nowhere. He is a noetic butterfly that no one has
pinned down -- he was once offered a job on the Clinton economic team, and the
Bush campaign approached him about being a crime adviser -- but who is widely
appreciated.

''Steve isn't really a behavioral economist, but they'd be happy to have him,''
says Austan Goolsbee, who teaches economics at the University of Chicago's
Graduate School of Business. ''He's not really an old price-theory guy, but these
Chicago guys are happy to claim him. He's not really a Cambridge guy'' --
although Levitt went to Harvard and then M.I.T. -- ''but they'd love him to come
back.''

He has critics, to be sure. Daniel Hamermesh, a prominent labor economist at the
University of Texas, has taught Levitt's paper ''The Impact of Legalized Abortion
on Crime'' to his undergraduates. ''I've gone over this paper in draft, in its
printed version, at great length, and for the life of me I can't see anything
wrong with it,'' Hamermesh says. ''On the other hand, I don't believe a word of
it. And his stuff on sumo wrestlers -- well, this is not exactly fundamental,
unless you're Japanese and weigh 500 pounds.''

But at 36, Levitt is a full professor in the University of Chicago's economics
department, the most legendary program in the country. (He received tenure after
only two years.) He is an editor of The Journal of Political Economy, a leading
journal in the field. And the American Economic Association recently awarded him
its John Bates Clark Medal, given biennially to the country's best economist
under 40.

He is a prolific and diverse writer. But his paper linking a rise in abortion to
a drop in crime has made more noise than the rest combined. Levitt and his
co-author, John Donohue of Stanford Law School, argued that as much as 50 percent
of the huge drop in crime since the early 1990's can be traced to Roe v. Wade.
Their thinking goes like this: the women most likely to seek an abortion -- poor,
single, black or teenage mothers -- were the very women whose children, if born,
have been shown most likely to become criminals. But since those children weren't
born, crime began to decrease during the years they would have entered their
criminal prime. In conversation, Levitt reduces the theory to a tidy syllogism:
''Unwantedness leads to high crime; abortion leads to less unwantedness; abortion
leads to less crime.''

Levitt had already published widely about crime and punishment. One paper he
wrote as a graduate student is still regularly cited. His question was
disarmingly simple: Do more police translate into less crime? The answer would
seem obvious -- yes -- but had never been proved: since the number of police
officers tends to rise along with the number of crimes, the effectiveness of the
police was tricky to measure.

Levitt needed a mechanism that would unlink the crime rate from police hiring. He
found it within politics. He noticed that mayors and governors running for
re-election often hire more police officers. By measuring those police increases
against crime rates, he was able to determine that additional officers do indeed
bring down violent crime.

That paper was later disputed -- another graduate student found a serious
mathematical mistake in it -- but Levitt's ingenuity was obvious. He began to be
acknowledged as a master of the simple, clever solution. He was the guy who, in
the slapstick scene, sees all the engineers futzing with a broken machine -- and
then realizes that no one has thought to plug it in.

Arguing that the police help deter crime didn't make Levitt any enemies. Arguing
that abortion deterred crime was another matter.

In the abortion paper, published in 2001, he and Donohue warned that their
findings should not be seen ''as either an endorsement of abortion or a call for
intervention by the state in the fertility decisions of women.'' They suggested
that crime might just as easily be curbed by ''providing better environments for
those children at greatest risk for future crime.''

Still, the very topic managed to offend nearly everyone. Conservatives were
enraged that abortion could be construed as a crime-fighting tool. Liberals were
aghast that poor and black women were singled out. Economists grumbled that
Levitt's methodology was not sound. A syllogism, after all, can be a magic trick:
All cats die; Socrates died; therefore Socrates was a cat.

''I think he's enormously clever in so many areas, focusing very much on the
issue of reverse causality,'' says Ted Joyce, an economist at Baruch College who
has written a critical response to the abortion paper. ''But in this case I think
he ignored it, or didn't tend to it well enough.''

As the news media gorged on the abortion-crime story, Levitt came under direct
assault. He was called an ideologue (by conservatives and liberals alike), a
eugenicist, a racist and downright evil.

In reality, he seems to be very much none of those. He has little taste for
politics and less for moralizing. He is genial, low-key and unflappable,
confident but not cocky. He is a respected teacher and colleague; he is a
sought-after collaborator who, because of the breadth of his curiosities, often
works with scholars outside his field -- another rarity for an economist.

''I hesitate to use these words, but Steve is a con man, in the best sense,''
says Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist at Columbia University. ''He's the
Shakespearean jester. He'll make you believe his ideas were yours.'' Venkatesh
was Levitt's co-author on ''An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang's
Finances,'' which found that the average street dealer lives with his mother
because the take-home pay is, frankly, terrible. The paper analyzed one crack
gang's financial activities as if it were any corporation. (It was Venkatesh who
procured the data, from a former gang member.) Such a thing had never been tried.
''This lack of focus,'' Levitt deadpanned in one version of the paper, ''is
perhaps partly attributable to the fact that few economists have been involved in
the study of gangs.''

Levitt speaks with a boyish lisp. His appearance is High Nerd: a plaid
button-down shirt, nondescript khakis and a braided belt, sensible shoes. His
pocket calendar is branded with the National Bureau of Economic Research logo.
''I wish he would get more than three haircuts a year,'' his wife, Jeannette,
says, ''and that he wasn't still wearing the same glasses he got 15 years ago,
which weren't even in fashion then.'' He was a good golfer in high school but has
so physically atrophied that he calls himself ''the weakest human being alive''
and asks Jeannette to open jars around the house.

There is nothing in his appearance or manner, in other words, that suggests a
flamethrower. He will tell you that all he does is sit at his desk, day and
night, wrestling with some strange mountain of data. He will tell you that he
would do it free (his salary is reportedly more than $200,000), and you tend to
believe him. He may be an accidental provocateur, but he is a provocateur
nonetheless.

He takes particular delight in catching wrongdoers. In one paper, he devised a
set of algorithms that could identify teachers in the Chicago public-school
system who were cheating. ''Cheating classrooms will systematically differ from
other classrooms along a number of dimensions,'' he and his co-author, Brian
Jacob of the Kennedy School of Government, wrote in ''Catching Cheating
Teachers.'' ''For instance, students in cheating classrooms are likely to
experience unusually large test-score gains in the year of the cheating, followed
by unusually small gains or even declines in the following year when the boost
attributable to cheating disappears.''

Levitt used test-score data from the Chicago schools that had long been available
to other researchers. There were a number of ways, he realized, that a teacher
could cheat. If she were particularly brazen (and stupid), she might give
students the correct answers. Or, after the test, she might actually erase
students' wrong answers and fill in correct ones. A sophisticated cheater would
be careful to avoid conspicuous blocks of identical answers. But Levitt was more
sophisticated. ''The first step in analyzing suspicious strings is to estimate
the probability each child would give a particular answer on each question,'' he
wrote. ''This estimation is done using a multinomial logit framework with past
test scores, demographics and socioeconomic characteristics as explanatory
variables.''

So by measuring any number of factors -- the difficulty of a particular question,
the frequency with which students got hard questions right and easy ones wrong,
the degree to which certain answers were highly correlated in one classroom --
Levitt identified which teachers he thought were cheating. (Perhaps just as
valuable, he was also able to identify the good teachers.) The Chicago school
system, rather than disputing Levitt's findings, invited him into the schools for
retesting. As a result, the cheaters were fired.

Then there is his coming ''Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990's: Four
Factors That Explain the Decline and Seven That Do Not.'' The entire drop in
crime, Levitt says, was due to more police officers, more prisoners, the waning
crack epidemic and Roe v. Wade.

One factor that probably didn't make a difference, he argues, was the innovative
policing strategy trumpeted in New York by Rudolph Giuliani and William Bratton.

''I think,'' Levitt says, ''I'm pretty much alone in saying that.''

He comes from a Minneapolis family of high, if unusual, achievers. His father, a
medical researcher, is considered a leading authority on intestinal gas. (He
bills himself as ''The Man Who Gave Status to Flatus and Class to Gas.'') One of
Levitt's great uncles, Robert May, wrote ''Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer'' --
the book, that is; another great uncle, Johnny Marks, later wrote the song.

At Harvard, Levitt wrote his senior thesis on thoroughbred breeding and graduated
summa cum laude. (He is still obsessed with horse racing. He says he believes it
is corrupt and has designed a betting system -- the details of which he will not
share -- to take advantage of the corruption.) He worked for two years as a
management consultant before enrolling at M.I.T. for a doctorate in economics.
The M.I.T. program was famous for its mathematical intensity. Levitt had taken
exactly one math course as an undergraduate and had forgotten even that. During
his first graduate class, he asked the student next to him about a formula on the
board: Is there any difference between the derivative sign that's straight
up-and-down and the curly one? ''You are in so much trouble,'' he was told.

''People wrote him off,'' recalls Austan Goolsbee, the Chicago economist who was
then a classmate. ''They'd say, 'That guy has no future.'''

Levitt set his own course. Other grad students stayed up all night working on
problem sets, trying to make good grades. He stayed up researching and writing.
''My view was that the way you succeed in this profession is you write great
papers,'' he says. ''So I just started.''

Sometimes he would begin with a question. Sometimes it was a set of data that
caught his eye. He spent one entire summer typing into his computer the results
of years' worth of Congressional elections. (Today, with so much information so
easily available on the Internet, Levitt complains that he can't get his students
to input data at all.) All he had was a vague curiosity about why incumbents were
so often re-elected.

Then he happened upon a political-science book whose authors claimed that money
wins elections, period. ''They were trying to explain election outcomes as a
function of campaign expenditures,'' he recalls, ''completely ignoring the fact
that contributors will only give money to challengers when they have a realistic
chance of winning, and incumbents only spend a lot when they have a chance of
losing. They convinced themselves this was the causal story even though it's so
obvious in retrospect that it's a spurious effect.''

Obvious, at least, to Levitt. Within five minutes, he had a vision of the paper
he would write. ''It came to me,'' he says, ''in full bloom.''

The problem was that his data couldn't tell him who was a good candidate and who
wasn't. It was therefore impossible to tease out the effect of the money. As with
the police/crime rate puzzle, he had to trick the data.

Because he himself had typed in the data, he had noticed something: often, the
same two candidates faced each other multiple times. By analyzing the data from
only those elections, Levitt was able to find a true result. His conclusion:
campaign money has about one-tenth the impact as was commonly accepted.

An unknown graduate student, he sent his paper to The Journal of Political
Economy -- one professor told him he was crazy for even trying -- where it was
published. He completed his Ph.D. in three years, but because of his priorities,
he says, he was ''invisible'' to the faculty, ''a real zero.'' Then he stumbled
upon what he now calls the turning point in his career.

He had an interview for the Society of Fellows, the venerable intellectual
Harvard clubhouse that pays young scholars to do their own work, for three years,
with no commitments. Levitt felt he didn't stand a chance. For starters, he
didn't consider himself an intellectual. He would be interviewed over dinner by
the senior fellows, a collection of world-renowned philosophers, scientists and
historians. He worried he wouldn't have enough conversation for even the first
course.

Instead, he was on fire. Whatever subject came up -- the brain, ants, philosophy
-- he just happened to remember something pithy he'd read. His wit crackled as it
had never crackled before. When he told them about the two summers he spent
betting the horses back in Minnesota, they ate it up!

Finally -- disquietingly -- one of them said: ''I'm having a hard time seeing the
unifying theme of your work. Could you explain it?''

Levitt was stymied. He had no idea what his unifying theme was, or if he even had
one.

Amartya Sen, the future Nobel-winning economist, jumped in and neatly summarized
what he saw as Levitt's theme.

Yes, Levitt said eagerly, that's my theme.

Another fellow then offered another theme.

You're right, Levitt said, that's my theme.

And so it went, like dogs tugging at a bone, until the philosopher Robert Nozick
interrupted. If Levitt could have been said to have an intellectual hero, it
would be Nozick.

''How old are you, Steve?'' he asked.

''Twenty-six.''

Nozick turned to the other fellows: ''He's 26 years old. Why does he need to have
a unifying theme? Maybe he's going to be one of those people who's so talented he
doesn't need one. He'll take a question and he'll just answer it, and it'll be
fine.''

The University of Chicago's economics department had a famous unifying theme --
the Gospel of Free Markets, with a conservative twist -- and would therefore not
have seemed the most likely fit for Levitt. As he sees it, Chicago is about
theory, deep thinking and big ideas, while he is about empiricism, clever
thinking and ''cute but ultimately insubstantial ideas.''

But Chicago also had Gary Becker. To Levitt, Becker is the most influential
economist of the past 50 years. Long before it was fashionable, Becker brought
microeconomic theory to offbeat topics, the family and crime in particular. For
years, Becker was demonized -- a single phrase like ''the price of children''
would set off untold alarms. ''I took a lot of heat over my career from people
who thought my work was silly or irrelevant or not economics,'' Becker says. But
Chicago supported him; he persevered, winning the Nobel Prize in 1992; and he
became Steven Levitt's role model.

Becker told Levitt that Chicago would be a great environment for him. ''Not
everybody agrees with all your results,'' he said, ''but we agree what you're
doing is very interesting work, and we'll support you in that.''

Levitt soon found that the support at Chicago went beyond the scholarly. The year
after he was hired, his wife gave birth to their first child, Andrew. One day,
just after Andrew turned a year old, he came down with a slight fever. The doctor
diagnosed an ear infection. When he started vomiting the next morning, his
parents took him to the hospital. A few days later he was dead of pneumococcal
meningitis.

Amid the shock and grief, Levitt had an undergraduate class that needed teaching.
It was Gary Becker -- a Nobel laureate nearing his 70th birthday -- who sat in
for him. Another colleague, D. Gale Johnson, sent a condolence card that Levitt
still quotes from memory.

Levitt and Johnson, an agricultural economist in his 80's, began speaking
regularly. Levitt learned that Johnson's daughter was one of the first Americans
to adopt a daughter from China. Soon the Levitts adopted a daughter of their own,
whom they named Amanda. In addition to Amanda, they have since had a daughter,
now almost 3, and a son. But Andrew's death has played on, in various ways. They
have become close friends with the family of the little girl to whom they donated
Andrew's liver. (They also donated his heart, but that baby died.) And not
surprisingly for a scholar who pursues real-life subjects, the death also
informed Levitt's work.

He and Jeannette joined a support group for grieving parents. Levitt was struck
by how many children had drowned in swimming pools. They were the kinds of deaths
that don't make the newspaper -- unlike, for instance, a child who dies while
playing with a gun.

Levitt was curious and went looking for numbers that would tell the story. He
wrote up the results as an op-ed article for The Chicago Sun-Times. It featured
the sort of plangent counterintuition for which he has become famous: ''If you
own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100
times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.''

Trying to get his mind off death, Levitt took up a hobby: rehabbing and selling
old houses in Oak Park, where he lives. This experience has led to yet another
paper, about the real-estate market. It is his most Chicago-style paper yet, a
romp in price theory, a sign that the university's influence on him is perhaps as
strong as his influence on it. But Levitt being Levitt, it also deals with
corruption.

While negotiating to buy old houses, he found that the seller's agent often
encouraged him, albeit cagily, to underbid. This seemed odd: didn't the agent
represent the seller's best interest? Then he thought more about the agent's
role. Like many other ''experts'' (auto mechanics and stockbrokers come to mind),
a real-estate agent is thought to know his field far better than a lay person. A
homeowner is encouraged to trust the agent's information. So if the agent brings
in a low offer and says it might just be the best the homeowner can expect, the
homeowner tends to believe him. But the key, Levitt determined, lay in the fact
that agents ''receive only a small share of the incremental profit when a house
sells for a higher value.'' Like a stockbroker churning commissions or a bookie
grabbing his vig, an agent was simply looking to make a deal, any deal. So he
would push homeowners to sell too fast and too cheap.

Now if Levitt could only measure this effect. Once again, he found a clever
mechanism. Using data from more than 50,000 home sales in Cook County, Ill., he
compared the figures for homes owned by real-estate agents with those for homes
for which they acted only as agents. The agents' homes stayed on the market about
10 days longer and sold for 2 percent more.

Late on a summer afternoon, Levitt is in his office, deep inside one of the
university's Gothic behemoths. The ceiling is stained, the plaster around the
window crumbling. He is just back from sabbatical at Stanford, and his desk is a
holy mess: stacks of books and journals, a green sippy cup and a little orange
squeeze hippo.

This is his afternoon to meet with students. Levitt drinks a Mountain Dew and
talks softly. Some students come for research assignments, some for advice. One
has just written her undergraduate thesis: ''The Labor Market Consequence of
Graduating College in a Bad Economy.'' For a thesis, Levitt tells her, it's very
good. But now she wants to have it published.

''You write like a college student, and that's a problem,'' he says. ''The thing
is, you're telling a story. There's foreshadowing going on, all those tricks. You
want the reader going down a particular path so when they get the results, they
understand them and believe them. But you also want to be honest about your
weaknesses. People are much less harsh on weaknesses that are clear than
weaknesses that are hidden -- as they should be.''

Be honest about your weaknesses. Has there ever been a prize-winning scholar as
honest about his weaknesses as Steven Levitt? He doesn't understand economics, he
claims, or math. He's a little thinker in a world of big thinkers. He can't even
open a jar of spaghetti sauce at home, poor guy.

Friends say that Levitt's self-deprecation is as calculated as it is genuine.
Within academia, economists take pride in being the most cutthroat of a cutthroat
breed. Anyone who writes papers on ''Weakest Link'' (contestants discriminate
against Latino and elderly peers, Levitt concluded, but not blacks or women) and
sumo (to best manage their tournament rankings, wrestlers often conspire to throw
matches) had better not also be arrogant.

Or maybe it is not self-deprecation at all. Maybe it is self-flagellation. Maybe
what Steven Levitt really wants is to graduate from his ''silly'' and ''trivial''
and ''shallow'' topics.

He thinks he's onto something with a new paper about black names. He wanted to
know if someone with a distinctly black name suffers an economic penalty. His
answer -- contrary to other recent research -- is no. But now he has a bigger
question: Is black culture a cause of racial inequality or is it a consequence?
For an economist, even for Levitt, this is new turf -- ''quantifying culture,''
he calls it. As a task, he finds it thorny, messy, perhaps impossible and deeply
tantalizing.

Driving home to Oak Park that evening, his Cavalier glumly thrumming along the
Eisenhower Expressway, he dutifully addresses his future. Leaving academia for a
hedge fund or a government job does not interest him (though he might, on the
side, start a company to catch cheating teachers). He is said to be at the top of
every economics department's poaching list. But the tree he and Jeannette planted
when Andrew died is getting too big to move. You get the feeling he may stay at
Chicago awhile.

There are important problems, he says, that he feels ready to address.

For instance? ''Tax evasion. Money-laundering. I'd like to put together a set of
tools that lets us catch terrorists. I mean, that's the goal. I don't necessarily
know yet how I'd go about it. But given the right data, I have little doubt that
I could figure out the answer.''

It might seem absurd for an economist to dream of catching terrorists. Just as it
must have seemed absurd if you were a Chicago schoolteacher, called into an
office and told that, ahem, the algorithms designed by that skinny man with thick
glasses had determined that you are a cheater. And that you are being fired.
Steven Levitt may not fully believe in himself, but he does believe in this:
teachers and criminals and real-estate agents may lie, and politicians, and even
C.I.A. analysts. But numbers don't.

Stephen J. Dubner is the author, most recently, of ''Confessions of a
Hero-Worshiper.'' He is writing a book about the psychology of money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:24 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

>Michael or Ron wrote
>
>> Is Damien a US citizen? I was under the impression that he was
>> Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence' he
>> has over the American Justice system!
>
>Yes, he's Australian. I would not be surprised to find out
>that the U.S.

Damien specifically stated that his ethical duties require him to focus
his attention only on things that directly effect him or things has has
a direct effect over. My point in asking this is that if he is not a US
citizen, he has not control over our justice policies. So apparently he
just abandons his ethical foundations whenever its conducive to him
publicizing anything negative about the US.

has the highest or nearly the highest rate of
>incarceration in the industrialized world. First, the
>Americans can afford it; second, the police cannot simply take
>matters into their own hands and suppress crime themselves;
>third, the U.S. has (I would guess) a higher percentage of
>diversity than any other industrialized country; fourth, the
>U.S. locks up people for using drugs when it's not harming
>anyone except the user; fifth, U.S. liberals have fostered
>crime by attempting to deter and interfere with active
>prosecution of serious crime, e.g., being eager to let the
>most awful criminals go free on technicalities, in excess of
>that same tendency, say, in Britain.
>
>Lee
>
>

I agree completely, lest people think otherwise. I share many of Damien
and others criticisms of the US, as a libertarian, the majority of these
things are appaling. But I am skeptical of the actual number of people
in jail for merely using small amounts of drugs, while I am sure there
are some, I don't think the numbers are as high as opponents of drug
laws perpetuate. In either case, I disagree with criminilizing
victimless crimes.

I also would add to lees list the general cultural shifting of blame and
not taking responsibility for ones own actions that is being fostered in
much of the lower socio-economic brackets.

However, to toute this article 'land of the imprisoned' citing a study
which specifically DID NOT INCLUDE some of the Worst regimes in the
world is egregious!

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:53 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bell curve predictions

In a message dated 8/20/2003 8:46:18 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: I should post a piece on Levitt that I saw somewhere, probably on
the ex-list a few weeks ago.

Lee,
That turned out to be a great piece. The University of Chicago rides
again. I enjoyed reading his blurb about how if you have a gun in the house
and a swimming pool in the back yard the pool is a hundred times more likely to
kill a child than the gun is.
When I was in Navy flight school we were flying two planes for the
most part. The SNJ was a tried and true model renowned for its ability to
survive a crash. The T-28 was new and tended to come apart in a crash. Most of the
guys I flew with were more afraid of the T-28. Yet when the statistics were
in the frequency of crashes in the SNJ were supposed to be so much higher than
the T-28 that it actually killed more students in any given time period.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:11 AM
To: matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Michael writes

> Damien specifically stated that his ethical duties require him to focus
> his attention only on things that directly affect him or things has
> a direct effect over.

Weird. I thought I knew him.

> I am skeptical of the actual number of people in jail for merely
> using small amounts of drugs, while I am sure there are some,
> I don't think the numbers are as high as opponents of drug
> laws perpetuate. In either case, I disagree with criminilizing
> victimless crimes.

Hmm. That's interesting. I had heard that it is 50%, and it
is that figure you are skeptical of?

> I also would add to lees list the general cultural shifting of blame and
> not taking responsibility for ones own actions that is being fostered in
> much of the lower socio-economic brackets.

Yes.

> However, to toute this article 'land of the imprisoned' citing a study
> which specifically DID NOT INCLUDE some of the Worst regimes in the
> world is egregious!

Yep, somebody's ideological blinders are on full display.

Lee

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:17 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Michael writes

> Damien specifically stated that his ethical duties require him to focus
> his attention only on things that directly affect him or things has
> a direct effect over.

Weird. I thought I knew him.

Hmm. That's interesting. I had heard that it is 50%, and it
is that figure you are skeptical of?

> I also would add to lees list the general cultural shifting of blame and
> not taking responsibility for ones own actions that is being fostered in
> much of the lower socio-economic brackets.

Yes.

> However, to toute this article 'land of the imprisoned' citing a study
> which specifically DID NOT INCLUDE some of the Worst regimes in the
> world is egregious!

Yep, somebody's ideological blinders are on full display.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:17 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Misguided Intuition

Ron writes

> When I was in Navy flight school we were flying two planes for the
> most part. The SNJ was a tried and true model renowned for its ability to
> survive a crash. The T-28 was new and tended to come apart in a crash. Most of the
> guys I flew with were more afraid of the T-28. Yet when the statistics were
> in the frequency of crashes in the SNJ were supposed to be so much higher than
> the T-28 that it actually killed more students in any given time period.

I'm having difficulty understanding how people's intuition go
awry in cases like this. The new plane would have been "supposed"
to be better. Yet hundreds (?) of people gradually became afraid
of it. How could this happen?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:46 AM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Lee wrote:

"Michael or Ron wrote

> Is Damien a US citizen? I was under the impression that he was
> Australian. If that's the case, I wonder what 'direct influence'
> he has over the American Justice system!

Excellent observations, Lee. Of course, the issue here is not Damien's views on US drug laws. Most of those present on both the Eudaemonist and Extropian lists agree with a large part of what he is trying to say. However, like most liberal academics, Damien is more concerned with bashing the United States than beginning honest discussion on a legitimate topic of debate.

To start a thread called "Land of the Imprisoned", and then choose the United States as your subject matter because of their flawed yet well established drug laws is absurd. One need only look 90 miles south of Miami for a far more deserving nation of such a title.

Indeed, if I were given that title to work with and asked to choose a country that best fit that description, I would undoubtedly choose Laos, a nation not included in Mr. Broderick's survey of choice.

The Black Book of Communism estimates that between 1975-79, an almost unfathomable 15-20 percent of the entire population of Laos were political prisoners. Indeed, during the 1980s over ten percent of the entire country's populace emigrated from that tortured land. But, to my knowledge, none of them were incarcerated for smoking pot, so the grotesque nature of the Pathet Lao regime is of no concern to Mr. Broderick.

I must acknowledge that perhaps I am a biased observer, given I am not a recreational drug user but do enjoy my political and economic freedoms, something the people of Laos lack to this very second. I am nowhere near as concerned with Mr. Broderick's perceived atrocity in our "land of the imprisoned" as I am with the one in Southeast Asia. That is not to say that Damien is incorrect in seeking changes in our drug laws, but he and those like him will never gain nor deserve my support in their "efforts" so long as they continue to callously ignore and for all intents and purposes endorse the continued existance of state sanctioned mass murder and oppression.

Everyone's favorite (and slightly annoyed) anti-communist,

Will "Max Plumm" Stanley

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:53 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Mike wrote (but did not post to eudaemonists, perhaps due
to an oversight)

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But if there is no Natural Right or Natural Law to be
> > > violated or to use as a guidepost then we are the
> > > mercy of what ever any court, legislature or dictator
> > > tells us is the law.
> >
> > I don't understand. How are we not at the mercy of our
> > fellows one way or another? If the courts of the state
> > of California judge me guilty of crimes, then I am at
> > their mercy, natural rights or no, correct?
>
> Only so far as the courts are restricted in what they can do to you
> because they are constrained by Natural Rights theory embedded in the
> CA and US constitutions and associated precedents. Without such, they
> could impose the death penalty for jaywalking if they chose to, not let
> you defend yourself in court, not let you be judged by your peers,
> among other things.

I totally agree. Well, you may indeed be able to trace what
is embedded in our laws to a certain historical origin; I don't
think it matters. We *do* have those laws, we know they work
we understand why they, and we can even justify them in ordinary
language without appealing to anything suspect.

> > > But admittedly Natural Right or Law is "through a glass
> > > seen darkly." Still, it is the best we have.
> >
> > Of course, conservatives are always saying that without
> > religion a society crumbles away after a while, and liberals
> > are always saying that if behavior is proved to be mostly
> > genetic in origin, then Social Darwinism is proved, and
> > the weak will go to the wall.
>
> The liberals say a lot, and are generally wrong in every event.
> Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics at the macro level do not negate
> quantum indeterminism at the nano level, nor vice versa. The same can
> be said for Natural Law versus free will.

My point was that abandoning the Natural Law explanation
really won't do any harm. Just as (most likely) what those
conservatives and liberals above are saying is unfounded.

We come back to what evidence is there that such Natural Rights
or Law has any actual existence. By chance, I came across a
Hume quote:

Philosophers may, if they please, extend
their reasoning to the suppos'd *state of
nature* provide they allow it to be mere
philosophical fiction which never had and
never cou'd have any reality.

My book goes on to say "Lockean alternatives involve postulating
a state of nature in which anarchy is held in check by some a
priori system of "natural rights" or some "natural division of
goods". My reasons for rejecting such fictions as a basis for
discussions..."

I agree with the author.

> > Those dire predictions could turn out to be correct; who
> > really knows? It's all so complicated. But I don't think
> > so, and my intuition assures me that we will be okay
> > accepting, speaking, and defending the truth no matter
> > where it leads.
> >
> > Just how does denying Natural Law or "natural rights"
> > necessarily lead to trouble?
>
> When all rights are negotiable, then popular tyranny results in things
> like the French Revolution, Fascist Italy, and the Nazi Holocaust, all
> events which occurred as the result of election of despots to
> governments with no supermajority protections.

Hmm. Well, I would not agree to our legal rights of
private property and individual basic freedom being
negotiable. We have and will continue to have, I think,
most of these rights in the West, at least to the degree
that we resist socialism or religious meddling in them.

All I can imagine is that you must feel, along with Ron,
that it just *sounds* so much better to adopt the lofty
principle than giving genuine realistic arguments that
in this case the end justifies the means.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:48 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/20/2003 11:53:40 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: All I can imagine is that you must feel, along with Ron, that it
just *sounds* so much better to adopt the lofty principle than giving genuine
realistic arguments that in this case the end justifies the means.

Lee, etal,
Is it lofty to say with Rand that a mankind requires certain
conditions to be able to exist as men? Is it lofty to attempt to enumerate at least
roughly what those are? In the end we call those Natural Rights.
Did we receive them directly from God? No, God is conceived of as
supernatural, we are discussing the natural. Then from where do we derive
Natural Rights? We derive them from reason.
But above all there is nothing lofty about Natural Rights. Our
Natural Rights are about the nitty gritty of life -- our right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. They are about our right to live and not have a
majority of the populace decide the world would be so much better if we were
marched into a gas chamber.
Robert L. Humphrey said that one Natural Law is that every person on
Earth cares as much about their life and their family as we do ours. He used
that Law of Nature for years in his business of resolving conflict for the
State Department.
IMHO, the problem with Natural Rights is not that it is lofty but that
it is a living, breathing concept that was not handed down on tablets of
stone. We are still arguing out exactly what are our Natural Rights.
In the meantime the Hitlers, and others can make up very logical
sounding arguments why we should do as they wish. Those arguments can sometimes be
very convincing. IMHO again, I think those arguments are part of our process
for hammering out what Natural Rights are.
Folks, it hasn't been that long since as a species we thought it
natural to organize our men, run down the road to the next village, surprise them,
kill all the men and after looting them to take the fertile aged women home
with us as slaves and concubines. Somewhere, in my library is a book with a
painting of my viking ancestors. The painting shows a strong young viking just
starting out in life. He is apparently headed home after his first raid. He
has his arm around a comely young woman that is evidently his captive, she
looks woe be gone. He has stolen some food and drink. He is leading a chained
male captive who in turn is leading the family cow. Amidst all the misery the
young viking is as happy as a lark.
We aren't that far from barbarity. We are still getting a handle on
what Natural Law allows us to exist as a civilized people. Until a few years
ago, a couple of centuries, most people lived under a King or other tyrant.
Even today within our own country most people believe they need a leader to
provide them a decent life.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:21 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] The 1st Annual Membership Drive

How, does an outsider join this list? I have a girl buddy that is way too
smart for me to evaluate. LOL
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:02 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] The 1st Annual Membership Drive

Have her send an email to:

Eudaemonists-subscribe@matus1976.com

>
>How, does an outsider join this list? I have a girl buddy
>that is way too
>smart for me to evaluate. LOL
>Ron Harrison
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:07 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] The 1st Annual Membership Drive

Thank you, I have forwarded the info to my friend.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:25 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/21/2003 9:09:42 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: but you do not deny that you think that there are rhetorical
advantages to arguing for something we agree upon---say freedom. That is, you
will agree to with all my arguments, and then, in addition, say that it's also
Natural Law.

No, My Friend, I assure that was not intended to be a debating tactic. I
don't regard this discussion as a debate at all, or at least not in the sense we
debated back on the high school or college debate club.
I am no expert on the dialectic but but within my understanding of the
dialectic this is much closer to being that than a debate.
My understanding of a dialectic is a different type of debate where in
we both are trying to trap the truth between us and hammer out what that
truth is. Natural Law is a subject that I am interested in and trying to learn
something about. Currently I am reading, slowly, Leo Strauss' Natural Law and
History.
For me to attempt to introduce competitive debate tactics at this
point would be contrary to my motives.
Ron Harrison

More after reading the rest of your email.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:47 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/21/2003 9:09:42 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: This is new to me (never having been a great fan of Rand), and
interesting. Now first, I assume that you do *not* mean that a man in chains is
not a man.

Lee,
I think Rand would say that for man to live as a man he had the right
to reason and to live by the decisions of his reason. He also has the rights
to the fruits of his labor. In other words he has the right to his property
both physical and intellectual.
That man in chains is a man but he is not existing as a man in Rand's
viewpoint.
Now with that insightful mind of yours you will probably start testing
the boundaries of that definition. But, I am going to propose that Rand is
stating what seems to me to be a Natural Law, it is a product of reason and it
seems to me that reasoning out the limits of Natural Law is exactly what we
are about.
As to your question about when Natural Law came into existence. I
will tentatively take the position that Natural Law came into being as soon as
mankind became self aware, rational and started attempting to summarize what he
had learned about life. The process goes on.
As to Robert L. Humphrey's statement about Natural Law. Of course the
insane, the criminal and irrational have always been with us. We admit as
much when we say that all men at all time have not agreed with us. But most of
the people, most places and most times care as much for their lives and their
families as we do about ours.
"How many believe in Natural Law or Natural Rights?" I don't know. I
grew up knowing about it. As I have grown older I have had to revise my
thinking about Natural Law but it has always been there.
Ron Harrison.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:24 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Mao Ze Dong now up to 65 million?

In "The Blank Slate", Steven Pinker is crediting Mao
with "possibly sixty-five million" deaths. I thought
that the Great Leap Forward only got him up to about
30 million. What could he be talking about?

This is beyond Ghengis Khan's 60 million, and moves
Mao into #1 if true.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:35 PM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Mao Ze Dong now up to 65 million?

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> In "The Blank Slate", Steven Pinker is crediting Mao
> with "possibly sixty-five million" deaths. I thought
> that the Great Leap Forward only got him up to about
> 30 million. What could he be talking about?
>
> This is beyond Ghengis Khan's 60 million, and moves
> Mao into #1 if true.

First, you have the Revolution and associated purges and reeducation
camp deaths. You might also count the number of children killed as they
were born for being a second child, the number of female babies left
out to die, etc. Then you've got wars China has fought with the
Soviets, the Vietnamese, and with Taiwan. Plus ongoing executions.

The only reason China has fewer in prison than the US is because China
executes more...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 7:12 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Ron wrote

> lcorbin@tsoft.com writes:
> > but you do not deny that you think that there are rhetorical
> > advantages to arguing for something we agree upon---say freedom.
> > That is, you will agree to with all my arguments, and then, in
> > addition, say that it's also Natural Law.
>
> No, My Friend, I assure that was not intended to be a debating
> tactic. I don't regard this discussion as a debate at all, or
> at least not in the sense we debated back on the high school or
> college debate club.

One of us is probably misunderstanding the other.
Your earlier statement was something like "where
are we without Natural Law? What defense do we
have against injustice without it?"

I took that to mean that you saw Natural Law as
a powerful argument for us (civil libertarians)
to get our way.

Have you supposed that I thought that this was a
debate *between us*? The only thing, of course,
that *we* are debating is whether Natural Law
exists. Presumably we are not debating whether
it is an effective argument in our arsenal against
injustice.

(The reason for that is that I might very well
concede that it could be---many things that I
regard as invalid can nonetheless carry an argument
when people don't see through to its errors. And
you, since you see it as true, believe that whether
or not it would change minds, it should be said.
Therefore, we are not arguing its effectiveness,
(what I call its rhetorical advantages) as a tool
in our arsenal against anyone who would attack
our legal rights to private property, etc.)

> I am no expert on the dialectic but within my understanding of the
> dialectic this is much closer to being that than a debate.
> My understanding of a dialectic is a different type of debate where in
> we both are trying to trap the truth between us and hammer out what that
> truth is.

Yes--- 8^D although I have an aversion to any term
that was used by the dialectical materialists!
You won't find me talking about dialectrics except in
electrochemistry and physics. ;-)

> Natural Law is a subject that I am interested in and trying to
> learn something about. Currently I am reading, slowly, Leo
> Strauss' Natural Law and History.
> For me to attempt to introduce competitive debate
> tactics at this point would be contrary to my motives.

Yeah, well, I guess that you thought that I meant our little
debate here.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 7:42 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Land of the imprisoned

Max Plumm wrote

> Of course, the issue here is not Damien's views on US drug laws.
> Most of those present on both the Eudaemonist and Extropian lists
> agree with a large part of what he is trying to say. However, like
> most liberal academics, Damien is more concerned with bashing the
> United States than beginning honest discussion on a legitimate
> topic of debate.

It is necessary to arrive at the best possible explanation
for hostility against the U.S. that we can. One important
point is effectiveness of criticism:

In game theory, he who is successfully able to deliver an
ultimatum first has an advantage. It places the other
entity in a "take it or leave it" position. The deliverer
of the ultimatum psychologically goes on record as being
immune to threat, and as having made a commitment that
will not be shaken by any further negotiation.

(A related example was Reagan's intransigence towards the
Soviet Union. They knew, both from his background and
even his religious leanings, that he would not hesitate
to blow them to smithereens if the situation called for
it. In this sense, Reagan was a doomsday device---it
would retaliate regardless of cost. This increased his
bargaining position considerably, something that liberals
understand very well when they think, for instance, about
labor vs. management struggles, but for some reason which
escapes me are unlikely to apply it to international
conflict.)

So the factor that I am talking about is really a rather
obvious one: criticism directed against the United States
has a chance of being effective, whereas it is obvious
that criticism directed against Castro or the rulers of
Laos is so much wasted breath.

A second factor, of course, is polarization. Why expend
energy denouncing X when in your opinion X is already
being denounced by your usual political adversaries?

A third reason is fear of the most powerful nation on
Earth. From its trade policies to its international
stance on issues---including hardball politics---those
not on America's side have an incentive to see its
position weakened, even if they are also not on the
side of America's enemies.

> To start a thread called "Land of the Imprisoned",
> and then choose the United States as your subject
> matter because of their flawed yet well established
> drug laws is absurd. One need only look 90 miles
> south of Miami for a far more deserving nation of
> such a title. Indeed, if I were given that title
> to work with and asked to choose a country that
> best fit that description, I would undoubtedly
> choose Laos, a nation not included in Mr. Broderick's
> survey of choice.

Yes: at this point logic should "grab you by the throat"
and create a dissonance that causes you to rethink. That
it fails to do so can only be explained (I surmise) by
continuing the list of possible reasons behind anti-U.S.
sentiment.

Fourth, many people (like those who resent Bill Gates
because he has so much money) fall prey to an instinctive
envy of those more successful than they are. I do not
yet understand the evolutionary origin of this feeling.
But anyone afflicted by it who is not an American will
resent America all the more for its accomplishments,
power, and influence.

Fifth, a legacy of the 20th century enamorization with
the Blank Slate is a desire for unrealistic perfectibility
of man, and of nations. Thus utopian schemes for how the
world should be are naturally addressed to those who have
(it is thought, mistakenly) the power to make it so.
Therefore, just as if one were living in a small village
with an immensely large and commanding individual, one
would tend to be constantly asking, "Why doesn't Goliath
do this or do that, and make everything better?" Folks on
both sides think like this, and so do I. "Why didn't the
U.S. just invade Cuba?", or "Why doesn't the U.S. just
depose Saddam Hussein by force?" are actions that I thought
might lead to a better world. But some, falsely believing
that idealistic and unrealistic action by the U.S. would
make the world better, naturally resent the U.S.'s inaction
towards total world peace, brotherhood, and friendship of
all peoples.

These five reasons are the only ones that I can think of
at present. Anyone have any more?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 8:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/23/2003 6:12:15 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Yeah, well, I guess that you thought that I meant our little
debate here.

Lee,
Yep, I sure did. I saw too much debating for the sake of debate over
on that other list. I don't want to use those tactics on anyone.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 8:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

In a message dated 8/23/2003 6:57:09 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Well, of course, you know now that I was not calling your remarks
debating tactics.

No, but then again the subject of Natural Rights do wander close to debating
tactics. I did contend that without the concept of Natural Rights we would be
deprived of a powerful tool against real world totalitarians.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:52 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Ron writes

> Right, and I was saying that such a "tool", if you don't believe
> in it, is nothing more than a debating tactic.
>
> Lee,
> That is possible, one could say that however it is not a mere debating
> tactic if the user acts out in such a way as to make it apparent the user
> believes Natural Law exists.

Right.

> Serious people have expressed belief that our government is based on a
> natural law -- that man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness.
> Some of those people have pointed out that we have gotten big time
> trouble everytime the U. S. has failed to follow through on those rights.

Yes, every retreat away from (legal) property rights and (legal)
individual rights has always proven to be harmful. We differ only
on whether Natural Rights actually exist or not.

> I do not have to believe in the Communist Manifesto or even to have
> read it to observe there are those that have read the CM and apparently believe
> it. As to whether they truly believe it or or using the CM as a debating
> tactic I cannot say.

I'm not sure what anyone's motive would be to claim that
they believe Marx without actually believing in Marx.
After all, his reputation is not what it once was!

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 2:05 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Mike Lorrey writes, in full:

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > Ron writes
> >
> > > Serious people have expressed belief that our
> > > government is based on a natural law -- that
> > > man has a right to life, liberty and the
> > > pursuit of happiness.
> > > Some of those people have pointed out tha
> > > we have gotten big time trouble everytime
> > > the U. S. has failed to follow through on those
> > > rights.
> >
> > Yes, every retreat away from (legal) property rights and (legal)
> > individual rights has always proven to be harmful. We differ only
> > on whether Natural Rights actually exist or not.
>
> Yes. The problem is that every society that has failed to believe in
> natural rights has drifted toward, or become outright, tyrannically
> ruled. Shouldn't you therefore use these datapoints from history to
> demonstrate that there is a natural law about believing in natural
> law???? ;)

What societies (would you say) have believed in Natural Rights?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 11:51 AM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Ron writes (to me, offlist, although I think that was an
accident)

> [Lee writes]
> > Mike Lorrey wrote [to me, offlist, although I think that too was an accident]
> > > [Lee wrote]
> > > > Yes, every retreat away from (legal) property rights and (legal)
> > > > individual rights has always proven to be harmful. We differ only
> > > > on whether Natural Rights actually exist or not.

> > > Yes. The problem is that every society that has failed to believe in
> > > natural rights has drifted toward, or become outright, tyrannically
> > > ruled. Shouldn't you therefore use these datapoints from history to
> > > demonstrate that there is a natural law about believing in natural
> > > law???? ;)
> >
> > What societies (would you say) have believed in Natural Rights?
>
> Lee,
> Most of Western Civilization. But Lee I get the idea that you
> are turning Natural Rights or Natural Law into more than it is.

Well, first, just to keep the conversation clear, Mike said
that every society that has failed to believe in natural
rights has drifted towards tyranny.

Now, which of the following does that mean?

A. Western societies that initially believed in
Natural Rights, but then became decadent, and
went into tyranny, or
B. Failed from the outset to announce the doctrine
of Natural Rights, and so began and remained in
a state of tyranny

I don't think too well in the abstract without examples. I don't
even know what it means for sure for a *society* to believe in something;
I do know what it means for an individual to believe something.
The possibilities are endless: it could mean that a small ruling
elite believes in Natural Law, or it could mean that they act as
if they do; or it could mean that the mass of the people has heard
of the phrase "Natural Law" and goes along with the general idea
(much as---for example---they believe in "Freedom of the Press"
in the USA).

So which is it, A or B, (or something else, e.g., C)?

> If you personally got fascinated with the concept of Natural Rights
> and what those are you could probably come up with the statement of
> one or two laws that seem to stand the test of reason and such
> experience as history provides us. That is all Natural Rights are.

Well, I'm not (at this time) fascinated with the concept, so it
would be better if you came up with the statement of one or two
laws.

> Thomas Jefferson thought out of his knowledge that we had three
> rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- furthermore
> that these were inalienable. A lot of people did and do agree.

Well, hardly anyone knows what "inalienable" means. I, for example,
had to look it up. I believe that in the English speaking countries
most people believe that we ought to have those rights enshrined in law,
but I doubt that most people believe that they are "natural" in any way,
except, perhaps "to be normal or ordinary".

And those rights, for the most part (unless some liberal starts
interpreting the law) *are* on the law books. It's much the same
in France and Germany, and so on, but slightly weaker as you go
down the list. I have heard, for example, that no German actually
owns his home; in effect, he leases it from the government.

Here is what our earlier exchange about its meaning yielded:

> > [Lee wrote]
> > > "Inalienable" means (I just looked it up) "not
> > > subject to forfeiture", not transferable...
> > > Just read a little history and you'll see how
> > > *alienable* any rights, legal or otherwise,
> > > actually are!
> > >
> > > What causes even the most intelligent among us
> > > to misspeak about important issues???
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> [Mike replied]
> > You are missing the legal application of 'inalienable'. While
> > *exercise* of such rights make be prevented by any application
> > of force, that does not negate that human beings still have
> > such rights as an inherent property of their existence.
[Lee replied]
> You will admit that *rights* are an abstraction.
> You will concede that they have no identifiable or tangible
> existence. For me, properties can be said to exist when the
> meaning of words invariably points to something identifiable
> in the universe. Hence, for example, a rock can have an attribute
> of hardness (when compared to grass, for example), or a human
> being can be held to have the attribute of intelligence (when
> compared to a rodent). You will fail to find upon the closest
> examination of any human such a property as a "right".

[Mike replied]
On the contrary, you can discern many natural rights resulting from
properties of human beings. This was first formulated by Aristotle's
dialogues long ago.
For example, we have the ability to speak and communicate, and to
choose to not speak, we therefore have a right to speak as well as to
choose to be silent.
Humans are generally gregarious, social animals, and are able to choose
what other humans to socialize with, therefore they have a right to
associate, and to choose who to associate with.
To quote Aristotle,"Man has neither claw, nor fang, nor stinger, nor
hoof. He has only the hand. Any weapon or tool which he can wield with
the hand is his natural right." (ergo rights to keep and bear arms and
to use technology).
Human beings are alive, and therefore have a right to life.
I can go on and on, but you get the gist.

Well, that didn't seem too logical to me and so I responded (see my
post sent Mon 8/18/2003 9:10 PM) that this would seem to mean that
any activity that we were capable of (which did not interfere with
the "rights" of others) we had a "right" to do, and I gave some
examples (perhaps not all of them strong) where this seemed to me
awkward.

So we may be right back where we started.

> I always agreed with the Libertarians that property rights had no
> restrictions in theory. Lately I have been reading the thoughts
> of the Late Scholastic Fathers on capitalism and property rights.
> They saw a major limitation. I am working my way through their insights.

The Late Scholastic Fathers? Who were they? Medieval churchmen?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:06 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Rights and Approval

Like I've said many times, on several lists, it always seems both
dangerous and unproductive to speak of "rights" in the abstract.
(This includes, of course, "Natural Rights".) Legal rights, them
I understand. But I have never been able to pin down what it means
for X to have a right to do Y.

All my life, I have suspected that this really boiled down to no
more than "I approve of X being permitted by others to do Y"
But I have mellowed, and I now see that it also means "Our traditions
suggest that it is best (will have the best results) for X being
able to do Y".

But it sounds so much better to assert with fire in one's eyes
"I have a *right* to do X!". Or "they have a *right* to do X".

Ron now brings up an interesting case:

> Just as Ayn Rand had the drowning man example they had the starving
> man example. What if a starving man is in the middle of no where
> and finds a stash of MREs left by someone? They say if it is a
> matter of life or death the starving man has a right to those MREs.

The abstract "right" again ;-) I merely say that I would
approve that he eat them before he starves. If the owner
is civilized, he'll understand, although of course, as you
say, the man ought to pay him back.

> They add that possession transfers but not ownership. In other
> words you have a right to eat as necessary to your survival but
> then you are obligated to pay for the MREs as quickly as possible.
> Nothing will relieve you from the obligation to pay if that is
> possible. Are they stating a Natural Right?

Maybe. For all those who like to use the concept "right" as
an abstract noun, what about a starving man who breaks into a
bakery to get bread to feed his starving children? Does he
have a right to do that?

I am sorry for anyone who tries to answer that question. Phrased
with that (to me) ridiculous word "right", it must be quite a
problem.

It's not too much easier for me, though: Do I approve of the
man stealing food for his starving family? No, I do not approve.
People must be entreated to always obey the law. There must always
be punishments for those who do not (unless the entire edifice is
so corrupt that you must become a rebel or revolutionary).

I think that I have an even tougher problem IMO than these, that I
will post later when I have time.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:04 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

Guys, I goofed

In a message dated 8/24/2003 1:04:56 AM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: What societies (would you say) have believed in Natural Rights?

Lee,
Most of Western Civilization. But Lee I get the idea that you are
turning Natural Rights or Natural Law into more than it is.
If you personally got fascinated with the concept of Natural Rights
and what those are you could probably come up with the statement of one or two
laws that seem to stand the test of reason and such experience as history
provides us. That is all Natural Rights are.
Thomas Jefferson thought out of his knowledge that we had three
rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- furthermore that these were
unalienable. A lot of people did and do agree.
I always agreed with the Libertarians that property rights had no
restrictions in theory. Lately I have been reading the thoughts of the Late
Scholastic Fathers on capitalism and property rights. They saw a major limitation.
I am working my way through their insights.
Just as Ayn Rand had the drowning man example they had the starving
man example. What if a starving man is in the middle of no where and finds a
stash of MREs left by someone? They say if it is a matter of life or death the
starving man has a right to those MREs. They add that possesion transfers but
not ownership. In other words you have a right to eat as necessary to your
survival but then you are obligated to pay for the MREs as quickly as possible.
Nothing will relieve you from the obligation to pay if that is possible.
Are they stating a Natural Right?
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 4:05 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Inalienable Rights

And another one, I think

In a message dated 8/23/2003 7:09:10 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Right, and I was saying that such a "tool", if you don't believe
in it, is nothing more than a debating tactic.

Lee,
That is possible, one could say that however it is not a mere debating
tactic if the user acts out in such a way as to make it apparent the user
believes Natural Law exists.
Serious people have expressed belief that our government is based on a
natural law -- that man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
Some of those people have pointed out that we have gotten big time
trouble everytime the U. S. has failed to follow through on those rights.
I do not have to believe in the Communist Manifesto or even to have
read it to observe there are those that have read the CM and apparently believe
it. As to whether they truly believe it or or using the CM as a debating
tactic I cannot say. I know of no way to discover what a person is thinking
inside their own head.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 10:44 AM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Rights and Approval

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> Like I've said many times, on several lists, it always seems both
> dangerous and unproductive to speak of "rights" in the abstract.
> (This includes, of course, "Natural Rights".) Legal rights, them
> I understand. But I have never been able to pin down what it means
> for X to have a right to do Y.
>
> All my life, I have suspected that this really boiled down to no
> more than "I approve of X being permitted by others to do Y"
> But I have mellowed, and I now see that it also means "Our traditions
> suggest that it is best (will have the best results) for X being
> able to do Y".

How about scientific observation, surveys, sampling, etc all suggest
that it is best. Human behavior, being evolved through our DNA and
learned through interaction with the physical world, is shaped by the
laws of physics by which our universe functions. That behavior which is
necessary for an individual to live, build, procreate, etc. while
causing the least harm to other humans defines what is a natural right.

Natural rights as their recognition evolved in the Enlightenment
originated in the application of classical knowledge (i.e. Aristotle,
et al) to european observations of new world cultures, specifically
that of the North American Indian. They saw the Indian as a 'noble
savage' existing in a 'state of nature'. English and French
Enlightenment philosophers specifically focused in on the Iroquois
Confederation, a pre-colonial democratic confederated government of
several Iroquois tribes stretching across northern New York, Vermont,
New Hampshire, Maine, Quebec and Ontario.

>
> But it sounds so much better to assert with fire in one's eyes
> "I have a *right* to do X!". Or "they have a *right* to do X".
>
> Ron now brings up an interesting case:
>
> > Just as Ayn Rand had the drowning man example they had the starving
> > man example. What if a starving man is in the middle of no where
> > and finds a stash of MREs left by someone? They say if it is a
> > matter of life or death the starving man has a right to those MREs.
>
> The abstract "right" again ;-) I merely say that I would
> approve that he eat them before he starves. If the owner
> is civilized, he'll understand, although of course, as you
> say, the man ought to pay him back.
>
> > They add that possession transfers but not ownership. In other
> > words you have a right to eat as necessary to your survival but
> > then you are obligated to pay for the MREs as quickly as possible.
> > Nothing will relieve you from the obligation to pay if that is
> > possible. Are they stating a Natural Right?
>
> Maybe. For all those who like to use the concept "right" as
> an abstract noun, what about a starving man who breaks into a
> bakery to get bread to feed his starving children? Does he
> have a right to do that?

*Initiation* of force is never warranted. Did the starving man first
approach the baker with the story of his plight and ask for bread? Did
he offer to work for the baker or find other means of compensating him?
Use of force is only warranted when the individual has been forcibly
debarred of any means of sustenance, survival, or endurance of their
way of life.
If such occurs, then the starving individuals rights have been violated
and unless there is some means of legal redress, force would then be warranted.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:19 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Hello

Hey guys,
Anyone awake out there?
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 12:58 AM
To: Dehede011@aol.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Hello

Busy week, personally. I haven't been able to focus on futuristic issues. Also, the powerlessness of anyone to influence policy; seems a bit off-putting. I believe that the partial implosion of the old Extropian list has been a feature of Time. The grandiosity of a new technological era, as depicted by K. Eric Drexler, has not yet occured. This prediction was one of the chief concepts in Extropianism; miraculous happenings in material science, and miraculous developments in energy. As seen, by some young'ins from the early 1990's Wasn't the future wonderful? ;-)

Mitch
From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:38 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Hello

Yes, still awake. Still thinking about Mike Lorrey's most
recent post.

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:19 PM
> To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
> Subject: [eudaemonists] Hello
>
>
> Hey guys,
> Anyone awake out there?
> Ron Harrison
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:48 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] When the Future Will Happen

Mitch writes

> Busy week, personally. I haven't been able to focus on futuristic issues. Also, the powerlessness of anyone to influence policy;
seems a bit off-putting. I believe that the partial implosion of the old Extropian list has been a feature of Time. The grandiosity
of a new technological era, as depicted by K. Eric Drexler, has not yet occurred. This prediction was one of the chief concepts in
Extropianism; miraculous happenings in material science, and miraculous developments in energy. As seen, by some young'ins from the
early 1990's Wasn't the future wonderful? ;-) <

"Partial implosion"? What happened? Or are you just talking about
events over the last year?

It is true that Drexler was way optimistic (or in the fashionable
lingo "pessimistic") about when nanotech would come. I was in
the audience at a Foresight convention in 1994, and vividly remember
him saying that some of the children in the audience might
be young enough to experience a singularity and puberty at the
same time. In other words, as I calculated at the time, somewhere
around 2006.

Even back then I was skeptical. In 1990, Foresight sent everyone
a form letter asking them to guess the dates of the advent of
nanotech (i.e., a general-assembler). I wrote back submitting
my guess of 2050. (At the same time, I predicted that I shall be
resurrected from cryonic sleep about 2061.)

The general-assembler required General AI. If anything, I have
become more optimistic about the tech since then. I now join a
lot of people in guessing 2040.

It doesn't seem fair to say that the future won't happen, just
that the folks who believed it was going to happen real soon were
wrong. I still bet on 2040 or 2050.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 6:39 AM
To: lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] When the Future Will Happen

Lee:
<<"Partial implosion"? What happened? Or are you just talking about
events over the last year?>>

What I guess happended, and a guess is all it is, is that several of the Extrope list doyens; got upset with the topical content of the list, including Mike Lorrey's nationalism, and kicked him.

Lee:
<<It is true that Drexler was way optimistic (or in the fashionable
lingo "pessimistic") about when nanotech would come. I was in
the audience at a Foresight convention in 1994, and vividly remember
him saying that some of the children in the audience might
be young enough to experience a singularity and puberty at the
same time. In other words, as I calculated at the time, somewhere
around 2006.

It must have been easy to view everything in a super-optimistic viewn back then.
Ten years ago merely knowledge of what nanofabrication portended; must've made people giddy. Unfortunately, the stairway upwards is harder! Similar to Rudy Rucker's "Climbing Mount On." This is an imaginary mathematical description of a team of climbers who eternally climb an infinite series of cliffs and meadows. Ever notice in a 1950 Bugs Bunney cartoon, featuring Elmer Fudd, that the buildings in the background of their chase still look "futuristic" ? ;-)

<<It doesn't seem fair to say that the future won't happen, just
that the folks who believed it was going to happen real soon were
wrong. I still bet on 2040 or 2050.

Lee>>

Well, depending on how we might calculate actual technical progress; we may as well transpose those numbers. 2400 or 2500, or for that matter 4200 or 5200. It all depends on what one is refering to. A nanorefabricated earthly paradise, Drexler-style
might take anywhere from 30 to 300 years (starting in 1985). The capability to reform Venus into another earth, using nanotech; may be 1200 to 2500 years. I am just pulling those figure out of the air. This is all barring a Singularity, or some other fantastic development. Aren't you glad you stayed awake for that one? :-)

Mitch

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 6:52 AM
To: mlorrey@yahoo.com; lcorbin@tsoft.com; eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Bright Script Kid

Imagine what social upheavel a programmer analyst or a software engineer could do if they were ticked off? This is just a teenager, supposedly. Too weird. Perhaps, also, Business is building their future on a volcano ledge.

<<WASHINGTON (Aug. 29) - U.S. cyber investigators have identified a teenager as one author of a damaging virus-like infection unleashed weeks ago on the Internet and plan to arrest him early Friday, a U.S. official confirmed.

The 18-year-old was accused of writing a version of the damaging ''Blaster'' computer infection that spread quickly across the Internet, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official asked that further identifying information about the teenager not be disclosed until the arrest.

Further details were expected to be disclosed Friday by the FBI and U.S. attorney's office in Seattle, which has been leading the investigation.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office there, John Hartingh, said there had been ''no arrest made in this matter yet.'' He declined to comment further.

A witness reportedly saw the teen testing the infection and called authorities, the official said.>>

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:04 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Have a cow, man!

This is more of a curiosity, or is it a practical advance?

<<The Associated Press
Originally published August 28, 2003, 2:28 PM EDT

To stop a recurring tumor, cardiac surgeons removed a woman's heart and rebuilt its upper chambers with cow and human tissue in what the surgeons are calling a first-of-its-kind operation.

The University of Maryland Medical Center surgeons, Dr. James Gammie and Dr. Bartley Griffith, hope the operation will enable other patients with heart tumors to avoid heart transplants.

"I think that the interesting part about this is there are a lot of patients with heart cancers that we frankly have given up on, or have been unsuccessful in treating, with even aggressive removal of tissue," Griffith said today.

A heart transplant may have cured the problem. But the surgeons said it's better for a patient to keep his or her own heart. That's because of the possibility of organ rejection, the need to take anti-rejection drugs, and a 50 percent average 10-year survival rate for heart transplant recipients.

It was the fourth time 46-year-old Sandra Lanier, of Ware, Mass., had open heart surgery and, hopefully, the last.

"It was rough, but, hey, I made it through," Lanier said, sitting in a wheelchair at the University of Maryland Medical Center.

She could be discharged within days, less than two weeks after the 12-hour operation, Gammie said.

Lanier suffered from a rare form of a benign, but potentially deadly, tumor called myxoma in her left atrium.

Her first heart tumor was removed in 1997 in the upper part of her heart when Gammie was a doctor at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

But the tumor returned in 1999, 2001 and again this year.

This time, Gammie decided to try the procedure.

"It was certainly a more radical approach, and we felt that it was worth the slightly additional risk because each time we go back with a conventional operation it gets more and more dangerous," Gammie said.

Lanier's surgeons expect she will make a full recovery.

The tumor was deep in Lanier's chest, so the surgeons removed her heart for several hours, as if they were doing a heart transplant. During that time, Lanier was connected to a heart-lung machine.

Her heart was placed in an ice bath, where it was worked on for about five and a half hours before being sewed back into her chest.

During the operation, Gammie took out the remaining atrial tissue and used cow tissue to replace the back portion of the atria and line up the pulmonary veins so they could be reattached to the heart.

Meanwhile, Griffith rebuilt Lanier's atria with a combination of animal and human tissue. That created bag-like receptacles to channel blood returning to the lungs into the heart's main pumping chambers.

Griffith said the animal and human tissue knitted together nicely with the remaining half of her own heart.

There is still a risk of blood clots in the rebuilt atria, and Lanier will take blood thinners to reduce the risk. The surgeons also implanted a permanent pacemaker to maintain adequate heartbeat.

Lanier has been diagnosed with a syndrome called "Carney Complex," a hereditary disorder that involves recurrent atrial myxomas. Researchers have identified only about 400 people in the world with the illness.

Griffith said last week's surgery built on his experience with a similar procedure in Pittsburgh three years ago, when he removed a woman's left atrium and created a new one using cow tissue.>>

From: matus [matus@matus1976.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:51 AM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Hello

I was driving across country to San Diego for the past week, with no
internet access, but I am back now.

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:38 AM
>To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
>Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Hello
>
>
>Yes, still awake. Still thinking about Mike Lorrey's most recent post.
>
>Lee
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dehede011@aol.com [mailto:Dehede011@aol.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:19 PM
>> To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
>> Subject: [eudaemonists] Hello
>>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>> Anyone awake out there?
>> Ron Harrison
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
>> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
>For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:11 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Rights and Approval

Mike writes

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > Like I've said many times, on several lists, it always seems both
> > dangerous and unproductive to speak of "rights" in the abstract.
> > (This includes, of course, "Natural Rights".) Legal rights, them
> > I understand. But I have never been able to pin down what it means
> > for X to have a right to do Y.
> >
> > All my life, I have suspected that this really boiled down to no
> > more than "I approve of X being permitted by others to do Y"
> > But I have mellowed, and I now see that it also means "Our traditions
> > suggest that it is best (will have the best results) for X being
> > able to do Y".
>
> How about scientific observation, surveys, sampling, etc all suggest
> that it is best? Human behavior, being evolved through our DNA and
> learned through interaction with the physical world, is shaped by the
> laws of physics by which our universe functions.

I never point out to anyone that the laws of physics are fundamental
unless something they have said appears to indicate that they are
unaware of it, or are appealing to something independent of physics,
and at odds with it.

However, not to interrupt the flow of your argument:

> How about scientific observation, surveys, sampling, etc all suggest
> that it is best?

Quite right. To rephrase and reiterate my claim,

[Lee's claim:]

When people say X has a right to do Y, all that they
can charitably be taken to mean is "I approve of X being
permitted by others to do Y, and that our traditions and
scientific knowledge suggest that humans in the end will
benefit most by allowing X to do Y (in general)."

But again ;-) not to interrupt the flow of your argument:

> How about scientific observation, surveys, sampling, etc all suggest
> that it is best? Human behavior, being evolved through our DNA and
> learned through interaction with the physical world, is shaped by
> the laws of physics by which our universe functions. That behavior
> which is necessary for an individual to live, build, procreate, etc. while
> causing the least harm to other humans defines what is a natural right.

All right---is it true that you have now defined a *natural right* to
be a human behavior? Specifically, a behavior that allows individuals
to prosper, benefit, and flourish? (With minimal cost to others, as
you have said, of course.)

I can hardly disagree with a definition! Especially since I definitely
believe behaviors exist (i.e., are real phenomena).

> Natural rights as their recognition evolved in the Enlightenment
> originated in the application of classical knowledge (i.e. Aristotle,
> et al) to European observations of new world cultures, specifically
> that of the North American Indian.

We know now, of course, that the Europeans were grossly mistaken
about that, and were projecting their own fantasies and inner
ideals on what they were seeing. Still, of course, sometimes
truths are learned historically from at the time unjustified
premises, and only later properly understood.

> They saw the Indian as a 'noble savage' existing in a 'state of
> nature'. English and French Enlightenment philosophers specifically
> focused in on the Iroquois Confederation, a pre-colonial democratic
> confederated government of several Iroquois tribes stretching across
> northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Quebec and Ontario.

Yes. Perhaps the Iroquois early enough in their history were
not the rapacious, unbelievably brutal savages (even by primitive
standards), that they were to become by 1700 (?) or so. Perhaps
the Europeans weren't aware of their systematic atrocities,
especially against other tribes. Or, simply, perhaps the Europeans
were just blind.

More in other posts about (i) defining natural law the way you
have (ii) the ethics, morals, and approval we might have for
desperate people breaking the law (e.g., a starving man stealing
bread for his children).

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:30 PM
To: eudaemonists@matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Advantages and Disadvantages of Monolithic Viewpoint

I have an urge to invite Jef Albright to this list. (For the
time being, I think it of course necessary to *suggest* someone
to Michael, and have him decide in whatever way he'd like.)

However, I am not sure what his politics are.

On the one hand, huge amounts of time are wasted explaining
how the free market works, how it was that liberals came to
be deceived by a lot of 20th century anthropology, Marxist
influence, and so on, and all the bad consequences of liberal
policies in Western nations. Writing these explanations can
sometimes be annoying as well as a waste of time, depending
(perhaps) on the personality of the dissenter.

On the other hand, some of Max Plumm's and Michael's most
brilliant expositions of Communist and Socialist shortcomings
would not have occurred without the stimulus of dissenting views.
Often one arrives at a deeper understanding by being forced to
carefully explain rigorously what one intuits.

Yet again, it can be psychologically liberating to imagine
one's audience to be those who already accept one's own
societally controversial opinion on something. Because
the other people already do, it seems (to me) that one
is quite a bit more uninhibited in focusing on the deeper
implications of one's views.

Does this seem to lay out the tradeoffs correctly, or can
you think of anything else?

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 5:55 PM
To: Eudaemonists@Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Rights and Approval

Mike wrote

> That [human] behavior which is necessary for an individual
> to live, build, procreate, etc. while causing the least
> harm to other humans defines what is a natural right.

Assuming that indeed you are defining a natural right as
a human behavior with those properties, it does indeed
make the notion concrete enough for me. All that remains
is to check whether it can be read as being used in that
sense in the literature.

(After all, there is hardly any point to defining *blue*
as the color seen as sunset, when most people will stubbornly
cling to calling that color *red* and even more obstinately
refuse to accept that this color can also be called "blue".)

I'll keep my eyes open for cases that will help confirm or
deny your usage.

Meanwhile, I wonder if there are any peculiar or grating
consequences of this definition, given future technological
possibilities. Now at present, it is indeed true, that most
utilitarian causes are maximally fostered by our embracing
and safeguarding what you call natural rights.

But I can imagine that it was possible in theory that just
as human beings can learn unnatural behavior, like riding
a bicycle, speaking Latin, living in space, and so on, people
*could* have learned to be good communists. I think that the
Russians had a pretty good go at it; when then Soviet Union
fell, there was no particular rejoicing in the streets so far
as I am aware.

And it *could* have turned out that communism---involving huge
amounts of slave labor---could accomplish some massive collective
efforts that would have produced vast wealth. (I admit that this
is a stretch.) But the point is that your criteria

> to live, build, procreate, etc. while causing the least
> harm to other humans defines what is a natural right.

might have been met by denying the individual and legal rights
to private property, freedom of expression, freedom of association,
the "inalienable" rights, and so on. If it had turned out that way,
then I guess that you would have admitted that natural rights
just turned out to be inferior choices for us, just as it turned
out that natural vision is inferior to spectacles, binoculars,
and telescopes. Just a thought.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe@matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help@matus1976.com