Been a while since I posted anything. Developments:
1. bought a house
2. working on the home Oracle lab
2a. got Oracle8i (8.1.7) and 9i (9.0.1) up
2b. upgraded to 1 GB of memory on the DB server machine
2c. got a bunch of Quest tools on trial -- need to use in next white paper
2d. discovered important differences between ANALYZE TABLE and DBMS_STATS approach.
Still no projects for me. Grumpy.
Thursday, December 20, 2001
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
Women Against Gun Control
Interesting group for... well, the title says it all pretty much. I joined.
Interesting group for... well, the title says it all pretty much. I joined.
Monday, October 01, 2001
Ground Zero and the Saudi connection is another example of brilliant British journalism, this time on the roots of bin Laden's religous extremism.
Friday, September 28, 2001
Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 is a nice bit of the Digital National Security Archive -- very cool.
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
Monday, August 27, 2001
CCOPS: Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States links to three news stories about corrupt or dishonest cops who send innocent people to prison, steal from people, and misuse their positions for personal gain.
Friday, August 03, 2001
I really need to fight this idiocy:
Justice Dept. Outlines Challenges of Serving Gun Victims
U.S. Newswire
31 Jul 17:35
Justice Dept. Outlines Challenges of Serving Victims of Gun
Violence; Bulletin Makes Recommendations, Describes Programs
To: National Desk
Contact: Office for Victims of Crime, 202-307-0703
WASHINGTON, July 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The unique nature of gun
violence presents specific challenges in helping victims, according
to a new Justice Department bulletin. Efforts to assist victims of
gun violence must take into account the fear, anger and
hopelessness that many of these victims experience.
The bulletin, "Working With Victims of Gun Violence", recommends
that programs for victims of gun violence be broad-based,
comprehensive and include victims' families. Efforts must also
focus on young people, who are a disproportionate share of gun
violence victims.
"Gun violence corrodes the fabric of our communities,
traumatizing victims, witnesses, families and neighborhoods," said
Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Victims need care that is
immediate, thorough and addresses the many different types of
damage that gun violence causes."
The bulletin, developed by the Justice Department's Office for
Victims of Crime (OVC), resulted from a meeting of a working group
of various professionals who work with victims of gun violence,
including physicians, social workers, mental health providers,
prosecutors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, school principals, victim
compensation administrators and judges. Several gunshot victims
and family members of firearm homicide victims also participated.
OVC convened the working group as part of the bulletin's
development.
The working group identified several key factors that separate
gun violence from other forms of violence. Gun violence can more
often be random and can affect more people in a shorter time
period. Victims are more likely to include innocent bystanders.
Residents of neighborhoods with frequent gun violence are often
afraid to leave their homes fearing that they might be injured by
gunfire.
Other factors include the severity of the nonfatal gun violence
injuries, which can alter a victim's life forever. Also, many
young gun violence victims face continuing fear, as well as a
stigma that they somehow contributed to their victimization.
The bulletin emphasizes that efforts to help gun violence
victims take into account their unique circumstances. One
recommendation is the creation of peer support groups, similar to
those available for rape or domestic violence victims. Another
recommendation is developing programs focusing on family members,
such as the Family Advocacy Program in Washington, D.C. This
program helps educate the family members of gun homicide victims
about police and hospital procedures and provides referrals to
counseling or pastoral services.
In addition, the bulletin profiles programs that focus on young
gun violence victims. Caught in the Crossfire, based in Oakland,
California, provides immediate help to gunshot victims between the
ages of 12 and 19. Crisis intervention specialists provide victims
with immediate counseling in the hospital and follow-up services
for a year after the injury. Many of the counselors in Caught in
the Crossfire were themselves gun violence victims.
Given the preponderance of young victims, the bulletin
recommends school-based peer counseling as a way to prevent the
anger and fear surrounding gun violence from leading to more
violence. One such program is Rise Above It, in Newark, New
Jersey, which shows students the long-lasting effects of gunshot
wounds and teaches them skills to deal with anger and prevent
fights.
"Working With Victims of Gun Violence", as well as information
about other OVC publications, programs and conferences, are
available through the OVC Website at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc and from
the OVC Resource Center at 800-627-6872.
Information about other Office of Justice Programs (OJP) bureaus
and program offices is available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Media
should contact OJP's Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at
202-307-0703.
KEYWORDS:
GUNS/FIREARMS, SAFETY, GOVERNMENT, POLICY
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/31 17:35
Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire
Justice Dept. Outlines Challenges of Serving Gun Victims
U.S. Newswire
31 Jul 17:35
Justice Dept. Outlines Challenges of Serving Victims of Gun
Violence; Bulletin Makes Recommendations, Describes Programs
To: National Desk
Contact: Office for Victims of Crime, 202-307-0703
WASHINGTON, July 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The unique nature of gun
violence presents specific challenges in helping victims, according
to a new Justice Department bulletin. Efforts to assist victims of
gun violence must take into account the fear, anger and
hopelessness that many of these victims experience.
The bulletin, "Working With Victims of Gun Violence", recommends
that programs for victims of gun violence be broad-based,
comprehensive and include victims' families. Efforts must also
focus on young people, who are a disproportionate share of gun
violence victims.
"Gun violence corrodes the fabric of our communities,
traumatizing victims, witnesses, families and neighborhoods," said
Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Victims need care that is
immediate, thorough and addresses the many different types of
damage that gun violence causes."
The bulletin, developed by the Justice Department's Office for
Victims of Crime (OVC), resulted from a meeting of a working group
of various professionals who work with victims of gun violence,
including physicians, social workers, mental health providers,
prosecutors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, school principals, victim
compensation administrators and judges. Several gunshot victims
and family members of firearm homicide victims also participated.
OVC convened the working group as part of the bulletin's
development.
The working group identified several key factors that separate
gun violence from other forms of violence. Gun violence can more
often be random and can affect more people in a shorter time
period. Victims are more likely to include innocent bystanders.
Residents of neighborhoods with frequent gun violence are often
afraid to leave their homes fearing that they might be injured by
gunfire.
Other factors include the severity of the nonfatal gun violence
injuries, which can alter a victim's life forever. Also, many
young gun violence victims face continuing fear, as well as a
stigma that they somehow contributed to their victimization.
The bulletin emphasizes that efforts to help gun violence
victims take into account their unique circumstances. One
recommendation is the creation of peer support groups, similar to
those available for rape or domestic violence victims. Another
recommendation is developing programs focusing on family members,
such as the Family Advocacy Program in Washington, D.C. This
program helps educate the family members of gun homicide victims
about police and hospital procedures and provides referrals to
counseling or pastoral services.
In addition, the bulletin profiles programs that focus on young
gun violence victims. Caught in the Crossfire, based in Oakland,
California, provides immediate help to gunshot victims between the
ages of 12 and 19. Crisis intervention specialists provide victims
with immediate counseling in the hospital and follow-up services
for a year after the injury. Many of the counselors in Caught in
the Crossfire were themselves gun violence victims.
Given the preponderance of young victims, the bulletin
recommends school-based peer counseling as a way to prevent the
anger and fear surrounding gun violence from leading to more
violence. One such program is Rise Above It, in Newark, New
Jersey, which shows students the long-lasting effects of gunshot
wounds and teaches them skills to deal with anger and prevent
fights.
"Working With Victims of Gun Violence", as well as information
about other OVC publications, programs and conferences, are
available through the OVC Website at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc and from
the OVC Resource Center at 800-627-6872.
Information about other Office of Justice Programs (OJP) bureaus
and program offices is available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Media
should contact OJP's Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at
202-307-0703.
KEYWORDS:
GUNS/FIREARMS, SAFETY, GOVERNMENT, POLICY
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
07/31 17:35
Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire
Thursday, August 02, 2001
Wednesday, August 01, 2001
70 girls attacked by rape gangs - smh.com.au - National - a sad news story that contains this bit of idiocy:
"Now police are concerned that the acts may become culturally institutionalised.
"They are now planning a social research program to examine the phenomenon and help them decide how to eradicate it."
But gang rape is just a part of their culture. It's insensitive and imperialistic and judgemental to try to say that their culture is wrong -- it's merely different but equally valid.
What crap. I'll tell you how to eradicate it. Arrest and prosecute them. Arm the victims. Let every person with clout or influence speak out to condemn the practice. Let them be consumed with shame, shunned by their peers, and afraid to attempt the crime in future. Let them be prosecuted and sent to prison.
"Now police are concerned that the acts may become culturally institutionalised.
"They are now planning a social research program to examine the phenomenon and help them decide how to eradicate it."
What crap. I'll tell you how to eradicate it. Arrest and prosecute them. Arm the victims. Let every person with clout or influence speak out to condemn the practice. Let them be consumed with shame, shunned by their peers, and afraid to attempt the crime in future. Let them be prosecuted and sent to prison.
Cops tap database to harass, intimidate - describes Michigan's Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) and how some cops misuse it for personal gain or intimidation -- and face few consequences. Another reason why we need to classify information as property, and why all such database queries should be logged and audited.
Thursday, July 26, 2001
American Journalism Review runs an article by a journalist who tries to teach other journalists about guns. He discusses the institutional anti-gun biases he finds. Good stuff.
Wednesday, July 25, 2001
TownHall.com:: Walter Williams gives a good explanation of "Public Choice Theory" and explains why (a) protectionism is bad, and (b) why most of us don't care enough to do anything about it.
Friday, July 20, 2001
Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Congressional Sex Scandals of the 20th Century - this is what the press is all about, or should be -- history, background, context, research, and an unflinching look at the foibles of the powerful.
Thursday, July 19, 2001
from www.directedfire.com:
In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
"You are right", he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
"You are right", he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
Google Search: Vossekuil school shootings - this is a Google search that will call up news articles on a Secret Service study that indicates that (a) school shooters are not impulsive, and (b) "profiles" of school shooters are ineffective as policing tools.
Friday, July 13, 2001
BBC News | EUROPE | France upholds 'right not to be born' - one scary item from Socialist France. I still feel that such a "wrong" should be righted rather than compensated for.
Thursday, July 12, 2001
Got this from someone's .sig:
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right
within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies
are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear
arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,
liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right
within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies
are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear
arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,
liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)
Friday, July 06, 2001
Reason magazine describes the dystopian fearmongering of the neo-luddites in this 29-Aug-2000 article.
Denver Post.com - Colo. to 'map' faces of drivers - so Colorado owns your face. But should they?
Lost freedoms are almost always traded in for a promise of safety. The loss is real, and the promise is usually empty. Colorado's face-mapping scheme is going to be very much the same.
The best way to fight this will be with property rights law. The legislature should state that you own your face, and you can license the state to use it for specific purposes -- but not for any old thing the government wants to do. The same protections would cover private imaging and face-capture activities as well. The mall operator can use your image only if you're seen stealing something -- otherwise they should not retain the image or sell it.
Lost freedoms are almost always traded in for a promise of safety. The loss is real, and the promise is usually empty. Colorado's face-mapping scheme is going to be very much the same.
The best way to fight this will be with property rights law. The legislature should state that you own your face, and you can license the state to use it for specific purposes -- but not for any old thing the government wants to do. The same protections would cover private imaging and face-capture activities as well. The mall operator can use your image only if you're seen stealing something -- otherwise they should not retain the image or sell it.
Thursday, July 05, 2001
The Secret to Software Success - APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT - CIO Magazine Jul 1,2001 - a cool examination of failing software methodologies and efforts to improve things - well written and fun. Appropriate for CIOs.
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
washingtonpost.com: Woman Goes on Trial In Ambush Shooting - dunno how long the link will last - the heartwarming story of a "Million" Mom who, bent on revenge, shot the wrong man. The MMM org is standing behind her, and her four handguns.
Wednesday, June 20, 2001
Thursday, May 31, 2001
A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation - just what I've been looking for: a sweeping examination of the long run-up to today's electricity mess. Informative.
Wednesday, May 30, 2001
Misdiagnosing Earth by Ronald Bailey, Reason Science Correspondent - how the UN and the Worldwatch Institute cherry-pick bad news and ignore good news on the world's economy, ecology, and trends.
Thursday, May 24, 2001
On Energy, Markets Work - by Bruce Bartlett An excellent exploration of how energy efficiency goes hand-in-hand with market efficiency.
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: tbcox23@yahoo.com | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fear and the use of force (was Re: China) (fwd)
To: paulcox@marlboro.edu, jim.cox@mindspring.com, johnfcox@aol.com
CC: rockers@med.stanford.edu
My Yahoo mail limits messages to 10k so I have
to take this in bites. Sorry.
--- Paul Adams Cox wrote:
> More importantly, FEAR AND THE THREAT OF FORCE -LEAD-
> TO COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR. I didn't write this stuff.
> Ask any biologist, zoologist, or
> economist who is current in his field.
> But just because fear is necessary for
> cooperative behavior doesn't mean
> we all need nuclear warheads rammed up
> our nostrils to keep us in line.
No, here I disagree with Paul.
Cooperation can ALWAYS arise in a scenario
where neither person can initiate force
upon the other. It is not guaranteed
to arise, but it can.
However, one element MUST be present: the
ability of each party to stop playing
and go home when he wants to.
As long as the transaction is win-win,
is repeated over time, and each person
can detect cheating, then cooperation is
actually pretty common.
However, as soon as one person can FORCE
the other to play the game, that person
no longer needs to keep up his end -- he
can just take from the other.
David, your error lies in thinking that
if everybody is aggressive, we can get
bad outcomes. Quite the contrary -- it's
when only one or two are aggressive that
we get bad outcomes. Once all parties
are equally able to meet force with equal
force that the advantage goes away and
we are free to try to cooperate again.
So the next bit that Paul wrote is right:
> All it means is that peace and order is
> kept -- on some level -- through
> the threat of force.
Mostly true. The exception comes from
people who are powerless to harm each other,
and only have the choices of "cooperate",
"cheat", and "stop".
Once a single person gets the choice
to "aggress", he gets to take without
giving until the other people also get
the option to respond with force. Then
we can return to peace.
Keep trying, David. How long have you
been a Utopian Socialist?
-Tom
From: tbcox23@yahoo.com | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fear and the use of force (was Re: China) (fwd)
To: paulcox@marlboro.edu, jim.cox@mindspring.com, johnfcox@aol.com
CC: rockers@med.stanford.edu
My Yahoo mail limits messages to 10k so I have
to take this in bites. Sorry.
--- Paul Adams Cox
> More importantly, FEAR AND THE THREAT OF FORCE -LEAD-
> TO COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR. I didn't write this stuff.
> Ask any biologist, zoologist, or
> economist who is current in his field.
> But just because fear is necessary for
> cooperative behavior doesn't mean
> we all need nuclear warheads rammed up
> our nostrils to keep us in line.
No, here I disagree with Paul.
Cooperation can ALWAYS arise in a scenario
where neither person can initiate force
upon the other. It is not guaranteed
to arise, but it can.
However, one element MUST be present: the
ability of each party to stop playing
and go home when he wants to.
As long as the transaction is win-win,
is repeated over time, and each person
can detect cheating, then cooperation is
actually pretty common.
However, as soon as one person can FORCE
the other to play the game, that person
no longer needs to keep up his end -- he
can just take from the other.
David, your error lies in thinking that
if everybody is aggressive, we can get
bad outcomes. Quite the contrary -- it's
when only one or two are aggressive that
we get bad outcomes. Once all parties
are equally able to meet force with equal
force that the advantage goes away and
we are free to try to cooperate again.
So the next bit that Paul wrote is right:
> All it means is that peace and order is
> kept -- on some level -- through
> the threat of force.
Mostly true. The exception comes from
people who are powerless to harm each other,
and only have the choices of "cooperate",
"cheat", and "stop".
Once a single person gets the choice
to "aggress", he gets to take without
giving until the other people also get
the option to respond with force. Then
we can return to peace.
Keep trying, David. How long have you
been a Utopian Socialist?
-Tom
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: tbcox23@yahoo.com | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fear and the use of force (was Re: China) (fwd)
To: paulcox@marlboro.edu, jim.cox@mindspring.com, johnfcox@aol.com
CC: rockers@med.stanford.edu
Forgive my late entry into this conversation. I have two brief
comments:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, David J. Raynor wrote:
> > For every example you can come up with to make them seem worse
> (they
> > gassed the Kurds), I can come up with something just as bad on our
> > side (we nuked the Japanese). For every rationalization you can
> give
> > our actions (we had to win the war), I can come up with one for
> them
> > equally ridiculous (they had to put down the uprising). We can do
> that
> > for a year and a day, and it doesn't change the basic fact: it's a
> > stupid, horrific murderous system.
Why is nuking the Japanese the same as gassing Kurds? It's not.
1. The Japanese declared war on us, not the other way around.
2. They could have surrendered earlier. They didn't.
3. The Japanese military was starving civilians to feed soldiers.
Hundreds of thousands of Okinawan civilians died of hunger
before the Marines took the island. Without nukes to shorten
the war, we would have seen tens of millions of Japanese civilians
dead of starvation before the conventional-war invasion
would have stopped their deaths -- more than the six million
Jews that Hitler killed. That's separate from the over one
million US casualties expected.
4. The PURPOSE of the wars were different -- Iraq to suppress
and oppress a minority, the US to defend itself from aggression
and end a genocidal militaristic dictatorship.
Legitimacy of any government comes from the consent of the governed.
No act of force by a dictator against his own people is moral.
Only certain acts of force by a democracy against its own people
can be moral -- such acts must follow laws that are themselves
moral (i.e. they fit with the natural rights theory, i.e. only
the amount of force necessary to restrain one person from harming
another is okay).
> > It is perpetuated because y'all in
> > the "security" arena, whether here or in Iraq, China, wherever,
> think
> > that you are doing something high-minded, providing security,
> creating
> > peace....when you are really just doing exactly what you loathe in
> > your "enemies;" murdering, maiming, raping so that your country can
> be
> > "better" than the one with the towelheads or the chinks.
> >
> > And whenever someone suggests that that needs to stop and we need
> to
> > start behaving like civilized people, you have a flawed
> pseudo-science
> > called security studies to explain why people can't get along
> unless
> > we all have guns pointed at our heads, because we bond into groups
> out
> > of fear like the klu klux klan (your characterization, not mine).
> We bond into groups because it has been necessary for the propagation
> of
> the species. Why is that necessary? Because there is safety in
> numbers.
> Why do groups cooperate? Because they have a better chance of
> survival
> than by backstabbing each other all the time.
>
> But if you give any creature the chance to get away with something
> because
> you've taken away the fear of retribution, then you lose the
> cooperative
> behavior. Happens every time.
>
> More importantly, FEAR AND THE THREAT OF FORCE -LEAD- TO COOPERATIVE
> BEHAVIOR. I didn't write this stuff. Ask any biologist, zoologist,
> or
> economist who is current in his field.
Dave, you're saying that all the nasty violence will end
just as soon as we realize it can stop.
Paul is saying that it'll start again just as soon as
someone realizes he can start.
You think all we need to do is cooperate.
Paul is pointing out that cooperation requires the ability
to opt out if the other guy is screwing you, and the
ability to resist him if he initiates aggression.
Your beautiful utopian thinking cannot handle free
riders or defectors. Your vision only works when everyone
cooperates all the time. Since people have the ability
to be greedy, stupid, selfish, and hurtful, the only
way we can achieve your utopia is by having powerful
governments that FORCE everybody to cooperate.
At gunpoint.
Ooops! Governments are run by people, and people have
the ability to be greedy, stupid, selfish, and hurtful...
so your utopia becomes a Stalinist nightmare.
Congrats.
Find me a way to guarantee that everyone cooperates,
nobody defects, and nobody aggresses, WITHOUT having
an oppressive governmental force that prevents it
at gunpoint, and you win.
Fail to find that way, and Paul wins.
See also "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley
and "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior"
by von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1953).
Cheers.
-Tom
=====
Thomas B. Cox
tbcox23@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/tbcox23/
"When the government fears the People, that is Liberty.
When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
From: tbcox23@yahoo.com | Block Address | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fear and the use of force (was Re: China) (fwd)
To: paulcox@marlboro.edu, jim.cox@mindspring.com, johnfcox@aol.com
CC: rockers@med.stanford.edu
Forgive my late entry into this conversation. I have two brief
comments:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, David J. Raynor wrote:
> > For every example you can come up with to make them seem worse
> (they
> > gassed the Kurds), I can come up with something just as bad on our
> > side (we nuked the Japanese). For every rationalization you can
> give
> > our actions (we had to win the war), I can come up with one for
> them
> > equally ridiculous (they had to put down the uprising). We can do
> that
> > for a year and a day, and it doesn't change the basic fact: it's a
> > stupid, horrific murderous system.
Why is nuking the Japanese the same as gassing Kurds? It's not.
1. The Japanese declared war on us, not the other way around.
2. They could have surrendered earlier. They didn't.
3. The Japanese military was starving civilians to feed soldiers.
Hundreds of thousands of Okinawan civilians died of hunger
before the Marines took the island. Without nukes to shorten
the war, we would have seen tens of millions of Japanese civilians
dead of starvation before the conventional-war invasion
would have stopped their deaths -- more than the six million
Jews that Hitler killed. That's separate from the over one
million US casualties expected.
4. The PURPOSE of the wars were different -- Iraq to suppress
and oppress a minority, the US to defend itself from aggression
and end a genocidal militaristic dictatorship.
Legitimacy of any government comes from the consent of the governed.
No act of force by a dictator against his own people is moral.
Only certain acts of force by a democracy against its own people
can be moral -- such acts must follow laws that are themselves
moral (i.e. they fit with the natural rights theory, i.e. only
the amount of force necessary to restrain one person from harming
another is okay).
> > It is perpetuated because y'all in
> > the "security" arena, whether here or in Iraq, China, wherever,
> think
> > that you are doing something high-minded, providing security,
> creating
> > peace....when you are really just doing exactly what you loathe in
> > your "enemies;" murdering, maiming, raping so that your country can
> be
> > "better" than the one with the towelheads or the chinks.
> >
> > And whenever someone suggests that that needs to stop and we need
> to
> > start behaving like civilized people, you have a flawed
> pseudo-science
> > called security studies to explain why people can't get along
> unless
> > we all have guns pointed at our heads, because we bond into groups
> out
> > of fear like the klu klux klan (your characterization, not mine).
> We bond into groups because it has been necessary for the propagation
> of
> the species. Why is that necessary? Because there is safety in
> numbers.
> Why do groups cooperate? Because they have a better chance of
> survival
> than by backstabbing each other all the time.
>
> But if you give any creature the chance to get away with something
> because
> you've taken away the fear of retribution, then you lose the
> cooperative
> behavior. Happens every time.
>
> More importantly, FEAR AND THE THREAT OF FORCE -LEAD- TO COOPERATIVE
> BEHAVIOR. I didn't write this stuff. Ask any biologist, zoologist,
> or
> economist who is current in his field.
Dave, you're saying that all the nasty violence will end
just as soon as we realize it can stop.
Paul is saying that it'll start again just as soon as
someone realizes he can start.
You think all we need to do is cooperate.
Paul is pointing out that cooperation requires the ability
to opt out if the other guy is screwing you, and the
ability to resist him if he initiates aggression.
Your beautiful utopian thinking cannot handle free
riders or defectors. Your vision only works when everyone
cooperates all the time. Since people have the ability
to be greedy, stupid, selfish, and hurtful, the only
way we can achieve your utopia is by having powerful
governments that FORCE everybody to cooperate.
At gunpoint.
Ooops! Governments are run by people, and people have
the ability to be greedy, stupid, selfish, and hurtful...
so your utopia becomes a Stalinist nightmare.
Congrats.
Find me a way to guarantee that everyone cooperates,
nobody defects, and nobody aggresses, WITHOUT having
an oppressive governmental force that prevents it
at gunpoint, and you win.
Fail to find that way, and Paul wins.
See also "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley
and "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior"
by von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1953).
Cheers.
-Tom
=====
Thomas B. Cox
tbcox23@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/tbcox23/
"When the government fears the People, that is Liberty.
When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
Some scary stuff from Reason:
"Privacy laws allow high-risk insurees to lie about their health in order to get more money. This means that healthier customers will have to be charged more to pay for their high-risk counterparts. This situation can set off an adverse selection spiral in which low-risk clients flee the higher premiums and high-risk clients flock to buy the insurance. As premiums rise to cover the unhealthy clients, fewer and fewer people can afford insurance.
"Are purchasers of insurance really all that savvy? Absolutely. In 1992, New York State passed a "community rating" law in an effort to bring down insurance prices. The New York law forbade insurers from offering lower rates to companies with younger, healthier employees--the effect of which was to increase rates for those workers. Faced with higher rates, large numbers of younger workers simply dropped their coverage, leaving relatively unhealthy oldsters to fend for themselves. The result was higher rates and fewer people covered by health insurance. The same problem also plagued recent attempts to do the same with the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and the California Public Employees Retirement System."
"Privacy laws allow high-risk insurees to lie about their health in order to get more money. This means that healthier customers will have to be charged more to pay for their high-risk counterparts. This situation can set off an adverse selection spiral in which low-risk clients flee the higher premiums and high-risk clients flock to buy the insurance. As premiums rise to cover the unhealthy clients, fewer and fewer people can afford insurance.
"Are purchasers of insurance really all that savvy? Absolutely. In 1992, New York State passed a "community rating" law in an effort to bring down insurance prices. The New York law forbade insurers from offering lower rates to companies with younger, healthier employees--the effect of which was to increase rates for those workers. Faced with higher rates, large numbers of younger workers simply dropped their coverage, leaving relatively unhealthy oldsters to fend for themselves. The result was higher rates and fewer people covered by health insurance. The same problem also plagued recent attempts to do the same with the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and the California Public Employees Retirement System."
Sunday, May 13, 2001
Before I forget: the Running with Scissors Relay was especially well received. People got excited, cheered the runners, the whole bit. Several people (maybe half) were really keen on waving signs at passing cars. I think we had a presence at the curb for maybe 90 minutes out of the two-hour event.
After we were done at 3, several people took signs and walked over to the Dalai Lama Greeting event over at Pioneer Square, which was truly huge -- 20,000 people was the claim, and certainly the streets were closed a block or two in every direction, and I could see a pretty good crowd spilling out of the Square. By MMom standards, that's gotta be 20 million people. (By their counting standard, we had 34,000 people at our event.)
After we were done at 3, several people took signs and walked over to the Dalai Lama Greeting event over at Pioneer Square, which was truly huge -- 20,000 people was the claim, and certainly the streets were closed a block or two in every direction, and I could see a pretty good crowd spilling out of the Square. By MMom standards, that's gotta be 20 million people. (By their counting standard, we had 34,000 people at our event.)
The rally is over. Hurrah. I had some bad moments when I was afraid nobody would show up except my wife, me, and my friend Richard. At five minutes to 1 p.m. we were the only ones in the park.
Luckily it was just a slow start. Street parking was very hard to find (I was surprised to discover) and that slowed most people down a bit. By 1:30 we had 26 people, and by about 2:15 we had 34 -- pretty decent turnout, and at the high end of the 20-to-30 people estimate that I pulled out of my ass.
We had two press people show up, one from Channel 4 (or 2?) TV news, and one from AM 860 radio news. If I have the energy I want to do some post-event publicity, maybe a press release, but mostly I need to focus on my job. Ah, to have time to devote to activism...
Luckily it was just a slow start. Street parking was very hard to find (I was surprised to discover) and that slowed most people down a bit. By 1:30 we had 26 people, and by about 2:15 we had 34 -- pretty decent turnout, and at the high end of the 20-to-30 people estimate that I pulled out of my ass.
We had two press people show up, one from Channel 4 (or 2?) TV news, and one from AM 860 radio news. If I have the energy I want to do some post-event publicity, maybe a press release, but mostly I need to focus on my job. Ah, to have time to devote to activism...
Wednesday, May 09, 2001
Part of another letter to the same friend:
> > Bwah hah hah. You've swallowed some serious
> > propaganda along with your history.
> Well, at the risk of getting slammed, a lot of my
> views are from my family. My Grandmother worked in a
> sweatshop in the garment district in New York and my
> Grandfather was a union organizer in the Southern
> textile mills in the 1930's. They saw a lot and I
> believe what they said. The history I've read has
> merely reinforced them.
I'd draw a distinction between what they saw, and
what they might have told you was the cause of what
they saw. I'm sure a union organizer would have
(indeed would need) a specific world view to energize
his work, and that world view may not be useful to you
or even accurate in determining cause and effect.
In other words, yes they surely saw some terrible working
conditions. No, I would dispute any claim they or you
might make that capitalism or free markets "cause" such
things.
On a related note, I fully support the ability of workers
to form unions -- that's protected "freedom of association".
I don't support union-only shops, because that forces people
to join unions (i.e. forced association) against their will
as a condition of employment.
> > Yes, the wealthy few will
> > want
> > to force the weak to remain weak, and will use force
> > to
> > get and keep an unfair advantage. But what is their
> >
> > primary instrument of force?
> Guns, in some cases. Poverty and desperation in
> others.
Try "government". The union-busting efforts of the 1880s
through the 1930s relied heavily on police and even the
Army in some places.
> > Contrast that with the infamous "company towns"
> > Actual free markets, which I advocate, can only
> > exist
> > inside a framework of laws, such as property rights,
> > contract law, and a rock-solid guarantee that every
> > person is entitled to live free from coercion,
> > force, and the threat of force.
> Who's going to enforce the laws that keep everything
> fair and free? The government ;-)?
Obviously, yes. That's the reason we have a government:
to impartially and equally enforce the laws. We created
it "to secure these rights" of life, liberty, etc. -- rights
that existed before government, rights that all people have,
"endowed by their Creator". These basic human rights are
natural rights, that we are born with and that no power can
rightfully take from us.
> > Do big companies defend free markets? No, almost
> > never.
> I'm with you on the corporate welfare, obviously. It
> kills me that government is subsidising companies for
> going overseas and taking American jobs with them.
Most of the Overseas Development money goes to domestic
makers of export goods, i.e. not "taking ... jobs"
anywhere. They are nevertheless bad uses of tax dollars,
in my opinion.
> My concern is primarily that as our manufacturing base
> goes overseas our economy is eroding from the ground
> up. I know we are told the economy is good (and has
> been for 8 or so years), but it seemed to be an
> artificial balloon, because of the exodus of
> manufacturing jobs. How can a country's economy have
> a firm foundation if all it produces are lawyers and
> journalists??
Ah, you're repeating the old mistake of believing that
only manufacturing jobs are "real" -- that if we don't
make a lot of physical objects, and if we don't employ
a lot of people in the process, then there's something
deeply wrong or unsustainable.
At the time of NAFTA first getting passed, a typical
American manufacturing worker was earning ten times
what a Mexican manufacturing worker was earning.
Several years later, the American was still making ten
times what the Mexican was making. As it turned out, the
American was ten times MORE PRODUCTIVE per hour of labor
(due to skills, training, capital investments, personal
work ethic, whatever), so getting paid ten times more was
perfectly reasonable.
The wages of labor should reflect the productivity of
that labor. Nobody has a right to cash any more than I
have a right to a ham sandwich. I may have the right
to TRY to get one, and the right to keep one once I get
it, but there are no Constitutional positive entitlements,
and no positive natural rights (positive meaning someone
has to actively give you something). All natural rights
are negative -- people have to refrain from harming you.
Another fact for you: in the past twenty years, as the number
of American manufacturing jobs has dropped, the total dollar
value of all American manufacturing output has... gone up.
We are making more and more stuff using fewer and fewer
hours of labor -- which is the DEFINITION of productivity.
As you become an ever more experienced teacher you will
be able to create lesson plans more quickly. You will
become more productive.
> What would libertarianism do to attract or keep
> manufacturing jobs in the US? What would they do
> about competition from cheap foreign labor in
> countries where the government condones (and in
> China's case runs) slave labor? How can an American
> who wants to make $15 or $18 an hour compete with
> workers in countries where people make $1 a day or
> less? Does your philosophy have a solution?
I wouldn't do anything to either attract or repel any
job. I wouldn't use the taxing or coercive powers of
the government to try to pick and choose which
companies should go where. This is for two reasons.
First, it's a dreadful value for money. Kentucky
at one point was trying to lure a car maker into the
state by promising tax breaks that would have amounted
to over $100,000 per job per year, for jobs that paid
under $50,000 a year. So the car maker would have been
directly profiting, and the taxpayers directly subsidizing,
to zero benefit (indeed to a substantial deficit) for the
state. Stupid. But politicians (a) are not playing with
their own money and (b) are not that bright.
Second, it's a great way to cover up payoffs, kickbacks,
and all sorts of preferential treatment. It puts a big
"for sale" sign on the government. Cozy up to this or
that politician, and hey presto, you get the "job creation"
tax break that your competitor doesn't get. It's just
bad policy.
Government acts can only move jobs around, not create
them (in the sense we are discussing here). And they
tend to pay good money for doing it -- money that you
and I no longer have in our pockets to (say) buy
clothing, food, etc.
> What would you do about the people who are simply not
> intelligent enough to be trained for high end new
> economy jobs? I know there are many people like that.
> My husband's an electrician and, although he has a
> very high IQ, about half the guys he works with are
> Neanderthal's. Yet, they still have families to feed.
Here is where we get into math. Sorry about this.
Take two workers and two goods. These are the only workers
and the only goods in the world. Steven King can create
novels and songs, and Courtney Love can create novels and
songs. King can crank out 20 novels or 10 songs in a year.
Love can produce 8 songs or 4 novels in a year. All
songs and novels are of the same quality. Songs and
novels sell for the same amount.
What should each one do with their time? If each
specializes in what s/he does best, the world gets
20 King novels and 8 Love songs == 28 units of
entertainment. If each devotes the year to what
s/he does worst, the world gets 4 Love novels and
10 King songs = 14 units of entertainment.
If they each go 50-50 for the year, then the world
enjoys 12 novels (10 King + 2 Love), and 9 songs
(5 King + 4 Love) = 21 units of entertainment
for the year.
Notice that, EVEN THOUGH KING IS MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN
LOVE at Love's own strength, songs, every King
song comes at the cost of two King novels that
didn't get written.
Are you following this? Is it making sense?
The POINT of this is that people, and countries,
and cities, and regions of countries, will naturally
over time tend to specialize in things. I do not
think we'll ever see the day when Brazil does
nothing but produce coffee (i.e. no 100% national
specialization), but certainly people do that all
the time, and certainly there are many countries
that import ALL of their (say) transistor radios,
or loufa brushes, or whatever.
When government tries to "lure" or "attract"
certain jobs to certain places, they're basically
trying to get King to write more songs, because
all the song jobs have "left" for Love. Eeek!
The domestic song industry is being decimated!
To which I say, so what?
As for the Neanderthals you mention, there will
always be something out there that needs doing,
because as we non-Neanderthals become richer,
we find more and more things we want to have
done for us. Physical therapy and massage.
Eating out. Personal trainers. Whatever. As
long as there are people who have stuff, they
will want to exchange their stuff for either
other stuff or services. The only true apocalyptic
scenario is if all the rich people decide to cut
their power lines and huddle in their mansions and
eat their emergency rations for ten years. And
even then, the rest of us will live our lives
and find things to do.
> > The way to stop it is to outlaw special treatment.
> > Then politicians can't sell that special treatment
> > to the highest bidder.
> > But as soon as you open the door to special
> > treatment,
> > subsidies, handouts, assistance, etc., you guarantee
> > that the bulk of that money will go to the powerful
> > and the politically well connected.
> >
> > The only way to allow government handouts and NOT
> > have them get abused is to have a government of
> > angels, and as Lincoln said, if we had a government
> > of angels, we wouldn't need laws.
>
> So, if I understand you, your position is that
> government help is a bad idea because the government
> can't possibly do it fairly? I won't argue with that
> from the standpoint that it certainly hasn't done a
> great job so far, but what's the solution? "Free
> markets" sound like a catch phrase, but when I hear
> that, I think "anarchy" and "survival of the fittest".
> Isn't a fair free market just as much of a pipe dream
> as a "government of angels"?
No, for several reasons. First, which is easier for an
outside person to verify: that two people were treated
the same, or that one person who got special treatment
got exactly the right amount of special treatment and
for exactly the right reason? If the law says only that
the tax rate is 30%, then anybody can verify if all the
companies paid their 30% or not -- or at least it's a lot
harder to hide. But if the law offers a zillion tax
breaks, and worse if the law offers CONDITIONAL tax breaks
that are available at the DISCRETION of lawmakers or
other government flunkies, then who can ever verify
what the right tax rate is for company X, and who can
ever verify if they got all their tax breaks for the
right reasons?
The whole reason politicians want to have lots of
discretion over companies is so they can have a reason
to ask them for money, and the companies will have
a reason to want to please that politician. It is
inherently corrupting.
> > So in sum, I think the well intentioned idea that
> > the government is going to stand up for the little
> > guy is bullshit in practice. The government, any
> > government, has only one thing to bring to the
> > party,
> > and that is force.
> > If that force is used to enforce "sensible
> > regulation"
> > such as (say) child labor laws, product safety and
> > liability standards, truth in labelling laws, and
> > the like, then you and I are on the same side. But
> > when that force is used to enforce so-called "fair
> > trade" rules, and contains a lot of discretion as to
> > who gets what money and what treatment by the law,
> > then
> > it's an invitation to mischief.
>
> What would you do about child labor laws?
I described them as reasonable and said that you
and I are on the same side. I'd keep them.
> > One of my favorite examples of supposed fairness
> > that
> > masks actual mischief is farm price supports. The
> > supposed or claimed benefit is "help for the family
> > farm", which is bad policy anyway. But in reality
> > 90% of the dollars go to big industrial farms owned
> > and run by big-donating corporations. A better
> > policy
> > would be income supports to low-income families, and
> > an even better policy than that would be no support
> > at all, and let the families sell their farms and
> > get
> > other higher-paying work elsewhere.
> The problem is there isn't much higher paying work out
> there for people without advanced college degrees, and
> not everyone is, shall we say "equipped" to get those
> degrees.
Nonsense. Private companies spend more money each year
in worker training than all the public schools in the US
combined. If there really is a big pool of stupid people
who want to work, then the first person to find a way
to tap that pool will make money. That's motivation.
> On the English vs. Spanish debate, I can see your
> point. Believe me, I don't advocate telling people
> they can't speak Spanish, but to be honest, since the
> primary language in the US is English, I don't think
> people should be given the citizenship exam in
> Spanish. If they want to be citizens, they should
> bother to learn the language. That would avoid a lot
> of the problems.
I don't object to that idea.
> Just out of curiosity, when you said you thought
> liberals are all love and no judgement, did you mean
> judgement like judgementalism or like discernment? I
> wasn't sure.
Both. The liberals I know tend to use their emotions
at the expense of their brains.
> Out of curiousity, did you vote for Harry Brown? I
> guess you already figured out who I voted for (Gore!).
=== message truncated ===
Woops! Getting too verbose for Yahoo. My bad.
Yes, I voted for Browne.
Cheers.
-Tom
> > Bwah hah hah. You've swallowed some serious
> > propaganda along with your history.
> Well, at the risk of getting slammed, a lot of my
> views are from my family. My Grandmother worked in a
> sweatshop in the garment district in New York and my
> Grandfather was a union organizer in the Southern
> textile mills in the 1930's. They saw a lot and I
> believe what they said. The history I've read has
> merely reinforced them.
I'd draw a distinction between what they saw, and
what they might have told you was the cause of what
they saw. I'm sure a union organizer would have
(indeed would need) a specific world view to energize
his work, and that world view may not be useful to you
or even accurate in determining cause and effect.
In other words, yes they surely saw some terrible working
conditions. No, I would dispute any claim they or you
might make that capitalism or free markets "cause" such
things.
On a related note, I fully support the ability of workers
to form unions -- that's protected "freedom of association".
I don't support union-only shops, because that forces people
to join unions (i.e. forced association) against their will
as a condition of employment.
> > Yes, the wealthy few will
> > want
> > to force the weak to remain weak, and will use force
> > to
> > get and keep an unfair advantage. But what is their
> >
> > primary instrument of force?
> Guns, in some cases. Poverty and desperation in
> others.
Try "government". The union-busting efforts of the 1880s
through the 1930s relied heavily on police and even the
Army in some places.
> > Contrast that with the infamous "company towns"
> > Actual free markets, which I advocate, can only
> > exist
> > inside a framework of laws, such as property rights,
> > contract law, and a rock-solid guarantee that every
> > person is entitled to live free from coercion,
> > force, and the threat of force.
> Who's going to enforce the laws that keep everything
> fair and free? The government ;-)?
Obviously, yes. That's the reason we have a government:
to impartially and equally enforce the laws. We created
it "to secure these rights" of life, liberty, etc. -- rights
that existed before government, rights that all people have,
"endowed by their Creator". These basic human rights are
natural rights, that we are born with and that no power can
rightfully take from us.
> > Do big companies defend free markets? No, almost
> > never.
> I'm with you on the corporate welfare, obviously. It
> kills me that government is subsidising companies for
> going overseas and taking American jobs with them.
Most of the Overseas Development money goes to domestic
makers of export goods, i.e. not "taking ... jobs"
anywhere. They are nevertheless bad uses of tax dollars,
in my opinion.
> My concern is primarily that as our manufacturing base
> goes overseas our economy is eroding from the ground
> up. I know we are told the economy is good (and has
> been for 8 or so years), but it seemed to be an
> artificial balloon, because of the exodus of
> manufacturing jobs. How can a country's economy have
> a firm foundation if all it produces are lawyers and
> journalists??
Ah, you're repeating the old mistake of believing that
only manufacturing jobs are "real" -- that if we don't
make a lot of physical objects, and if we don't employ
a lot of people in the process, then there's something
deeply wrong or unsustainable.
At the time of NAFTA first getting passed, a typical
American manufacturing worker was earning ten times
what a Mexican manufacturing worker was earning.
Several years later, the American was still making ten
times what the Mexican was making. As it turned out, the
American was ten times MORE PRODUCTIVE per hour of labor
(due to skills, training, capital investments, personal
work ethic, whatever), so getting paid ten times more was
perfectly reasonable.
The wages of labor should reflect the productivity of
that labor. Nobody has a right to cash any more than I
have a right to a ham sandwich. I may have the right
to TRY to get one, and the right to keep one once I get
it, but there are no Constitutional positive entitlements,
and no positive natural rights (positive meaning someone
has to actively give you something). All natural rights
are negative -- people have to refrain from harming you.
Another fact for you: in the past twenty years, as the number
of American manufacturing jobs has dropped, the total dollar
value of all American manufacturing output has... gone up.
We are making more and more stuff using fewer and fewer
hours of labor -- which is the DEFINITION of productivity.
As you become an ever more experienced teacher you will
be able to create lesson plans more quickly. You will
become more productive.
> What would libertarianism do to attract or keep
> manufacturing jobs in the US? What would they do
> about competition from cheap foreign labor in
> countries where the government condones (and in
> China's case runs) slave labor? How can an American
> who wants to make $15 or $18 an hour compete with
> workers in countries where people make $1 a day or
> less? Does your philosophy have a solution?
I wouldn't do anything to either attract or repel any
job. I wouldn't use the taxing or coercive powers of
the government to try to pick and choose which
companies should go where. This is for two reasons.
First, it's a dreadful value for money. Kentucky
at one point was trying to lure a car maker into the
state by promising tax breaks that would have amounted
to over $100,000 per job per year, for jobs that paid
under $50,000 a year. So the car maker would have been
directly profiting, and the taxpayers directly subsidizing,
to zero benefit (indeed to a substantial deficit) for the
state. Stupid. But politicians (a) are not playing with
their own money and (b) are not that bright.
Second, it's a great way to cover up payoffs, kickbacks,
and all sorts of preferential treatment. It puts a big
"for sale" sign on the government. Cozy up to this or
that politician, and hey presto, you get the "job creation"
tax break that your competitor doesn't get. It's just
bad policy.
Government acts can only move jobs around, not create
them (in the sense we are discussing here). And they
tend to pay good money for doing it -- money that you
and I no longer have in our pockets to (say) buy
clothing, food, etc.
> What would you do about the people who are simply not
> intelligent enough to be trained for high end new
> economy jobs? I know there are many people like that.
> My husband's an electrician and, although he has a
> very high IQ, about half the guys he works with are
> Neanderthal's. Yet, they still have families to feed.
Here is where we get into math. Sorry about this.
Take two workers and two goods. These are the only workers
and the only goods in the world. Steven King can create
novels and songs, and Courtney Love can create novels and
songs. King can crank out 20 novels or 10 songs in a year.
Love can produce 8 songs or 4 novels in a year. All
songs and novels are of the same quality. Songs and
novels sell for the same amount.
What should each one do with their time? If each
specializes in what s/he does best, the world gets
20 King novels and 8 Love songs == 28 units of
entertainment. If each devotes the year to what
s/he does worst, the world gets 4 Love novels and
10 King songs = 14 units of entertainment.
If they each go 50-50 for the year, then the world
enjoys 12 novels (10 King + 2 Love), and 9 songs
(5 King + 4 Love) = 21 units of entertainment
for the year.
Notice that, EVEN THOUGH KING IS MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN
LOVE at Love's own strength, songs, every King
song comes at the cost of two King novels that
didn't get written.
Are you following this? Is it making sense?
The POINT of this is that people, and countries,
and cities, and regions of countries, will naturally
over time tend to specialize in things. I do not
think we'll ever see the day when Brazil does
nothing but produce coffee (i.e. no 100% national
specialization), but certainly people do that all
the time, and certainly there are many countries
that import ALL of their (say) transistor radios,
or loufa brushes, or whatever.
When government tries to "lure" or "attract"
certain jobs to certain places, they're basically
trying to get King to write more songs, because
all the song jobs have "left" for Love. Eeek!
The domestic song industry is being decimated!
To which I say, so what?
As for the Neanderthals you mention, there will
always be something out there that needs doing,
because as we non-Neanderthals become richer,
we find more and more things we want to have
done for us. Physical therapy and massage.
Eating out. Personal trainers. Whatever. As
long as there are people who have stuff, they
will want to exchange their stuff for either
other stuff or services. The only true apocalyptic
scenario is if all the rich people decide to cut
their power lines and huddle in their mansions and
eat their emergency rations for ten years. And
even then, the rest of us will live our lives
and find things to do.
> > The way to stop it is to outlaw special treatment.
> > Then politicians can't sell that special treatment
> > to the highest bidder.
> > But as soon as you open the door to special
> > treatment,
> > subsidies, handouts, assistance, etc., you guarantee
> > that the bulk of that money will go to the powerful
> > and the politically well connected.
> >
> > The only way to allow government handouts and NOT
> > have them get abused is to have a government of
> > angels, and as Lincoln said, if we had a government
> > of angels, we wouldn't need laws.
>
> So, if I understand you, your position is that
> government help is a bad idea because the government
> can't possibly do it fairly? I won't argue with that
> from the standpoint that it certainly hasn't done a
> great job so far, but what's the solution? "Free
> markets" sound like a catch phrase, but when I hear
> that, I think "anarchy" and "survival of the fittest".
> Isn't a fair free market just as much of a pipe dream
> as a "government of angels"?
No, for several reasons. First, which is easier for an
outside person to verify: that two people were treated
the same, or that one person who got special treatment
got exactly the right amount of special treatment and
for exactly the right reason? If the law says only that
the tax rate is 30%, then anybody can verify if all the
companies paid their 30% or not -- or at least it's a lot
harder to hide. But if the law offers a zillion tax
breaks, and worse if the law offers CONDITIONAL tax breaks
that are available at the DISCRETION of lawmakers or
other government flunkies, then who can ever verify
what the right tax rate is for company X, and who can
ever verify if they got all their tax breaks for the
right reasons?
The whole reason politicians want to have lots of
discretion over companies is so they can have a reason
to ask them for money, and the companies will have
a reason to want to please that politician. It is
inherently corrupting.
> > So in sum, I think the well intentioned idea that
> > the government is going to stand up for the little
> > guy is bullshit in practice. The government, any
> > government, has only one thing to bring to the
> > party,
> > and that is force.
> > If that force is used to enforce "sensible
> > regulation"
> > such as (say) child labor laws, product safety and
> > liability standards, truth in labelling laws, and
> > the like, then you and I are on the same side. But
> > when that force is used to enforce so-called "fair
> > trade" rules, and contains a lot of discretion as to
> > who gets what money and what treatment by the law,
> > then
> > it's an invitation to mischief.
>
> What would you do about child labor laws?
I described them as reasonable and said that you
and I are on the same side. I'd keep them.
> > One of my favorite examples of supposed fairness
> > that
> > masks actual mischief is farm price supports. The
> > supposed or claimed benefit is "help for the family
> > farm", which is bad policy anyway. But in reality
> > 90% of the dollars go to big industrial farms owned
> > and run by big-donating corporations. A better
> > policy
> > would be income supports to low-income families, and
> > an even better policy than that would be no support
> > at all, and let the families sell their farms and
> > get
> > other higher-paying work elsewhere.
> The problem is there isn't much higher paying work out
> there for people without advanced college degrees, and
> not everyone is, shall we say "equipped" to get those
> degrees.
Nonsense. Private companies spend more money each year
in worker training than all the public schools in the US
combined. If there really is a big pool of stupid people
who want to work, then the first person to find a way
to tap that pool will make money. That's motivation.
> On the English vs. Spanish debate, I can see your
> point. Believe me, I don't advocate telling people
> they can't speak Spanish, but to be honest, since the
> primary language in the US is English, I don't think
> people should be given the citizenship exam in
> Spanish. If they want to be citizens, they should
> bother to learn the language. That would avoid a lot
> of the problems.
I don't object to that idea.
> Just out of curiosity, when you said you thought
> liberals are all love and no judgement, did you mean
> judgement like judgementalism or like discernment? I
> wasn't sure.
Both. The liberals I know tend to use their emotions
at the expense of their brains.
> Out of curiousity, did you vote for Harry Brown? I
> guess you already figured out who I voted for (Gore!).
=== message truncated ===
Woops! Getting too verbose for Yahoo. My bad.
Yes, I voted for Browne.
Cheers.
-Tom
Tuesday, May 08, 2001
This is part of a letter I've sent to a self-identified Liberal Democrat
friend of mine. My parts have >> or nothing in front, and
her parts have > in front.
-----
> > Lemme guess, you didn't major in math or economics.
> > Protectionism is a very tempting position because
> > it *feels* plausible. And the case against it relies
> > on some math and a certain faith in economic observations
> > that really aren't very emotionally compelling on
> > their own, and aren't particularly intuitive, IMHO.
> I base my opinions more on history than math. History
> is replete with examples of how, given half a chance,
> the wealthy few will trample all over the impoverished
> many. From African Bushmen (I'm currently reading
> Michener's The Covenant)and Mexican Indians enslaved
> and forced to live and work in mines, to the abuses of
> the industrial revolution (you've read The Jungle,
> right?) economic Darwinism is horribly unfair to those
> born without the intelligence or opportunity to claw
> their way to the top. I see sensible government
> regulation as the only way to have a broadbased middle
> class and a decent standard of living for everyone.
Bwah hah hah. You've swallowed some serious propaganda
along with your history. Yes, the wealthy few will want
to force the weak to remain weak, and will use force to
get and keep an unfair advantage. But what is their
primary instrument of force?
Remember that an actual free market is free from force.
Nobody forces you at gunpoint to go into the McDonald's
and order a Happy Meal.
Contrast that with the infamous "company towns" built
around mining operations, where miners were paid in
company 'scrip' rather than cash, and had to buy food
and rent rooms from the company-owned monopoly sellers.
Anybody who tried to come in and sell groceries at a fair
price, or rent rooms at decent rates, was beaten up by
the company goons.
The company town was many things, but it was no free
market, and the oppressors used force (illegally) to
keep it unfree.
The whole "social Darwinism" thing was horrible
propaganda that tried to find a veneer of scientific
respectability to cover up crushing injustice and
oppression and victimization.
Actual free markets, which I advocate, can only exist
inside a framework of laws, such as property rights,
contract law, and a rock-solid guarantee that every
person is entitled to live free from coercion, force,
and the threat of force.
Do big companies defend free markets? No, almost
never. Big companies tend to look for special treatment
by the government -- so Coke gets millions of taxpayer
dollars every year for "overseas development" and
Archer Daniels Midland gets a half a billion every
year in ethanol subsidies. None of that is free
market stuff. It's corporate welfare.
The way to stop it is to outlaw special treatment.
Then politicians can't sell that special treatment to
the highest bidder.
But as soon as you open the door to special treatment,
subsidies, handouts, assistance, etc., you guarantee
that the bulk of that money will go to the powerful
and the politically well connected.
The only way to allow government handouts and NOT
have them get abused is to have a government of
angels, and as Lincoln said, if we had a government
of angels, we wouldn't need laws.
(Can you tell I ran for Atty General?)
So in sum, I think the well intentioned idea that
the government is going to stand up for the little
guy is bullshit in practice. The government, any
government, has only one thing to bring to the party,
and that is force.
If that force is used to enforce "sensible regulation"
such as (say) child labor laws, product safety and
liability standards, truth in labelling laws, and
the like, then you and I are on the same side. But
when that force is used to enforce so-called "fair
trade" rules, and contains a lot of discretion as to
who gets what money and what treatment by the law, then
it's an invitation to mischief.
One of my favorite examples of supposed fairness that
masks actual mischief is farm price supports. The
supposed or claimed benefit is "help for the family
farm", which is bad policy anyway. But in reality
90% of the dollars go to big industrial farms owned
and run by big-donating corporations. A better policy
would be income supports to low-income families, and
an even better policy than that would be no support
at all, and let the families sell their farms and get
other higher-paying work elsewhere.
The other casualty of farm price supports, of course,
is the consumer, who pays higher prices for food, has
less money left for other things, AND pays taxes to
prop up the prices! And then we have warehouses full
of rotting cheese that the government has purchased
at artificially high prices and can't find a use for.
Stupid, Soviet-style screwing up of the market.
> > Here is something I'm reading on this very subject:
> > http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/7036/1.html
> > > And as for border
> > > control, if you've ever been an English speaking
> > > person living in Miami, you'd be hard pressed not to
> > > turn into the world's biggest xenophobe.
> > Why? I thought you liberals were all love and no
> > judgement.
> Live and learn. Do you even know any other
> liberals? I thought we were a dying breed. Actually,
> I was much more liberal on immigration until I spent
> 18 years being repeatedly told that "Esta Miami! Habla
> Espanol!". I am not exaggerating when I say that the
> 56% of the population in Dade County which is Hispanic
> descriminates mercilessly against anyone non-hispanic.
> It is virtually impossible to get a job there if you
> don't speak fluent UNACCENTED Spanish.
> I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I have no
> problem with anyone of any ethnic background, but when
> they come to America they should speak English like
> everyone else has done for 200 years. Where do you
> stand on the English only debate?
I don't want to see the government push anybody around.
So, I wouldn't want a legal REQUIREMENT that anybody
be able to speak English (or any other language).
I also don't want to see the government spend a lot of
taxpayer money supporting multiple languages. If there
is a large (say) Spanish speaking community, let them
raise private funds to pay for translating government
publications.
I would conduct voluntary government business in English,
so your driver's license test would be in English.
I would conduct mandatory government business in the
person's own language (i.e. provide translators to
people charged with crimes).
friend of mine. My parts have >> or nothing in front, and
her parts have > in front.
-----
> > Lemme guess, you didn't major in math or economics.
> > Protectionism is a very tempting position because
> > it *feels* plausible. And the case against it relies
> > on some math and a certain faith in economic observations
> > that really aren't very emotionally compelling on
> > their own, and aren't particularly intuitive, IMHO.
> I base my opinions more on history than math. History
> is replete with examples of how, given half a chance,
> the wealthy few will trample all over the impoverished
> many. From African Bushmen (I'm currently reading
> Michener's The Covenant)and Mexican Indians enslaved
> and forced to live and work in mines, to the abuses of
> the industrial revolution (you've read The Jungle,
> right?) economic Darwinism is horribly unfair to those
> born without the intelligence or opportunity to claw
> their way to the top. I see sensible government
> regulation as the only way to have a broadbased middle
> class and a decent standard of living for everyone.
Bwah hah hah. You've swallowed some serious propaganda
along with your history. Yes, the wealthy few will want
to force the weak to remain weak, and will use force to
get and keep an unfair advantage. But what is their
primary instrument of force?
Remember that an actual free market is free from force.
Nobody forces you at gunpoint to go into the McDonald's
and order a Happy Meal.
Contrast that with the infamous "company towns" built
around mining operations, where miners were paid in
company 'scrip' rather than cash, and had to buy food
and rent rooms from the company-owned monopoly sellers.
Anybody who tried to come in and sell groceries at a fair
price, or rent rooms at decent rates, was beaten up by
the company goons.
The company town was many things, but it was no free
market, and the oppressors used force (illegally) to
keep it unfree.
The whole "social Darwinism" thing was horrible
propaganda that tried to find a veneer of scientific
respectability to cover up crushing injustice and
oppression and victimization.
Actual free markets, which I advocate, can only exist
inside a framework of laws, such as property rights,
contract law, and a rock-solid guarantee that every
person is entitled to live free from coercion, force,
and the threat of force.
Do big companies defend free markets? No, almost
never. Big companies tend to look for special treatment
by the government -- so Coke gets millions of taxpayer
dollars every year for "overseas development" and
Archer Daniels Midland gets a half a billion every
year in ethanol subsidies. None of that is free
market stuff. It's corporate welfare.
The way to stop it is to outlaw special treatment.
Then politicians can't sell that special treatment to
the highest bidder.
But as soon as you open the door to special treatment,
subsidies, handouts, assistance, etc., you guarantee
that the bulk of that money will go to the powerful
and the politically well connected.
The only way to allow government handouts and NOT
have them get abused is to have a government of
angels, and as Lincoln said, if we had a government
of angels, we wouldn't need laws.
(Can you tell I ran for Atty General?)
So in sum, I think the well intentioned idea that
the government is going to stand up for the little
guy is bullshit in practice. The government, any
government, has only one thing to bring to the party,
and that is force.
If that force is used to enforce "sensible regulation"
such as (say) child labor laws, product safety and
liability standards, truth in labelling laws, and
the like, then you and I are on the same side. But
when that force is used to enforce so-called "fair
trade" rules, and contains a lot of discretion as to
who gets what money and what treatment by the law, then
it's an invitation to mischief.
One of my favorite examples of supposed fairness that
masks actual mischief is farm price supports. The
supposed or claimed benefit is "help for the family
farm", which is bad policy anyway. But in reality
90% of the dollars go to big industrial farms owned
and run by big-donating corporations. A better policy
would be income supports to low-income families, and
an even better policy than that would be no support
at all, and let the families sell their farms and get
other higher-paying work elsewhere.
The other casualty of farm price supports, of course,
is the consumer, who pays higher prices for food, has
less money left for other things, AND pays taxes to
prop up the prices! And then we have warehouses full
of rotting cheese that the government has purchased
at artificially high prices and can't find a use for.
Stupid, Soviet-style screwing up of the market.
> > Here is something I'm reading on this very subject:
> > http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/7036/1.html
> > > And as for border
> > > control, if you've ever been an English speaking
> > > person living in Miami, you'd be hard pressed not to
> > > turn into the world's biggest xenophobe.
> > Why? I thought you liberals were all love and no
> > judgement.
> Live and learn
> liberals? I thought we were a dying breed. Actually,
> I was much more liberal on immigration until I spent
> 18 years being repeatedly told that "Esta Miami! Habla
> Espanol!". I am not exaggerating when I say that the
> 56% of the population in Dade County which is Hispanic
> descriminates mercilessly against anyone non-hispanic.
> It is virtually impossible to get a job there if you
> don't speak fluent UNACCENTED Spanish.
> I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I have no
> problem with anyone of any ethnic background, but when
> they come to America they should speak English like
> everyone else has done for 200 years. Where do you
> stand on the English only debate?
I don't want to see the government push anybody around.
So, I wouldn't want a legal REQUIREMENT that anybody
be able to speak English (or any other language).
I also don't want to see the government spend a lot of
taxpayer money supporting multiple languages. If there
is a large (say) Spanish speaking community, let them
raise private funds to pay for translating government
publications.
I would conduct voluntary government business in English,
so your driver's license test would be in English.
I would conduct mandatory government business in the
person's own language (i.e. provide translators to
people charged with crimes).
Sunday, May 06, 2001
A One quarter of English are victims of crime -- gotta love this! Shows how various 17 Western countries compare on rates of crime victimization, i.e. how many citizens were victims of various sorts of crime. The USA is in 8th place for Burglary, and isn't even in the Top Ten for Violent Crime (#1 is Australia), for Car Theft (#1 is England and Wales), or Overall Victimization (#1 is Australia).
What do the top crime countries all have in common? Heavy duty gun control.
What do the top crime countries all have in common? Heavy duty gun control.
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Concealed gun debate heats up at Capitol -- notice how the reporter fails to mention that there were only TWO people from CeaseFire Oregon, and 25 people on the pro-freedom side. Typical.
Monday, April 23, 2001
Tortured Data Confesses!, a global-warming story, gives us a fine example of how the Socialist/Environmentalist left will simply lie when the facts aren't on their side. In the Global Warming arena, that's all the time.
Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Okay, so why the Arsenic binge? Dunno. I get a bug in my ear, and I have to chase down as much data as I can just to try to figure out what the real story is, behind the morality tale that the popular press are spinning. Probably a doomed undertaking, but I happen to find it rewarding. Shame I don't get paid for that sort of thing, but at least it lets me exercise my UofC training in skepticism and reliance on original sources.
Monday, April 02, 2001
TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: Mona Charen on the Arsenic Rule - key fact: EPA says the 10 ppb level will cost $65 million per statistical life saved -- and I don't know if that's using the pro-rated method or if EPA did the dishonest front-load trick again, i.e. UNDERstating the cost. Yay.
New Bangladesh Disaster: Wells That Pump Poison long on hysteria and heartstring-plucks, short on hard numbers. Typical NY Times crap. Contains some useful data.
Penn State News Mother Nature's Toxins -- a short article on what toxic substances occur naturally in foods we eat.
A good day, though I remain vaguely depressed. My taxes are weighing on me more than they really should. I just find the process of figuring my taxes to be stressful and upsetting and all around unpleasant. This is leaking into the rest of my life.
The constant travel for work may also be a factor. I fret more over Heather's health.
And our income is way down with the new job, but we're not controlling our costs the way we need to. It's bad. I find that stress-inducing.
On the up side, I got to spend a week with my darling girls, and lived to tell the tale. My back is nearly 100% better. I had a productive work day. And I'm loved, which is so amazing I try not to think about it too long or too hard, lest I go blind.
More later.
The constant travel for work may also be a factor. I fret more over Heather's health.
And our income is way down with the new job, but we're not controlling our costs the way we need to. It's bad. I find that stress-inducing.
On the up side, I got to spend a week with my darling girls, and lived to tell the tale. My back is nearly 100% better. I had a productive work day. And I'm loved, which is so amazing I try not to think about it too long or too hard, lest I go blind.
More later.
Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Bibliomania - Free World Literature Online -- I've died and gone to Heaven. I've got online classic literature! Yow.
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
Monday, March 26, 2001
Finally found out why Heather was so irritated with me Sunday. She'd said she wasn't up to being social, which I took to mean that she wanted to be left alone. No. It is correctly decoded to mean "do not allow anyone into the house". Foolish me. I think we're okay now, i.e. her ire has abated. I can't be too harsh on her because she's sick, and that can make one grumpy as I Well Know. She puts up with my grumps, so I feel a certain obligation (in addition to my general desire) to humor her. Plus I'm madly in love with her.
Scrum Development Process -- My life will of course improve enormously once I find the Holy Grail of the Perfect Development Methodology. SCRUM is the latest candidate. Hah. At least it uses new buzzwords, so if nothing else I'll sound hip.
Sunday, March 25, 2001
Boy's death spotlights bias in coverage of gays -- The Washington Times -- Just what I need, another bit of evidence supporting widespread media bias. Yay. I personally don't subscribe to the conspiracy angle. But I daresay the difference described in the article are striking enough to provoke thought in the thoughtful.
Thursday, March 15, 2001
Overeating: OpinionJournal - Scene & Heard tells of the scary situation in Philadelphia, the Fattest City in the US. Clearly the answer to overeating is mandatory exercise and strict Fork Control.
Gack. Now I'm bummed -- Feuerstein's unit-test package (which has several brilliant features) requires me to have UTL_FILE enabled on Oracle AND (apparently) access to the UTL_FILE directory from my PC. I have neither. Can I find a way to enable this? Jay the DBA says yes, he'll happily enable UTL_FILE for any directory I want, but I have to obtain my own logon. He'll mail me the info I need.
Got some good feedback from Yashu today on the project. The prototype's scope seems under control (yay) and the only real worry she has is that I'll need to create a lot of very detailed specs for all the functions that are NOT in the prototype. Fortunately I think it's doable in the time available. Lette says the Web version of Mobius will be purchased and we'll be able to call it (we hope!) from our app... but not any time soon, so we don't need to fret.
I need some lunch.
I need some lunch.
Pretty sweet: I just grabbed Feuerstein's latest brain storm. The guy is a genius. He's built a package for automating the unit testing of PL/SQL. I love this man. And it comes just in time for my PL/SQL Best Practices class in two weeks (which will not be too heavily attended, I think). And I can make immediate use of it myself.
Wednesday, March 14, 2001
Thinking about having my dad visit, and wondering how "out" I really feel like being with him, regarding the more nonstandard aspects of my life. I don't need his approval or validation, or even his understanding. And I don't much want to get in his face. He's an old man now, and it'd be pretty selfish of me to try to make him jump through my hoops, or face this-or-that part of my private life.
On the other hand, I don't much want to have to hide things. Hmmm.
On the other hand, I don't much want to have to hide things. Hmmm.
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
Tuesday. Trying to figure out how much detail to put into the detailed functional specs. This depends in part on the level of skill of my coders, and I'm not feeling too good about them. They're working with new tools (new to them) and don't know my database. Grr. Best to be verbose, despite the extra time that will take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
