Eudaemonists Mailing List Archive

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 1:42 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Casualties

Isn't it true that the U.S. loses about 1 man every two days
in Iraq due to combat?

(By the way, what is the reason for the rather greater loss
due to non-combat events? I don't understand.)

In contrast, the U.S. lost approximate 20 men per day in
Vietnam, and about 200 men per day in World War II.

Thus, U.S. casualties were forty times as bad in Vietnam,
and World War II was ten times as bad as Vietnam. Also,
the U.S. population is now increasing at about 10,000 per
day, and one might consider about one in ten to be war
material in a crunch. That's about 1000 per day. So
every two days, the number of potential American fighting
men goes up about 2,999 or so, one having died in Iraq.

I reckon that in World War II with a population half what
the U.S. has now, it could add---with normal birthrates
and little immigration---perhaps about the same number it
was losing.

(Germany, it would appear---losing 4 million men in four years
or so---lost on the order of 3,000 per day, but who knows
how fast their population was increasing? If every woman
had four children, I think that would work out to about a
million non-replacement births per year, or an increase of
about... hmm... 3000 per day. But since only about one in
ten could be soldiers, that's only 300 new men each day.
I conclude that Hitler's casualties were about ten times
what Germany could replenish.)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Spudboy100_aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 2:20 AM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Casualties

Lee:
<< But since only about one in
ten could be soldiers, that's only 300 new men each day.
I conclude that Hitler's casualties were about ten times
what Germany could replenish.)

Lee>>

In Iraq, there is the notion that this should've been concluded by now. The reason for going to Iraq WMD, lies hidden in Lebannon's Bekka valley; under the care of the Hezbollah. I suspect, though I have no proof that the Prez is avoiding additional conflicts (too early!) with Syria and Iran. The American losses are because of lack of planning and lack of resolve to crush Iraqi resistance. We either needed to jump in with both feet, and secure the country *I don' buy into this liberation talk, spouted from DC (although in some cases this surely was true!) at all. We surely didn't liberate Japan; now we need to couch a military operation in politically correct labels? Sigh!

One of the reasons Bin Ladin hasn't been caught is because he has been given a free pass by Pakistan's ISI, as well as having (his) charity organizations which do his financing, privately funded by the Saudi citzenry. The Prez needs to make some hard decisions because a plurality of the US voters, will not tolerate a long continuous skirmish, sans compelling reasons. In other words, like his Dad and Clinton before him; he shan't have his cake and eat it too, in the Middle East. Not after 9-11.

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:46 PM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Casualties

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin_tsoft.com> wrote:
> Isn't it true that the U.S. loses about 1 man every two days
> in Iraq due to combat?
>
> (By the way, what is the reason for the rather greater loss
> due to non-combat events? I don't understand.)

If you look at the number of US servicemen in Iraq and at actuarial
tables, you'd find that US servicemen are experiencing FEWER accidental
deaths in Iraq than they would experience in their normal lives at
home. They are experiencing fewer deaths because, primarily, most all
do not do much driving in POVs in their free time while in Iraq, nor
are they driving to and from work in POVs. They also have less access
to bars, other people's spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends/daughters, and
fewer tourist opportunities.

It is rather disengenuous for the media to count accidental deaths in
their body counts, given these statistical realities.

=====
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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 01, 2003 4:54 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casualties

Mitch writes

> In Iraq, there is the notion that this should've been concluded by now.

Yes, and evidently a lot of people here also think that this should have
been over and done with by now. The rules are

(I) if something is in the news, it should not be boring or repetitious
(II) progress towards any goal should be easily apparent and obvious,
or else not enough effort is being expended.

(Those two rules have just occurred to me. I cannot tell yet whether I
am making some sort of statement, i.e., by being sarcastic or whatever.
But I will know soon.)

> The reason for going to Iraq WMD, lies hidden in Lebanon's Bekka
> valley; under the care of the Hezbollah. I suspect, though I have
> no proof that the Prez is avoiding additional conflicts (too early!)
> with Syria and Iran.

Well, I think that in order to invade anyone, the U.S. must (for both
internal and external reasons) make a tremendous case for it. It takes
about a decade or so to complete the process. The target country must
be unyielding about inspections, guilty of past crimes both domestic
and international (e.g. invading some adjacent country recently),
and so on. I just cannot see how Bush has any political option of
invading Lebanon or Iran.

> The American losses are because of lack of planning and lack of
> resolve to crush Iraqi resistance. We either needed to jump in
> with both feet,

I'm all for that! If you are going to act, half-measures are stupid.

> and secure the country *I don't buy into this liberation talk,
> spouted from DC (although in some cases this surely was true!)
> at all. We surely didn't liberate Japan; now we need to couch
> a military operation in politically correct labels? Sigh!

Okay, militarily, how would you have conducted the operation?

> The Prez needs to make some hard decisions because a plurality
> of the US voters, will not tolerate a long continuous skirmish,
> sans compelling reasons.

Yes, they never have. Historically, the American people are sick
and tired of any military effort after 18 months, unless there is
a continuous string of victories that indicate the kind of progress
I was talking about in Rule II.

This was true of the 1812 war, the War with Mexico, would have been
true of the Spanish American War, but it finished under the 18 month
deadline, true of the 1917-1918 war, the Korean War, the Vietnam War,
all of them. Eighteen months; or else a continuous string of victories.

Okay, now *I* would have expected that we had 18 months to conquer Iraq,
or else. Well, it took about 18 days. The point of my last post was
that the casualties were and are trivial. I guess that more Americans
die in traffic accidents in Iraq than in combat, and that's even if you
include policing fatalities as "combat". But I don't understand what
the 140+ deaths have mostly been about.

There have been a few countries in history that were so *solid* that they
could take unlimited casualties without falling to pieces. Rome and Russia
are the only ones that come to mind. Even the Japanese gave up after
Hiroshima (though that was probably only because the Emperor was such
a wimp). Every other country finds *some* certain casualty rate
unendurable.

Here is what I think America's ability to endure casualties has
been in its history (in men lost per day per billion people):

1776 5,000? Typical 18th century country, prior to nationalism.
1812 5,000? "These several United States" put up little fight, capital burned.
1846 5,000?
1865 10,000? The movie was not called "Birth of a Nation" for nothing.
1917 10,000? U.S. nationalism reaches peak.
1945 10,000?
1953 5,000? U.S. comes down with liberals, the dread disease afflicting older nations.
1969 1,000?
1990 100? Liberals has progressed to the point all actions extremely difficult/painful.
2000 10? U.S. no longer a nation, becomes "country".
2010 1?
2020 .1? U.S. ceases to be a country, becomes merely a hodgepodge of squabbling groups,
unified only by the IRS and swollen entitlements for the non-productive.

At this rate, I predict that no military action whatsoever will be
tolerated by 2020 if it involves the death of more than 400 soldiers
per year, no matter how vital to the country (e.g. invasion), or vital
to its self-image (e.g. freeing slaves). Such is the evolution of
American's sentimentality. I base the above roughly on

People Casualties Years Rate/Year Rate/Year/Million

1776: 2 million 5,000 7 700 350
1812: 7 million 2,000 3 700 100
1846: 18 million 2,000 2 1,000 55
1865: 20 million 360,000 4 90,000 4500
1898: 70 million 1,000 1 1,000 14
1917: 90 million 100,000 2 50,000 550
1945: 135 million 400,000 4 100,000 1300
1953: 155 million 50,000 3 15,000 100
1969: 200 million 57,000 7 8,000 40
1991: 250 million 100 1 100 0.4
2003: 290 million 300 1 300 1

Note: The population figures don't include blacks before 1950, nor southern
whites during the Civil war. I get the deaths---as confusing as some of the
categories are---from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html.

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, September 01, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casualties

Mike writes

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin_tsoft.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it true that the U.S. loses about 1 man every two days
> > in Iraq due to combat?
> >
> > (By the way, what is the reason for the rather greater loss
> > due to non-combat events? I don't understand.)
>
> If you look at the number of US servicemen in Iraq and at actuarial
> tables, you'd find that US servicemen are experiencing FEWER accidental
> deaths in Iraq than they would experience in their normal lives at
> home.

This is astounding!

I have now changed my mind. Rumsfeld is now dead wrong in not
wanting to send more troops to Iraq. The lives of young American
boys are too valuable to waste by keeping them here, and so as
many should be sent as we can afford.

(I assume that the younger the soldier, the more prone to
vehicle death.)

> They are experiencing fewer deaths because, primarily, most all
> do not do much driving in POVs in their free time while in Iraq, nor
> are they driving to and from work in POVs. They also have less access
> to bars, other people's spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends/daughters, and
> fewer tourist opportunities.

Let me try my own math. About 20,000 Americans die each year in
traffic accidents, which is about 50 per day. Dividing by the
population in millions, that's 1/6 per day. American soldiers,
about a third of a million in Iraq, are dying at the rate of about
two per day. So dividing by 1/3, that's also one-sixth! It seems
to come out the same.

So I guess that the truth behind your statistic must stem from
the young and reckless indeed being more prone to traffic accidents
than the rest of us.

> It is rather disingenuous for the media to count accidental deaths in
> their body counts, given these statistical realities.

Ah, the art of understatement flourishes on this list too.

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, September 01, 2003 5:39 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casualties (math error)

I wrote

> American soldiers, about a third of a million in Iraq, are dying
> at the rate of about two per day. So dividing by 1/3, that's
> also one-sixth! It seems to come out the same.

No, 2 divided by 1/3 is six. So now I get that being in Iraq is much
*more* hazardous than being in the U.S.

Here is an easy comparison. There are 300,000,000 in the U.S.,
and one thousandth as many in Iraq. Traffic fatalities in
the U.S. can be at *most* 50,000 per year, historically.
That is, at most 1000 per week.

It should be that there are one thousand times fewer in Iraq.
That would be only 1 per week. But it's on the order of ten
per week. I don't see how Mike's statistics could be right.

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: Monday, September 01, 2003 7:09 PM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casualties (math error)

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin_tsoft.com> wrote:
> I wrote
>
> > American soldiers, about a third of a million in Iraq, are dying
> > at the rate of about two per day. So dividing by 1/3, that's
> > also one-sixth! It seems to come out the same.
>
> No, 2 divided by 1/3 is six. So now I get that being in Iraq is much
> *more* hazardous than being in the U.S.
>
> Here is an easy comparison. There are 300,000,000 in the U.S.,
> and one thousandth as many in Iraq. Traffic fatalities in
> the U.S. can be at *most* 50,000 per year, historically.
> That is, at most 1000 per week.
>
> It should be that there are one thousand times fewer in Iraq.
> That would be only 1 per week. But it's on the order of ten
> per week. I don't see how Mike's statistics could be right.

Because you are not looking at it demographically. Most traffic deaths
occur to those 25 and under and those 65 and over. Your stats apply to
the general population, not these narrow demographics. Furthermore,
note the heavy prevalence of minorities in the military. Minorities
suffer 90% of weapon related homicides.

__________________________________
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: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:39 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Casualties

In a message dated 9/1/2003 3:53:48 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin_tsoft.com writes: Yes, they never have. Historically, the American people are sick
and tired of any military effort after 18 months, unless there is a continuous
string of victories that indicate the kind of progress I was talking about in
Rule II.

Actually I was reading the other day we were two years getting Germany
subdued after the WW2 surrender. They had a Nazis group called the Wolverines
assassinating GIs for those two years.
If you look at the resistance these few months after the major battles
were over they are said to be in a relatively small area. The rest of the
country is more or less subdued.
All in all I don't hear anyone criticizing the American effort now
that wasn't criticizing us all during the run up to the war, and all during the
war. Most of the criticism seems to be coming either from the campuses or the
DNC. Heck those are the same people that said we would lose Gulf War I and in
essence the same people that screwed up Vietnam. Remember how they opposed
the development of the Patriot Missile and said the A1M1 Abrahams tank couldn't
fight in the Iraqi desert because its air filters were designed wrong and
would choke on the sand.
I've spoke before of lurking on a Middle Eastern site. I still
remember during the run up to Afghanistan reading all the planned strategy and
tactics they intended to use to whip us. The plans were largely the same as they
used to whip the Russians. The trouble is that neither military weapons,
tactics nor organization had stood still during the intervening years.
I remember the pundits describing how Sadaam had these ingenious plans
for whipping us in Gulf War One. The truth is he had fought the Iranians the
same way and his ideas went back to the rough era of the First World War.
I remember being a young amateur boxer. Every time I was scheduled to
fight my opponent's friends came to tell me all the terrible things he would
do to poor little me -- they were looking out only for my best interests. I
liked listening to them -- sometimes they revealed some valuable clues.
We are losing so many men to assassins that the price of having an
American Soldier assassinated has reputedly gone from $1,000 per killing to
$5,000. The Iraqis are so put out with us that the attacks are confined to one
little triangle in their country. They are so sure of doing us in that the
surrounding countries have really toned down the language used in their newspapers.
I read their papers and I know they are being much more cautious in what
they say. Earlier their was literally nothing we could do that would not be
reported with a negative spin.
Guys I don't think our vocal critics have our welfare in mind.
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, September 03, 2003 9:45 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Casualties

Mike writes

> > It should be that there are one thousand times fewer in Iraq.
> > That would be only 1 per week. But it's on the order of ten
> > per week. I don't see how Mike's statistics could be right.
>
> Because you are not looking at it demographically. Most traffic deaths
> occur to those 25 and under and those 65 and over. Your stats apply to
> the general population, not these narrow demographics. Furthermore,
> note the heavy prevalence of minorities in the military. Minorities
> suffer 90% of weapon related homicides.

Have you seen anywhere---or has anyone---the Iraq deaths broken down
by type of incident or age? 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, September 03, 2003 9:48 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Post WWII: German Wolverine Assassinations

Ron writes

> [Lee writes]
> > Historically, the American people are sick
> > and tired of any military effort after 18
> > months, unless there is a continuous string
> > of victories that indicate the kind of
> > progress I was talking about in Rule II.
>
> Actually I was reading the other day we were two years getting Germany
> subdued after the WW2 surrender. They had a Nazis group called the Wolverines
> assassinating GIs for those two years.
> If you look at the resistance these few months after the major battles
> were over they are said to be in a relatively small area. The rest of the
> country is more or less subdued.

I tried to find anything at all about that on-line (google)
with no success. Has anyone seen a link to this?

Perhaps the pro-war sentiment in the U.S. was such that no
big deal was made about it at the time (quite the reverse,
perhaps).

Thanks for pointing this out.

Lee

> All in all I don't hear anyone criticizing the American effort now
> that wasn't criticizing us all during the run up to the war, and all during the
> war. Most of the criticism seems to be coming either from the campuses or the
> DNC. Heck those are the same people that said we would lose Gulf War I and in
> essence the same people that screwed up Vietnam. Remember how they opposed
> the development of the Patriot Missile and said the A1M1 Abrahams tank couldn't
> fight in the Iraqi desert because its air filters were designed wrong and
> would choke on the sand.
> I've spoke before of lurking on a Middle Eastern site. I still
> remember during the run up to Afghanistan reading all the planned strategy and
> tactics they intended to use to whip us. The plans were largely the same as they
> used to whip the Russians. The trouble is that neither military weapons,
> tactics nor organization had stood still during the intervening years.
> I remember the pundits describing how Sadaam had these ingenious plans
> for whipping us in Gulf War One. The truth is he had fought the Iranians the
> same way and his ideas went back to the rough era of the First World War.
> I remember being a young amateur boxer. Every time I was scheduled to
> fight my opponent's friends came to tell me all the terrible things he would
> do to poor little me -- they were looking out only for my best interests. I
> liked listening to them -- sometimes they revealed some valuable clues.
> We are losing so many men to assassins that the price of having an
> American Soldier assassinated has reputedly gone from $1,000 per killing to
> $5,000. The Iraqis are so put out with us that the attacks are confined to one
> little triangle in their country. They are so sure of doing us in that the
> surrounding countries have really toned down the language used in their newspapers.
> I read their papers and I know they are being much more cautious in what
> they say. Earlier their was literally nothing we could do that would not be
> reported with a negative spin.
> Guys I don't think our vocal critics have our welfare in mind.
> 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, September 03, 2003 11:06 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Max Plumm and I caught the Intrepid musuem exhibit in New York City and
they had a fabulous exhibit on the Korean War. Acknowledging that it
was the start of the Cold War, which then continued on through the next
few decades, that early on we lost most of the territory of South Korea,
that it was the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists who were
supplying North Korea, we often saw an appropriate use of quotes, with
some exhibits displaying 'North Korean "Volunteer" ' instead of what the
liberal revisionists usually present us with...'This was allegedly the
start of the "cold war"'

We got a photo of the 'Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club' Emblem on the side of
the intrepid (you may remember one Jeff Davis insisting that it was a
'myth')

The inside of the Intrepid was mostly cleared out except some large
steam pipes and turned into a museum. Surprisingly they seemed to have
run out of things to put in it, as approximately 1/3rd of the interior
was empty. The Vietnam war exhibit was nothing more than the history
channels special on the vietnam war played on a projector,
dissapointing. The cold war exhibit, even worse, was two tanks and a
piece of the berlin wall, with one small plaque!

Some observations: The WWII prop fighters were HUGE, much much larger
than I had figured them to be. The fusulage alone was some 9'-10' in
diameter, and the main prop probably 14' or 15'. Conversely, the
intrepid was much smaller than I though Aircraft carriers to be
(although it was obviously a large vessle, the 'Peace Ship', a cruise
liner, dwarfed it) None of the weapons were active, so we were unable to
sink the Peace Ship despite our best efforts. I suppose I would need to
see a nuclear carrier to really get the scale of those vessels. All the
modern fighters were TINY, much smaller than I thought they were. They
seemed to be about 1/2 the size I thought they were for some reason, I
guess they just always look bigger on TV. Anothering interesting
obersvation was that the old straight deck intrepid of WWII had approx 4
times as many gun emplacements on it, and the future destroyer model
displayed seemed to have two or three weapons placed on it. Everything
is getting smaller and more powerfull. There was an SR-71 there, but
for some reason it was cordoned off and you could get close to it,
dammitt! The tanks were also much larger than I thought, standing next
to them the top of the treads was almost at my neck.

Images

http://www.matus1976.com/public/pictures/NYC_Trip_august03/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Dehede011_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:58 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Casualties

In a message dated 9/3/2003 8:45:34 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin_tsoft.com writes: Have you seen anywhere---or has anyone---the Iraq deaths broken
down by type of incident or age? Thanks.

Lee,
Only that they are supposedly occuring in one small area and that the
costs of hiring the killers are going up sharply.
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, September 04, 2003 9:25 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

In a message dated 9/3/2003 10:05:14 PM Central Standard Time,
matus_matus1976.com writes: Acknowledging that it was the start of the Cold War, which then
continued on through the next few decades,

I assume it is all a matter of definition but in my mind the Cold War
started almost the morning after World War Two was over. Go into any major
library and pick up the microfilm of a major newspaper for a period containing
the surrender of Germany. You will find that to the end of the war everyone
was buddies. When American and Russian troops met at the Elbe they intermingled
and celebrated defeating Germany. Almost the next morning, if not the next
morning, if you approached the Russian lines you were met at the point of a
gun.
After that, there was a Civil War in Greece which was nothing but a
thinly disguised attempt by the Soviets to take over Greece. Later there was
the blockade of Berlin which was an attempt to take over the allied zones by
denying us access.
Churchill gave his "Iron Curtain" speech in 1947 in Missouri of all
places. In addition the countries of Eastern Europe were taken over one by one
all during the last half of the 1940s.
If we want I am sure we could point to the manuevering of Stalin, at
some of the conferences during the war, as his early positioning of the Soviet
to conduct the later cold war.
So I suppose there are many times and places in history that one could
point to as the beginning of the cold war. My personal choice of time and
place is Germany the morning after the German surender. However I am aware that
Stalin had begun pursuing his plans to conduct the Cold War much earlier.
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, September 04, 2003 9:33 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Post WWII: German Wolverine Assassinations

In a message dated 9/3/2003 8:48:51 PM Central Standard Time,
lcorbin_tsoft.com writes: I tried to find anything at all about that on-line (google) with no
success. Has anyone seen a link to this? Perhaps the pro-war sentiment in
the U.S. was such that no big deal was made about it at the time (quite the
reverse, perhaps). Thanks for pointing this out.

Lee,
I want to be equally forthcoming and point out I have seen (heard
actually) a reference once. As it was spoken I can't take you back and document
the Woverines as a fact. For example was "Wolverine" our name or the German
name? If German, why wolverine as I am almost certain a wolverine is an
American animal?
I do recall there was remnants of the Nazis that continued resisting
and talk of plans they had for continuing to resist. But by a couple of months
after the end of the war I don't personally recall anything.
On the other hand I was ten years old and if possibly a bit unusual in
my keeping up with the news I was still ten with all the other interests of a
boy of ten.
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, September 04, 2003 10:31 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

>In a message dated 9/3/2003 10:05:14 PM Central Standard Time,
>matus_matus1976.com writes: Acknowledging that it was the
>start of the Cold War, which then
>continued on through the next few decades,
>
> I assume it is all a matter of definition but in my
>mind the Cold War
>started almost the morning after World War Two was over....
> After that, there was a Civil War in Greece which was
>nothing but a
>thinly disguised attempt by the Soviets to take over Greece.

No doubt, I suppose Korea might be considered the beginning of the
Obvious and official involvement in a proxy war against the communists.
I believe the US made efforts to assist Greece, did they not? I have
wanted to closely examine each cold war conflict starting at greece, but
have not yet had the time to unfortunately. It seems Stalin was
preparing for our becoming enemies even before WWII was over, as
evidenced by his insane drive into Berlin to look for the results of
research by Nazi scientists which may have had nuclear implications.

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, September 04, 2003 10:50 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Socialism kills

Interesting article - Michael

----------

Socialism kills
by Dennis Prager

"In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly French
men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to note that this is
not nearly the scandal in France that it would be in America. In fact,
upon hearing the news, French president Jacques Chirac decided to stay
on vacation in Quebec. Why has this happened?
In large measure because, in the words of British historian Paul
Johnson, the French, like most Europeans, and like most left-thinking
people anywhere, love ideas more than people." (09/02/03)

"Europe has given the world Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, racism,
and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused immeasurable human
suffering. But for Europeans and their ideological twins on the American
left and at universities, ideas are not judged by their ability to
ameliorate huiman suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and
apparent profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good -
that's unromantic American pragmatism - it is good because it sounds
good."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030902.shtml

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Dehede011_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:09 PM
To: matus_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

In a message dated 9/4/2003 9:30:31 AM Central Standard Time,
matus_matus1976.com writes: No doubt, I suppose Korea might be considered the beginning of
the Obvious and official involvement in a proxy war against the communists

Michael,
Actually, I see the Cold War as a continuing conflict with roots back
into the Second World War. The unifying theme as I see it is as a series of
ongoing conflicts with the Soviets attacking so long as they were successful
but then switching tactics when the old ones failed them.
They attacked Eastern Europe with subversion and intimidation.
Finally they ran out of countries ripe for that technique or else we learned how to
handle that -- perhaps there was a combination of both.
Afterwards they tried to snatch the entirety of Berlin with their
blockade but that didn't work.
The next up was the Korean War which ended a stalemate. I believe
that also ended the massive military type attack.
After a while along came Cuba, a guerilla campaign that worked. They
tried to export the campaign to South America. That didn't work as a guerilla
does indeed go among the people as a fish goes in the water. If it isn't his
people then the fish gets hooked as did Che.
Vietnam was a guerilla war until the Tet Offensive. By that time they
had discovered asymmetrical warfare. They switched to using the North
Vietnamese Army and according to David Horowitz the use of subversives in this
country. That tactic worked.
There was an intensive Soviet sponsored war going on in Africa but I
am not really up on that one. The strategy seems to be to cut major ocean
shipping lanes in the long run.
We had Grenada and then Nicaragua. Grenada was on the shipping lanes
for oil from the middle east and Nicaragua was in position to block convenient
access to South America as Cuba blocks shipping access from Gulf ports to
North Europe and perhaps elsewhere.
Finally the Soviet collapsed from the strain of their military
ambitions. Some, reputedly the Russian Intelligence Community, say the trouble spots
of today's wars are ex-clients of the Soviet.
Ron Harrison
From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 6:33 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Michael writes

> [Ron writes]
>
> > I assume it is all a matter of definition but in my
> >mind the Cold War
> >started almost the morning after World War Two was over....
> > After that, there was a Civil War in Greece which was
> >nothing but a
> >thinly disguised attempt by the Soviets to take over Greece.
>
> No doubt, I suppose Korea might be considered the beginning of the
> Obvious and official involvement in a proxy war against the communists.
> I believe the US made efforts to assist Greece, did they not? I have
> wanted to closely examine each cold war conflict starting at Greece, but
> have not yet had the time to unfortunately. It seems Stalin was
> preparing for our becoming enemies even before WWII was over, as
> evidenced by his insane drive into Berlin to look for the results of
> research by Nazi scientists which may have had nuclear implications.

Well, yes, but I don't fault Stalin especially for any of that.
The slightest perusal of history, IMO, shows that tensions and
conflicts between reigning victors or superpowers is inevitable.

I once heard that in the 1920's, when relations between the U.S. and
Britain were quite bad, the British prepared an internal report during
the 1920s as to what the prospects would be if it came to war. They
were dismayed when the report pointed out that the U.S. had twice
the population, three times the natural resources, and five times
the industrial capacity they could ever hope to muster.

The more things change, the more things remain the same.

So if I had been Stalin, I too would have been preparing for a
cold war (at least) after the Nazi defeat. Even if my adversaries
were morons like Roosevelt and Truman, it is unlikely that such
will stay in power forever. But even if they did, it simply would
not be prudent to fail to prepare.

Where I fault him was the aggression all over the world he fostered.
There is no way that the leaders of South Korea would ever have
been given the green light by the U.S. to start a shooting war
against the North, for example. Meanwhile, Soviet spies were...
hmm...well, I guess I can't fault him them for that either. :-)

If Stalin
and his inheritors had simply *not* tried to foment pro-Soviet violent
revolutions everywhere, and if they had disbanded the Red Army (still
retaining an advantage in time and space), like the U.S. disbanded
its army, the "Cold War" would have played out on a far, far lower key.

There is no doubt who started the Cold War. Churchill could see that.
He was not in Novosibirsk making a speech against the U.S.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:58 PM
To: matus_matus1976.com; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Ron said:

> I assume it is all a matter of definition but in my
>mind the Cold War
>started almost the morning after World War Two was over....
> After that, there was a Civil War in Greece which was
>nothing but a
>thinly disguised attempt by the Soviets to take over Greece.

To which Michael responded:

"No doubt, I suppose Korea might be considered the beginning of the
Obvious and official involvement in a proxy war against the communists.
I believe the US made efforts to assist Greece, did they not?"

Indeed, all told the United States government supplied the Papandreou-Papagos regimes with between 400 and 500 million dollars between 1946 and 1949, not to mention a few of the ever popular "technical advisors."

A factor that may have been equally important is that at war's end Greece was occupied by British troops instead of Soviet ones. In the civil war's earliest and most precarious stages, British troops fought along side the Royalists in attempting to subdue the Communists. In December 1944, two months after the Germans had been defeated and withdrawn from Greece, Churchill cabled General Scobie, the British Commander in Greece, and said, "We have to hold and dominate Athens. It would be a great thing for you to succeed without bloodshed if possible, but also with bloodshed if necessary." To suggest that the Cold War began even before World War II ended is indeed a bit of an understatement.

British historian Paul Johnson suggests in his "Modern Times" that:

"The Cold War may be said to date from the immediate aftermath of the Yalta Conference, to be precise from March 1945. Of course in a sense Soviet Russia had waged the Cold War since October 1917: it was inherent in the historical determinism of Leninism. The pragmatic alliance from June 1941 onwards was a mere interruption. It was inevitable that Stalin would resume his hostile predation sooner or later."

Still more interested in seeing Mengistu Haile Mariam get what he deserves than with what Damien or Amara would say to God,

Will

From: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:58 PM
To: matus_matus1976.com; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Ron said:

To which Michael responded:

British historian Paul Johnson suggests in his "Modern Times" that:

Still more interested in seeing Mengistu Haile Mariam get what he deserves than with what Damien or Amara would say to God,

Will

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:12 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Bush=Hitler

All-

A very good article by the National Review's Johan Goldberg which addresses the Left's (and one Libertarian of mine and Michael's acquaintance) grotesque habit of comparing President Bush and members of his administration to Hitler and his odious regime. It is true, as Lee has pointed out in the past, that we all have our own various "ideological blinders". However, I for one appreciate and feel it should be recognized that those on the right do not compare the likes of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter to Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong anytime a tax increase is considered by a liberal administration or Congress.

Will

http://nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg090403.asp

Will

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Dehede011_aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:19 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bush=Hitler

In a message dated 9/4/2003 10:11:55 PM Central Standard Time,
MaxPlumm_aol.com writes: A very good article by the National Review's Johan Goldberg which
addresses the Left's (and one Libertarian of mine and Michael's acquaintance)
grotesque habit of comparing President Bush and members of his administration
to Hitler and his odious regime.

Max,
I seem to be on your side. Anyone that reads up on Hitler will find
that he was a committed Socialist that had but one testicle. What are they
comparing him to Bush or any American for?
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, September 04, 2003 11:40 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Socialism kills

Michael writes

> Interesting article - Michael
> ----------
> Socialism kills by Dennis Prager
>
> "In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly French
> men and women died of heat stroke.

So, I am guessing: socialized medicine? I will read that
when I am a little less restless than right now.

> "Europe has given the world Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, racism,
> and socialism, all rotten ideas that...

You cannot blame "racism" on Europe. It's somewhat natural, the way
that I read the term. One is naturally suspicious of those not in
one's family. Even more suspicious of those not in one's village.
And incredibly suspicious of those that (a) don't appear to resemble
you at all (b) themselves look at you as though you were "one of them"
instead of "one of us".

To the degree that racism or stereotyping is avoidable, it
is only *truly* damaging when even after one gets to know
someone not of one's own background, prejudice *still* prevents
one from recognizing him or her as an individual.

Today in wonderfully race-conscious and class-conscious America,
most people I encounter when I walk down the street take one look
at ol' middle-class, white, intellectual looking, conservatively
dressed Lee and say, "there goes one of them".

I thought that I was growing up in a nation where most people who
saw me would say "there goes one of us". :-(

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, September 05, 2003 12:20 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Socialism kills

The article

> Socialism kills by Dennis Prager

goes on to say:

"Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other people. The state will - why should you? If people in France and
elsewhere in Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is because they are taught from childhood to allow others, i.e. the
state, to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children without
a husband, these..."

Ah, that's explains it! Very good point. I know that I myself
feel vastly less generous towards charity because my thoughts
immediately revert to all the tax money that's been forcibly
extracted from me in the name of charity, or "entitlements" as
they are today less frequently called. So I admire all those
people in the conservative states who seem unaffected by this meme...

The author proves his case with a number of examples. I would
not have seen this. It always made too much sense to me that
naturally socialism would encourage nurturing thinking.

Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: matus [mailto:matus_matus1976.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:50 AM
> To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
> Subject: [eudaemonists] Socialism kills
>
> Interesting article - Michael
> ----------
> Socialism kills
> by Dennis Prager
>
> "In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly French
> men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to note that this is
> not nearly the scandal in France that it would be in America. In fact,
> upon hearing the news, French president Jacques Chirac decided to stay
> on vacation in Quebec. Why has this happened?
> In large measure because, in the words of British historian Paul
> Johnson, the French, like most Europeans, and like most left-thinking
> people anywhere, love ideas more than people." (09/02/03)
>
> "Europe has given the world Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, racism,
> and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused immeasurable human
> suffering. But for Europeans and their ideological twins on the American
> left and at universities, ideas are not judged by their ability to
> ameliorate huiman suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and
> apparent profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good -
> that's unromantic American pragmatism - it is good because it sounds
> good."
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030902.shtml

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 05, 2003 1:12 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

(I can't believe that I didn't send this to the list!)

Max Plumm writes

> British historian Paul Johnson suggests in his "Modern Times" that:
>
> "The Cold War may be said to date from the immediate aftermath of
> the Yalta Conference, to be precise from March 1945. Of course in
> a sense Soviet Russia had waged the Cold War since October 1917:
> it was inherent in the historical determinism of Leninism. The
> pragmatic alliance from June 1941 onwards was a mere interruption.
> It was inevitable that Stalin would resume his hostile predation
> sooner or later."

Yes, exactly.

> Still more interested in seeing Mengistu Haile Mariam get what he
> deserves...

Who's that, and what would you like to happen to him?

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, September 05, 2003 1:12 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Bush=Hitler

Ditto. Sorry for the extra email, Ron.

Ron writes

> MaxPlumm_aol.com writes:
> > A very good article by the National Review's Johan Goldberg which
> > addresses the Left's (and one Libertarian of mine and Michael's acquaintance)
> > grotesque habit of comparing President Bush and members of his administration
> > to Hitler and his odious regime.
>
> Max,
> I seem to be on your side.

How surprising.

> Anyone that reads up on Hitler will find that he was a committed
> Socialist that had but one testicle. What are they comparing him
> to Bush or any American for?

They see a parallel between "Bush's" invasion of Iraq and Hitler's
invasion of Poland. They adhere totally to the principle of
national sovereignty (overlooking certain unimportant issues like
national survival, terrorist reduction, power politics, non-
proliferation, ridding the world of a supremely evil murderer, etc.)

They also see him as having mesmerized a huge part of the American
people to do harmful and callous things, things entirely foreign
to the generous and benevolent nature of people who have not been
brainwashed by right-wing propaganda. (I guess that it is by dint
of his incredibly powerful and sweeping oratory that Bush, like
Hitler, achieved this.)

The truth also is that you cannot hold Bush entirely accountable
for invading Iraq, any more than you could hold Hitler entirely
accountable for invading Poland, (although you *could* make a
much better case for the latter than the former). In reality,
of course, modern leaders can seldom act without huge compliance
of their whole nation, or at least a huge party, (e.g., the Nazis
or the Republicans), and probably not without favorable sentiment
from a real majority of the people---oh, oh. I think that Blair
and his party *did* invade Iraq without majority support of the
people---I don't really know.

(We are far from the days when Tamerlane, sick and bed-ridden,
suddenly ordered his entire army/people to go attack China,
2000 miles away. Even though he was the *only* one who wanted
to make the horrid march across frozen Siberia in the middle
of winter, no one in his tent wanted to be the first to demur.
That is, no one wanted to be first to be tortured and killed.
So all 300,000 or so sullen, dejected, reluctant people began
the trek. Fortunately for them, Tamerlane died a week or so
later.)

Anyway, that's how they would attempt the comparison, faulty
as it is, of course.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 10:01 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] RE: Taiwan (was: RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V)

A post to the extropy list. I am sure Will may have something to say on
the rediculous comments of Tawain.

Michael

>>> one controls all that land and all
>>> those people, but is all screwed up. The other is
>>> free and prosperous. It's a lesson a six year old
>>> child couldn't miss.
>
>>Only if he had no access to g**gle. Otherwise the little enquirer
>>would find out that Taiwan was under martial law for the first 80% of
>>its independent history and that its first general elections were in
>>1996, by which time it was already prosperous relative to its
>mainland
>>neighbour. You could always censor those pages, to reinforce the
>>democratic message.
>
>Yes, another beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact.
>

Lets not forget the separation of political and economic systems.
Democracy is the political structure, communism refers to both a
political one *and* an economic one, democracy has no implications of
economic structure. You can have free market democracies or heavily
socialized ones. Tawain may have been under martial law, but it was
also a market based economy with a rule of law not present in China, and
history clearly shows that whether democratic or totalitarian, market
based economies clearly produce higher standards of living for the
people that live under them, providing adequate rule of law.

Article on the subject -
www.worldbank.org/research/growth/pdfiles/dollarkraay2.pdf

Subject: David Dollar and Aart Kraay - Property Rights, Political
Rights, and the development of Poor countries

David Dollar and Aart Kraay - Property Rights, Political Rights, and the
development of Poor countries
This is An interesting paper relating economic growth and world policy.
Specifically relating to finding out what behavior objectively leads to
a better standard of living for the worlds population and the world's
poor.

The Author first designates two main criteria to the paper, defining
government structures in 'voice' and 'rule of law' Voice refers to the
say the populace has in the government, and the 'rule of law' refers to
the general trust and abidence in law of the people of the nation.
Similiar to two catagories I have often used as democratic vs non
democratic and despotic vs non despotic. The Author points out that all
developed nations rank high in both 'rule of law' and 'voice',yet poor
countries (especially the sixty poorest) rank very low in both
catagories (The ranking is based on a series of quantifiable and
qualifiable variables and averaged out, defined in the paper) Notably,
the author points out that the rule of law has a very powerful effect on
the income of the poor, that is, the more the populace and the
governance respects the laws the better off the people are, especially
the poorest. The author notes that (not surprisingly to me) that
democracy does not have as strong of a correlation to helping the poor
as the non-despotic vs. despotic 'rule of law' catagorization does.
Nations can not prosper if laws are not in place or enforced. The good
voice poor law countries do not fare well, while the good law poor voice
did fare much better for the poor. Of course the good law good voice was
at the top, (on average) while poor voice poor law was at the bottom.
Unfortunately, as the author notes, the good voice poor law gets about
twice as much aid as the good law poor voice countries, something that
is not as conducive to ending poverty as the reverse situation. The
author suggests that more aide should be given to countries that have
reasonably good economic practices and respect of law.

Furthermore, the author notes that countries with relatively good rule
of law, even in the absence of good voice (such as China, Uganda, Ghana,
and Vietnam) which are well known market oriented reformers in the past
15 years, are seeing income rise rapidly and education and literacy
expanding . The Author notes that these trends may lead to greater
political liberalization (good voice) much like Chile, Taiwan, or South
Korea.

The author qualitatively defines 'Rule of Law' as the measure of the
extent to which people have confidence in and abide by the rules of
society. He quantitatively defines it with a series of measurable
variables in the paper. This concept definately is an excellent
description of what exactly is lacking in post communist russia and the
reason for its current conditions.

Interestingly, the Author notes that as we move from the poles to the
tropics, both good voice and rule of law decline. An enrvironmental /
social reason for this is releayed in Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and
Steel" A quick summary for the pattern is given in this paper.

The author argues that when we ask what countries have good governments
when handing out foriegn aide, the most important factor is whether the
country and its people support a rule of law, and second to that is a
good political voice.

The author also notes that there is a tight link between income of the
poor and per capita income and there is a relationship between the
growth rate of income of the poor and median income. Obvious for persons
familiar with averages (mean, mode, median) He also states that the
evidence is clear that openness to foriegn trade and investment will
accelerate growth and poverty reduction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 10:06 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V

Robert Bradbury said:
>I'm just blown away that the U.S. let one of its most
>phenomenal technological achivements slip from its grasp. The
>younger folks on the list will not get this -- but those of us
>in our 40's watched those launches and watched the Apollo
>lunar landings on TV too.
>

Robert Zubrin had some things to say on this subject in his book
"Entering Space" Skylab had more liveable area than the ISS does and
was made from the third stage of the Saturn V, it was originally the
fuel tanks for the moon mission.

Michael

- Excerpts from Entering space - (Be sure to check the last paragraph)

Political impacts on the US space program
"The attempt to cope with these economic realities underlies much of the
pathology associated with the Shuttle program for the past twenty years.
For example, in selling the Shuttle program to Congress during the
1970's, NASA officials claimed that the Shuttle would fly forty times
per year (one launch every nine days!). This prediction should have
aroused skepticism on two grounds: (a) the technical difficult in
preparing a Shuttle for launch in so short a time and (b) the lack of a
payload manifest large enough to such a launch rate. NASA leaders left
(a) up to the engineers to solve as best they could, but attempted to
solve (b) themselves through political action. Specifically, the NASA
brass in the late 1970's abd tge early 1980's obtained agreements from
the White House to the effect that once the Shuttle became fully
operational, all U.S. government payloads would be launched on the
Shuttle. That is, NASA wanted to the expendable Deltas, Atlases, and
Titans phased out of existence so that the Shuttle could enjoy a bigger
manifest and have its economics improve accordingly. The Air Force
resisted this policy, as they feared that a Shuttle accident could cause
a stand-down of the entire program, which would them make it impossible
to launch vital military reconnaissance and communication satellites
when required. It seems incredible today, but the NASA argument actually
carried the day against the Air Force in Washington's corridors of
power. During the 1980's, the expendable "mixed fleet" was in the
process of being phased out. It was only after the Challenger disaster
in January 1986 proved the Air Force concerns were fully justified that
President Reagan reversed the decision."

Robert Zubrin - Entering Space - page 27-28

---------

Politics and the International Space Station (idealogical driven
scientific goals)
"The need to increase the launch manifest to justify Shuttle economics
played a central role in the decision to initiate the Space Station
program. In the early 1980s, NASA Deputy Administrator Hans Mark saw
clearly that achieving a shuttle launch rate of twenty-five per year
would be impossible without the manifest created by the construction and
supply needs of a permanently orbiting outpost, which he already
supported as a facility for in space scientific research (mark did not
believe the forty launches per year touted by earlier shuttle advocates
was feasible under any conditions). Based on this (probably accurate
assessment), Mark convinced first NASA Administrator James Beggs and
then the Reagan White House of the need for a space station program. The
need to generate a large shuttle manifest also helps to explain the
bizarre nature of the engineering designs that have guided the space
station program since its inceptions.

The right way to build a Space Station is to build a heavy-lift launch
vehicle and use it to launch the station in a single piece. The United
States launched the Skylab space station in this manner in 1973. Skylab,
which contained more living space than the currently planned
International Space Station (ISS), was built in one piece and launched
in a single day. AS a result, the entire Skylab program, end to end from
1968 to 1974, including development, build, launch, and operation was
conducted at a cost in today's money of about $4 Billion, roughly
one-eighth of the anticipated cost of the ISS. In contrast, the Space
Station has gone through numerous designs (of which the current ISS is
the latest), all of which called for over thirty Shuttle Launches, each
delivering an element that would be added into an extended ticky-tacky
structure on orbit. Since no one really knows how to do this, such an
approach has caused the program development cost and schedule to
explode. In 1993, the recently appointed NASA Administrator Dan Goldin
attempted to deal with this situation be ordering a total reassessment
of the Space Station's design. Three teams, labeled A, B, and C, were
assigned to develop complete designs for three distinct Space Station
concepts. Teams A and B took two somewhat different approaches to the by
then standard thirty-Shuttle-launch/orbit assembly concept, whereas team
C developed a Skylab-type design that would be launched in a single
throw of a heave lift vehicle (a "Shuttle C" consisting of the Shuttle
launch stack but without the reusable orbiter). The three approaches
were then submitted to a blue ribbon panel organized by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology for competitive judgment. The
M.I.T. panel ruled decisively in favor of option C (a fact that
demonstrated only their common sense, not their brilliance, as C was
much cheaper, simpler, safer, more reliable, and more capable and would
have given the nation a heavy-lift launcher as a bonus). However, based
on the need to create Shuttle Launches as well as a desire to have the
Space Station design that would allow modular additions by international
partners, Vice President Al Gore and House Space Subcommittee chairman
George Brown overruled the M.I.T. panel. By political fiat, these
gentlemen forced NASA to accept option A, and thee space agency has had
to struggle with the task of building the Space Station on that basis
ever since. The result has been a further set of cost and schedule
overruns, the blame for which has been consistently placed on various
NASA middle managers instead of those really responsible."
Robert Zubrin - Entering Space - page 28-29

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 06, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] RE: Taiwan (was: RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V)

Michael writes

> Article on the subject -
> www.worldbank.org/research/growth/pdfiles/dollarkraay2.pdf

> Subject: David Dollar and Aart Kraay - Property Rights, Political
> Rights, and the development of Poor countries

That link does not work for me.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 5:34 PM
To: 'Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com'
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] RE: Taiwan (was: RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V)

Hmm, they seemed to have moved / deleted the article. I will have to
hunt for it, it's a good one...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin_tsoft.com]
>Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:06 PM
>To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
>Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] RE: Taiwan (was: RE: SPACE: Loss
>of the Saturn V)
>
>
>Michael writes
>
>> Article on the subject -
>> www.worldbank.org/research/growth/pdfiles/dollarkraay2.pdf
>
>> Subject: David Dollar and Aart Kraay - Property Rights, Political
>> Rights, and the development of Poor countries
>
>That link does not work for me.
>
>Lee
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:38 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Iraq is still not Vietnam..and neither is Vietnam for that matter

All-

Enjoyable article on the National Review site today by John O'Sullivan. Mr. O'Sullivan gives his two cents as to why the "Iraq is becoming another Vietnam" argument is without merit. While being no longer as long or detailed as a windbag such as myself would have made this article, definitely a good read.

http://nationalreview.com/jos/jos090903.asp

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:59 PM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Lee asked a few days ago:

> > Still more interested in seeing Mengistu Haile Mariam get
> what he
> > deserves...

"Who's that, and what would you like to happen to him?"

Mengistu Haile Mariam was the Communist dictator of Ethiopia from 1974-91. Like every other Soviet proxy one can think of, his regime was marked by mass murder and oppression. The always useful Black Book of Communism puts the death toll during Mengistu's "Red Terror" at roughly 250,000. Indeed, various diplomats during the late 1970s recounted tales of seeing bodies piled up on the roadside as they left Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital.

Mengistu's grip on power loosened in the late 1980s, as the money and gunships from Moscow were no longer being supplied in sufficient quantities. Facing certain defeat at the hands of a widespread rebellion, he fled to Zimbabwe where he remains to this day, under the auspices of his long time friend Robert Mugabe. Indeed, the national holiday of Ethiopia is May 28th, the day the Communist regime was overthrown.

As for what I would like to have happen to Mengistu, ideally he would've seen a Nicolae Ceaucescu type ending, but that obviously was not to be. More likely, like most of the major tyrants of the 20th Century, absolutely nothing will ever happen to him, and he will live out his days believing his cause was just and right.

But with real tyrants like George W. Bush running around, who has time for mass murderers?.....:)

Max "If being anti-communist is wrong, then I don't wanna be right" Plumm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:59 PM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

Lee asked a few days ago:

> > Still more interested in seeing Mengistu Haile Mariam get
> what he
> > deserves...

"Who's that, and what would you like to happen to him?"

But with real tyrants like George W. Bush running around, who has time for mass murderers?.....:)

Max "If being anti-communist is wrong, then I don't wanna be right" Plumm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:08 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Iraq is still not Vietnam..and neither is Vietnam for that matter

Of note

"Nor does the story end with the safety of Singapore. In the late 1980s,
when the Soviet politburo was debating perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev
cited its success - tiny Singapore, exported more in value than the vast
Soviet Union - as demonstrating the need to dismantle the socialist
command economy"

Imagine that, one CITY creating more wealth than the entire Soviet
Union.

Yesterday, the Day after Bush's speech, I listened to a call in hour on
NPR, where the first caller insisted that Iraq was another Vietnam, and
we new Vietnam was a mistake but didn't leave early enough, and we
didn't want to turn Iraq into one. I tried to call in, wanting to point
out what happened to the people of Indochina after we abandoned them.
Ah, but who cares about them, they arent americans! As some brilliant
commentator from the extropian list opined "Screw Vietnam!"

Michael Dickey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MaxPlumm_aol.com [mailto:MaxPlumm_aol.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:38 PM
>To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
>Subject: [eudaemonists] Iraq is still not Vietnam..and neither
>is Vietnam for that matter
>
>
>All-
>
>Enjoyable article on the National Review site today by John
>O'Sullivan. Mr. O'Sullivan gives his two cents as to why the
>"Iraq is becoming another Vietnam" argument is without merit.
>While being no longer as long or detailed as a windbag such as
>myself would have made this article, definitely a good read.
>
>
>http://nationalreview.com/jos/jos090903.asp
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:11 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Korean War at Intrepid Museum

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MaxPlumm_aol.com [mailto:MaxPlumm_aol.com]
he fled to Zimbabwe where he
>remains to this day, under the auspices of his long time
>friend Robert Mugabe.

No doubt Mugabe handed over one of the nationalized farms expropriated
from the whites of Zimbabwe to Mengistu.

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: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:04 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

A sad day, the grumpy, nuclear bomb loving, social commentor, hated by
liberals, favorite physicist of mine Edward Teller now ceases to
exist....

24) Edward Teller, 1908-2003
SiliconValley.Com

"Edward Teller, the 'father of the hydrogen bomb,' a Hungarian-born
physicist who tirelessly promoted the development of nuclear weapons
for half a century, died Tuesday at his home on the campus of
Stanford University. He was 95 and had been in declining health. He
had suffered a stroke a few days earlier. ... Born in Budapest in
1908, Teller studied under both Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg,
among the pre-eminent scientists of their time, and went on to become
a leading player among the pantheon of physicists who unraveled the
inner secrets of the atom in the halcyon years of nuclear discovery
in the 1930s and 1940s." (09/10/03)

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6737920.htm

Physicist Edward Teller dies at 95
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND H-BOMB SUCCUMBS AT STANFORD
By Dan Stober
Mercury News

Edward Teller, the ``father of the hydrogen bomb,'' a Hungarian-born
physicist who tirelessly promoted the development of nuclear weapons for
half a century, died Tuesday at his home on the campus of Stanford
University. He was 95 and had been in declining health. He had suffered
a stroke a few days earlier.

He was the driving force behind the establishment of the Bay Area's
nuclear weapons design lab, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Born in Budapest in 1908, Teller studied under both Neils Bohr and
Werner Heisenberg, among the pre-eminent scientists of their time, and
went on to become a leading player among the pantheon of physicists who
unraveled the inner secrets of the atom in the halcyon years of nuclear
discovery in the 1930s and 1940s.

In 1928, while at the University of Munich, he slipped beneath the
wheels of a streetcar and lost his left foot. The heavy staff he used to
aid his walking in later years became as much a part of his formidable
presence as his famous bushy eyebrows and thick, commanding Hungarian
accent.

He sailed to the United States in 1935 with his wife, Mici, part of a
flood of Jewish scientists fleeing Nazism. His first important political
act was behind the wheel of his Plymouth in 1939, when he drove Leo
Szilard to Albert Einstein's house to persuade the scientist to compose
his famous letter to Franklin Roosevelt about the possibility of an atom
bomb.

From there Teller never looked back, dedicating his career to nuclear
weapons. From his position at Lawrence Livermore and later Stanford's
Hoover Institution, he advised U.S. presidents during several decades,
arguing against nuclear test bans and in favor of developing new types
of weapons.

He was fascinated by all things nuclear and was known in the weapons
world as a fountain of imaginative ideas, the details of which he left
to others. He promoted the idea of using hydrogen bombs to dig a harbor
in Alaska, to deflect killer asteroids approaching Earth and mused about
whether they could be used to change the direction of hurricanes.

Teller championed nuclear power plants and nuclear space ships. In the
1980s, his campaigning for a hydrogen bomb that could theoretically emit
enough X-ray laser beams to knock down a fleet of Russian missiles
helped propel the creation of the Reagan-era ``Star Wars'' program.

As a Los Alamos scientist in World War II, Teller was present at the
creation of the atomic bomb, donning dark welding glasses, suntan lotion
and heavy gloves to protect against the light and heat as a test of the
world's first atom bomb lighted the dark New Mexico sky.

Late in his life, he told the Mercury News he had no regrets. ``Can you
tell me why I should have regrets?'' he said.

He was beloved by many conservatives and had a following in Washington,
but he also was vilified by liberals and lampooned as ``Dr.
Strangelove,'' the bomb-loving scientist in Stanley Kubrik's spoof about
nuclear weapons and the Cold War.

His life was forever altered by events in 1954 that revolved, as always,
around nuclear weapons. After the atomic bombing that ended the war
against Japan in 1945, Teller had pushed hard for the development of the
more powerful hydrogen bomb, contributing crucial design concepts. But
he was so frustrated by what he saw as foot-dragging by Los Alamos
Director J. Robert Oppenheimer that he successfully lobbied for the
founding of a second bomb lab in Livermore in 1952, constructed as an
offshoot of the University of California's Radiation Laboratory.

In April 1954, Teller testified against Oppenheimer, advising the Atomic
Energy Commission that the respected scientist could not be trusted with
a security clearance. His testimony was greeted with outrage by many of
his former Los Alamos colleagues, some of whom shunned him for life.

He was stung by the criticism and found solace in teaching at the
University of California-Berkeley and sharing his ideas with younger
scientists at his lab in Livermore. Their crowning achievement, aided by
Teller's technical insights and political ability, was the shrinking of
the H-bomb. During the 1950s, the Livermore scientist created a hydrogen
bomb small enough to fit on a missile carried inside a Polaris
submarine, forever changing the calculus of nuclear deterrence.

As he aged, Teller was showered with honors and he traveled to his
native Hungary, where he was treated as a celebrity.

Less than two months ago, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of
Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, during a special ceremony
presided over by President Bush. Teller was too frail to attend but said
he was touched by the honor.

``In my long life, I had to face some difficult decisions and found
myself often in doubt whether I acted the right way,'' he said. ``Thus
the medal is a great blessing for me.''

On Tuesday, Teller, an advocate of science education, had been scheduled
to appear at a dedication ceremony for the University of California's
new Edward Teller Education Center, near Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.

``The loss of Dr. Edward Teller is a great loss for this laboratory and
for the nation,'' said Michael Anastasio, director of the Livermore lab.
``He was a passionate advocate for science and the development of
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. He put his heart and soul into this
laboratory and into ensuring the security of this nation, and his
dedication never foundered.''

Teller is survived by his son, Paul, daughter Wendy, four grandchildren
and one great-grandchild. His wife of 66 years, known as Mici but born
Augusta Maria Harkanyi, died in 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:46 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

The local paper ran his obituary on the front page with Leni
Reifenstahl's obit. Given they are a left wing rag, its obvious they
wanted to condemn by association, despite that Dr. Teller (Dziller)
fled Leni's Nazi Germany to the US and used his genius to fight
totalitarianism. While they used rather loaded semantic terms with him,
they seemed to try to whitewash her, talking of how she once confronted
Hitler about his anti-semitism and her claims that she knew nothing of
the final solution. It seemed like they wanted to put them both on
morally equivalent footing, perhaps illustrate him as even worse than a
Nazi.

--- matus <matus_matus1976.com> wrote:
> A sad day, the grumpy, nuclear bomb loving, social commentor, hated
> by
> liberals, favorite physicist of mine Edward Teller now ceases to
> exist....
>
>
> 24) Edward Teller, 1908-2003
> SiliconValley.Com
>
> "Edward Teller, the 'father of the hydrogen bomb,' a Hungarian-born
> physicist who tirelessly promoted the development of nuclear weapons
> for half a century, died Tuesday at his home on the campus of
> Stanford University. He was 95 and had been in declining health. He
> had suffered a stroke a few days earlier. ... Born in Budapest in
> 1908, Teller studied under both Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg,
> among the pre-eminent scientists of their time, and went on to become
>
> a leading player among the pantheon of physicists who unraveled the
> inner secrets of the atom in the halcyon years of nuclear discovery
> in the 1930s and 1940s." (09/10/03)
>
> http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6737920.htm
>
> Physicist Edward Teller dies at 95
> DRIVING FORCE BEHIND H-BOMB SUCCUMBS AT STANFORD
> By Dan Stober
> Mercury News
>
>
> Edward Teller, the ``father of the hydrogen bomb,'' a Hungarian-born
> physicist who tirelessly promoted the development of nuclear weapons
> for
> half a century, died Tuesday at his home on the campus of Stanford
> University. He was 95 and had been in declining health. He had
> suffered
> a stroke a few days earlier.
>
> He was the driving force behind the establishment of the Bay Area's
> nuclear weapons design lab, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
>
> Born in Budapest in 1908, Teller studied under both Neils Bohr and
> Werner Heisenberg, among the pre-eminent scientists of their time,
> and
> went on to become a leading player among the pantheon of physicists
> who
> unraveled the inner secrets of the atom in the halcyon years of
> nuclear
> discovery in the 1930s and 1940s.
>
> In 1928, while at the University of Munich, he slipped beneath the
> wheels of a streetcar and lost his left foot. The heavy staff he used
> to
> aid his walking in later years became as much a part of his
> formidable
> presence as his famous bushy eyebrows and thick, commanding Hungarian
> accent.
>
> He sailed to the United States in 1935 with his wife, Mici, part of a
> flood of Jewish scientists fleeing Nazism. His first important
> political
> act was behind the wheel of his Plymouth in 1939, when he drove Leo
> Szilard to Albert Einstein's house to persuade the scientist to
> compose
> his famous letter to Franklin Roosevelt about the possibility of an
> atom
> bomb.
>
> From there Teller never looked back, dedicating his career to nuclear
> weapons. From his position at Lawrence Livermore and later Stanford's
> Hoover Institution, he advised U.S. presidents during several
> decades,
> arguing against nuclear test bans and in favor of developing new
> types
> of weapons.
>
> He was fascinated by all things nuclear and was known in the weapons
> world as a fountain of imaginative ideas, the details of which he
> left
> to others. He promoted the idea of using hydrogen bombs to dig a
> harbor
> in Alaska, to deflect killer asteroids approaching Earth and mused
> about
> whether they could be used to change the direction of hurricanes.
>
> Teller championed nuclear power plants and nuclear space ships. In
> the
> 1980s, his campaigning for a hydrogen bomb that could theoretically
> emit
> enough X-ray laser beams to knock down a fleet of Russian missiles
> helped propel the creation of the Reagan-era ``Star Wars'' program.
>
> As a Los Alamos scientist in World War II, Teller was present at the
> creation of the atomic bomb, donning dark welding glasses, suntan
> lotion
> and heavy gloves to protect against the light and heat as a test of
> the
> world's first atom bomb lighted the dark New Mexico sky.
>
> Late in his life, he told the Mercury News he had no regrets. ``Can
> you
> tell me why I should have regrets?'' he said.
>
> He was beloved by many conservatives and had a following in
> Washington,
> but he also was vilified by liberals and lampooned as ``Dr.
> Strangelove,'' the bomb-loving scientist in Stanley Kubrik's spoof
> about
> nuclear weapons and the Cold War.
>
> His life was forever altered by events in 1954 that revolved, as
> always,
> around nuclear weapons. After the atomic bombing that ended the war
> against Japan in 1945, Teller had pushed hard for the development of
> the
> more powerful hydrogen bomb, contributing crucial design concepts.
> But
> he was so frustrated by what he saw as foot-dragging by Los Alamos
> Director J. Robert Oppenheimer that he successfully lobbied for the
> founding of a second bomb lab in Livermore in 1952, constructed as an
> offshoot of the University of California's Radiation Laboratory.
>
> In April 1954, Teller testified against Oppenheimer, advising the
> Atomic
> Energy Commission that the respected scientist could not be trusted
> with
> a security clearance. His testimony was greeted with outrage by many
> of
> his former Los Alamos colleagues, some of whom shunned him for life.
>
> He was stung by the criticism and found solace in teaching at the
> University of California-Berkeley and sharing his ideas with younger
> scientists at his lab in Livermore. Their crowning achievement, aided
> by
> Teller's technical insights and political ability, was the shrinking
> of
> the H-bomb. During the 1950s, the Livermore scientist created a
> hydrogen
> bomb small enough to fit on a missile carried inside a Polaris
> submarine, forever changing the calculus of nuclear deterrence.
>
> As he aged, Teller was showered with honors and he traveled to his
> native Hungary, where he was treated as a celebrity.
>
> Less than two months ago, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of
> Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, during a special
> ceremony
> presided over by President Bush. Teller was too frail to attend but
> said
> he was touched by the honor.
>
> ``In my long life, I had to face some difficult decisions and found
> myself often in doubt whether I acted the right way,'' he said.
> ``Thus
> the medal is a great blessing for me.''
>
> On Tuesday, Teller, an advocate of science education, had been
> scheduled
> to appear at a dedication ceremony for the University of California's
> new Edward Teller Education Center, near Lawrence Livermore National
> Laboratory.
>
> ``The loss of Dr. Edward Teller is a great loss for this laboratory
> and
> for the nation,'' said Michael Anastasio, director of the Livermore
> lab.
> ``He was a passionate advocate for science and the development of
> Lawrence Livermore National Lab. He put his heart and soul into this
> laboratory and into ensuring the security of this nation, and his
> dedication never foundered.''
>
> Teller is survived by his son, Paul, daughter Wendy, four
> grandchildren
> and one great-grandchild. His wife of 66 years, known as Mici but
> born
> Augusta Maria Harkanyi, died in 2000.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:46 PM
To: matus; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

__________________________________
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: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:49 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

In a message dated 9/12/2003 11:46:43 AM Central Standard Time,
mlorrey_yahoo.com writes: Given they are a left wing rag, its obvious they wanted to
condemn by association,

This sort of thing has been going on for years. I was surprised he had
stayed alive so long else the left wing would have been bashing him.
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: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:11 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dehede011_aol.com
>
>In a message dated 9/12/2003 11:46:43 AM Central Standard Time,
>mlorrey_yahoo.com writes: Given they are a left wing rag, its
>obvious they wanted to
>condemn by association,
>
>This sort of thing has been going on for years. I was
>surprised he had
>stayed alive so long else the left wing would have been
>bashing him. Ron Harrison
>

So I was, I just picked up his 'memoirs' about a week ago, its around
~1,000 pages. When I looked at it, I thought 'wow, I am surprised he is
still alive, he must be 90 something now'

I first really heard about him years and years ago reading Carl Sagan's
'Demon Haunted World', Sagan apparently despised him, devoting an entire
chapter to bashing him (I was, and still am, a big fan of Sagan as
well). I figured if he disliked him so much, I ought to learn more
about him. Subsequent readings of Feynman, Dyson and others at Los
Alamos led me to respect him enough to be interested in buying some of
his books. And his comments in his books solidified his place as an
intellectual inspiration of mine and someone I respected and who loss
saddens me.

Regards,

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Dehede011_aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:59 PM
To: matus_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

In a message dated 9/12/2003 1:09:56 PM Central Standard Time,
matus_matus1976.com writes: And his comments in his books solidified his place as an
intellectual inspiration of mine and someone I respected and who loss saddens me.

Thank you for those words, I truly never knew the man on any level and it is
good to hear reasonable person's opinion without all the political bias.
Ron Harrison

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:21 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

Michael writes

> So I was, I just picked up his 'memoirs' about a week ago, its around
> ~1,000 pages. When I looked at it, I thought 'wow, I am surprised he is
> still alive, he must be 90 something now'

Yes, the last guy of that era, so far as I know.

> I first really heard about him years and years ago reading Carl Sagan's
> 'Demon Haunted World', Sagan apparently despised him, devoting an entire
> chapter to bashing him (I was, and still am, a big fan of Sagan as
> well).

It makes perfect sense that Sagan would despise him---given Teller's
correct intuitions about Communism and the left---but how did he
manage to stick that in "Demon Haunted World"? I thought that that
books denounced pseudo-science. I subscribe to The Skeptical Inquirer
in which he wrote a lot of good pieces attacking pseudo-science, and
read some of his earlier book. I don't see the Teller connection.

> And his [Teller's] comments in his books solidified his place as an
> intellectual inspiration of mine and someone I respected and who loss
> saddens me.

Yes. While it's true that he could be vain and egotistical, enough
to sometimes cause problems with other scientists, he was, they
admitted, absolutely first rate as a physicist. In addition, of
course, he was rare among that set in the forties and fifties in
having perfectly fine intuitions of what the left was up to.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 11:22 AM
To: 'Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com'
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin_tsoft.com]
>
>Michael writes
>
>> So I was, I just picked up his 'memoirs' about a week ago,
>its around
>> ~1,000 pages. When I looked at it, I thought 'wow, I am
>surprised he
>> is still alive, he must be 90 something now'
>
>Yes, the last guy of that era, so far as I know.

From a comment on the extropy list made by Damien, it appears Gell Man,
Feynmans arch nemesis is still kicking around. Probably, no doubt,
because he is still annoyed that everyone knows who Feynman is but no
one knows who he is. =) Dyson is still roaming about as well.

>
>> I first really heard about him years and years ago reading Carl
>> Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World', Sagan apparently despised
>him, devoting
>> an entire chapter to bashing him (I was, and still am, a big fan of
>> Sagan as well).
>
>It makes perfect sense that Sagan would despise him---given
>Teller's correct intuitions about Communism and the left---but
>how did he
>manage to stick that in "Demon Haunted World"? I thought that
>that books denounced pseudo-science. I subscribe to The
>Skeptical Inquirer in which he wrote a lot of good pieces
>attacking pseudo-science, and read some of his earlier book.
>I don't see the Teller connection.

Sagan also surely despised him for his steadfast support of nuclear
weapons and power (I think Sagan was one of the co-discovers of the
'Nuclear Winter' phenomena) and for Teller accusations against Oppy.
But I cant exactly remember how he segued that into a book primarily
about psuedo science. Unfortunately I have lent out all my copies of
Demon Haunted World.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:19 PM
To: matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

I met Teller once and he seemed like a nice man but he was not without
flaws, if he had his way there would have been enormously more atmospheric
nuclear tests and thousands of people who are alive and healthy today would
be dead from cancer; he seriously underestimated the harmful effects of
"moderate" exposure to radiation, and in a debate with Linus Pauling (an
even greater scientist than Teller) hinted it might even be beneficial.
Also, his dream 20 years ago that with existing technology an X ray Laser
could shoot down thousands of ICBM's in an instant proved to be moonshine.

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:48 PM
To: matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

Michael writes

> Sagan also surely despised him for his steadfast support of nuclear
> weapons and power (I think Sagan was one of the co-discovers of the
> 'Nuclear Winter' phenomena)

Yes. In fact, Sagan had a particularly interesting take
on the dangers of the arms race. He said, "imagine that
you are in a cellar with gasoline on the floor up to
everyone's ankles. You have a box of matches, and your
adversary has a box of matches. Just what good does it
do to threaten to throw a match?"

His implication was obviously that even unilateral disarmament
is the rational thing to do. It is impossible that he could be
so naive about either power politics or the nature of ballistic
threats. I cannot imagine what was going on.

> and for Teller accusations against Oppy.

Yes. Coulter's book "Treason" paints a great portrait of the
difference between what the McCarthy "era" was really like and
how it is portrayed. People like Sagan (who was rather young
at the time) simply could never understand that while it may
have been a witch-hunt, in this case the witches were very,
very real.

Lee

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:19 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

Michael writes

> Sagan also surely despised him for his steadfast support of nuclear
> weapons and power (I think Sagan was one of the co-discovers of the
> 'Nuclear Winter' phenomena)

> and for Teller accusations against Oppy.

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: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:42 AM
To: lcorbin_tsoft.com; Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin_tsoft.com> wrote:
> Michael writes
>
> > Sagan also surely despised him for his steadfast support of nuclear
> > weapons and power (I think Sagan was one of the co-discovers of the
> > 'Nuclear Winter' phenomena)
>
> Yes. In fact, Sagan had a particularly interesting take
> on the dangers of the arms race. He said, "imagine that
> you are in a cellar with gasoline on the floor up to
> everyone's ankles. You have a box of matches, and your
> adversary has a box of matches. Just what good does it
> do to threaten to throw a match?"
>
> His implication was obviously that even unilateral disarmament
> is the rational thing to do. It is impossible that he could be
> so naive about either power politics or the nature of ballistic
> threats. I cannot imagine what was going on.

Sagan is simply a fool, and not just for his anti-MAD politicking. I
always found his arguments for non-terrestrial life forms to be rather
specious (and that Brin bought into them is telling) to the point of
ludicrosity. Even if hydrogen balloon creatures exist, they would never
develop technologies of any time, not in the sort of time periods since
the start of the universe. If a life form never develops technology,
they really are of rather miniscule scientific value compared to
finding intelligent technologically oriented life forms such as
hominids seem to be.

>
> > and for Teller accusations against Oppy.
>
> Yes. Coulter's book "Treason" paints a great portrait of the
> difference between what the McCarthy "era" was really like and
> how it is portrayed. People like Sagan (who was rather young
> at the time) simply could never understand that while it may
> have been a witch-hunt, in this case the witches were very,
> very real.

Well, you saw the reaction from the lefties on the exi list when I
documented that Lucille Ball was a leader of the Communist Party in
California. While this is well proven by the HCUA archives, it isn't
something you'd see in the major media or admitted by the left. Nor is
the documented connection between Dezi Arnaz and the pre-revolutionary
Fidel Castro.

I just got Coulter's book and have not had a chance to read it yet
(still working on Herbert's "Butlerian Jihad").

Just finished S Andrew Swann's omnibus Moreau edition (all three first
Nohar Rajasthan related novels).

__________________________________
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: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:45 PM
To: matus
Subject: Trouble with eudaemonists

Hi Michael

I receive eudaemonists but I can't seem to post to it.

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

From: Lee Corbin [lcorbin_tsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:05 AM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller, 1908-2003

Mike writes

> Sagan is simply a fool, and not just for his anti-MAD politicking.

"Simply"? ;-)

> I always found his arguments for non-terrestrial life forms to be rather
> specious (and that Brin bought into them is telling) to the point of
> ludicrosity.

I am not familiar with his arguments. He was a great SETI-
backer, but then even I found that reasonable for the first
few years of its existence. We looked; we found nothing.
That ought to have been the end of it.

> Even if hydrogen balloon creatures exist, they would never
> develop technologies of any time, not in the sort of time
> periods since the start of the universe.

I don't know how you can be so certain. We have found many
things even right here on Earth that are rather past anyone's
ability to have imagined.

> If a life form never develops technology, they really are
> of rather miniscule scientific value compared to finding
> intelligent technologically oriented life forms such as
> hominids seem to be.

Yes, certainly. Although a wave-front of an expanding civilization
*could* be bearing down on us at any moment, we have no evidence
whatsoever that there is any other significant life within billions
of light years. I still think that people who believe otherwise are
subscribing to romanticism.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:27 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Edward Teller

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

From: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:31 AM
To: matus
Subject: Re: Trouble with eudaemonists

It's working now. thanks

John

----- Original Message -----
From: matus
To: 'John K Clark'
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: Trouble with eudaemonists

I deleted and re-added your account. Give it another shot. Where you ever able to post?

I dont see any messages from you, so I would guess that you havent been able to.

Just to verify, you are sending the emails to eudaemonists_matus1976.com?

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: John K Clark [mailto:jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:45 PM
To: matus
Subject: Trouble with eudaemonists

Hi Michael

I receive eudaemonists but I can't seem to post to it.

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:50 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] eudamonists home page?

Some members of my exi-freedom list are interested in the eudaemonists
list. Is there now a website and/or archives? I might suggest you seek
out david mcfadzean to set up a yabb bbs for the list...

__________________________________
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, September 21, 2003 3:55 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] eudamonists home page?

Guys,
I have been invited to join or stay with the Extropians. The list
itself is good enough But the events of the past couple of months have had a
chilling effect on me. Have all of you been invited back or has the powers that be
sort of picked and chosen amongst us? Unless everyone of us has received the
same invitation without any qualifications or threats I intend to pass. So
how about it? Was everyone invited and were you warned about future conduct?
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, September 21, 2003 4:12 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] eudamonists home page?

Ron writes

> Guys,
> I have been invited to join or stay with the Extropians. The list
> itself is good enough But the events of the past couple of months have had a
> chilling effect on me. Have all of you been invited back or has the powers that be
> sort of picked and chosen amongst us?

I got two messages that you might think of as invitations. The second
one began with the words

Please ignore the previous invitation to exi-chat, and instead
subscribe to the new extropy-chat mailing list. Apologies to all
for getting the name wrong initially. Mea culpa!

Your address "lcorbin_tsoft.com" has been invited to join the
Extropy-chat mailing list at extropy.org by the Extropy-chat
mailing list owner. You may accept the invitation by simply
replying to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact.

Was this the message that you were referring to, Ron? The dates of
the two "chat" messages sent to me were Tuesday the 16th (in this
past week). What were the date(s) of the message(s) sent to you?

> Unless everyone of us has received the same invitation without
> any qualifications or threats I intend to pass. So how about it?
> Was everyone invited and were you warned about future conduct?

Neither message contained anything about future conduct.

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Russell Whitaker [whitaker_best.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:14 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] New to the list; archives?

--
Hello all. Found out about this list from Mike Lorrey. I didn't see a reference to list archives
in the "welcome to the list" message... does an archive exist?

Thanks,

Russell Whitaker
http://www.survivalarts.com/
Listowner, exi-liberty, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-liberty/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Dehede011_aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:03 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] eudamonists home page?

Lee,
I believe I got only one message and that was, " Your address
"lcorbin_tsoft.com" has been invited to join the Extropy-chat mailing list at
extropy.org by the Extropy-chat mailing list owner. You may accept the invitation by
simply replying to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact.

I haven't heard from anyone that was snubbed or turned down but it is
early yet so I shall wait.
Ron Harrison

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 7:36 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] New to the list; archives?

Russell Whitaker <whitaker_best.com> writes:
>Hello all. Found out about this list from Mike Lorrey. I didn't see
>a reference to list archives in the "welcome to the list"
>message... does an archive exist?

try this:

eudaemonists-get.1_99_matus1976.com
eudaemonists-get.100_200_matus1976.com

It will send you those blocks of messages, and since there are less
than 200 outstanding, it will catch you up. I've just finished
skimming the historical traffic myself.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:05 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

"Hi, I'm Perry Metzger, and I'm a paleo-extropian."

I suppose, however, with only 12 steps in which I agree to give up my
ego to the supernatural I could be over that. Given that I'm
unwilling, however...

I've largely been absent from extropian circles for some time, but I
found out in passing about this list and got intrigued. Mostly I left
the extropian discussions because of a lack of time, so I'm not sure
I'll persist in hanging around this list for long, either.

I am somewhat worried about the factionalism that spawned this group
-- generally speaking, although the Perry Metzger of ten years ago was
a pretty unapologetically belligerent fellow, the Perry Metzger that
he evolved into tries to get into fewer fights.

One thing, though, that I noticed in reading the archives around here
is that all the discussion to date has been about statist foreign
policy. I must admit to opposing the war in Iraq and everywhere else,
largely because I oppose the nation state that is needed to run such a
war and resent the money being taken from me to fight it which I would
rather spend on *my* personal goals, not George W. Bush's personal
goals. Given that I oppose the state in all its forms I have
difficulty playing the "what foreign policy is best?" game except as a
form of cocktail party conversation in which I pretend for a while to
believe in the state for purposes of passing the time.

The discussion I saw in the archives doesn't seem to follow much from
that sort of premise, so I was a bit confused -- is the local bent
around here anarchocapitalism or is it some sort of soft serve
statism? (Ah, I can see the manifesto now. "A spectre is haunting the
transhumanist world... the spectre of anarchism!")

I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
transhumanism in the local conversation -- my main interest these days
is in figuring out how to surf the tsunami that is heading in from the
horizon at just under mach 1. In the late 80s and early 90s, we
ancestral extropians noticed well ahead of the crowd that technology
was going to transform humanity into something new and
incomprehensible. Now, astoundingly enough, it looks like all the
curves we drew and musings we had are coming true, or coming true even
faster than we expected, and I'm finding myself and my all-too-human
mental capacities straining at what to do about it.

Anyway, enough for now.

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 21, 2003 8:49 PM
To: Eudaemonists_Matus1976. Com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

Perry writes

> I am somewhat worried about the factionalism that spawned this group
> -- generally speaking, although the Perry Metzger of ten years ago was
> a pretty unapologetically belligerent fellow, the Perry Metzger that
> he evolved into tries to get into fewer fights.

Factionalism? Do you mean that some groups, e.g. this one, coalesce
because the participants' views converge more than in some other groups?

> One thing, though, that I noticed in reading the archives around here
> is that all the discussion to date has been about statist foreign
> policy. I must admit to opposing the war in Iraq and everywhere else,
> largely because I oppose the nation state that is needed to run such a
> war and resent the money being taken from me to fight it...

> The discussion I saw in the archives doesn't seem to follow much from
> that sort of premise, so I was a bit confused -- is the local bent
> around here anarchocapitalism or is it some sort of soft serve
> statism?

I would bet that most on this list would agree with Hayak, who
wrote on page 45 of The Road to Serfdom:

To create conditions in which competition will be as
effective as possible, to supplement it where it cannot
be made effective, to provide the services which, in
the words of Adam Smith, "though they may be in the
highest degree advantageous to a great society, are,
however, of such a nature, that the profit could never
replay the expense to any individual or small number
of individuals"---these tasks provide, indeed, a wide
and unquestioned field for state activity.

In no system that could be rationally defended would
the state just do nothing. An effective competitive
system needs an intelligently designed and continuously
adjusted legal framework as much as any other. Even the
most essential prerequisite of its proper functioning,
the prevention of fraud and deception (including
exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and by no
means yet fully accomplished object of legislative activity.

Is that what you would call soft-statism? I transitioned,
myself, from conservatism to libertarianism in the 1980's,
but never went more than half way. I still don't understand how
people can still dispute the inevitability of nations, especially
after a study of history. Until human nature changes, or until
we modify our environment sufficiently, there will always be
groups of armed men forming states. A glance at a globe shows
you what I mean.

> I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
> transhumanism in the local conversation -- my main interest these days
> is in figuring out how to surf the tsunami that is heading in from the
> horizon at just under mach 1.

I need provocative new points of view on this topic. I conceit
that I haven't seen any really new ideas in 15 years, since I
started reading Vinge. I don't even bother going to Accelerating,
Extropian, or Singularity conferences any more because I just don't
feel I'll hear anything new.

> In the late 80s and early 90s, we ancestral extropians noticed well
> ahead of the crowd that technology was going to transform humanity
> into something new and incomprehensible.

This is no less true than then, I admit.

> Now, astoundingly enough, it looks like all the curves we drew and
> musings we had are coming true, or coming true even faster than we
> expected...

In 1994 Eric Drexler asserted to a Foresight Gathering: "There
may be children in this audience who are young enough that they
will experience puberty and a singularity at the same time."

Right. I then thought things were moving much more slowly than
other Associates did, and I still think so. In 1990, they sent
around a questionnaire asking when we thought a general assembler
would be built, and when we thought the singularity would obtain.
I wrote back 2050 for the former, and 2060 for the latter. I
haven't seen any reason to change my mind in the last ten or
twelve years.

> and I'm finding myself and my all-too-human mental capacities
> straining at what to do about it.

One of my big questions is economic: although I can imagine
certain plausible points in possibility space, I cannot see how
our civilization will develop towards those possibilities.
(One answer may be that the nanny-state just keeps raising
taxes on the productive, and when the productive are---thanks
to nano and other future technologies---sufficiently rich,
almost all of us will be on the dole.)

Lee

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 9:25 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin_tsoft.com> writes:
> > I am somewhat worried about the factionalism that spawned this group
> > -- generally speaking, although the Perry Metzger of ten years ago was
> > a pretty unapologetically belligerent fellow, the Perry Metzger that
> > he evolved into tries to get into fewer fights.
>
> Factionalism? Do you mean that some groups, e.g. this one, coalesce
> because the participants' views converge more than in some other groups?

Generally, I'm talking more about meaningless arguments that have more
to do with personality than viewpoints. People get very good at that
sort of internecine warfare. In this case, though, I find it
disturbing that the extremely tiny group of Extropians is now further
subdividing into smaller groups. I'm not "blaming" anyone for this --
just unhappy that it seems to be happening.

> Is that what you would call soft-statism?

At some level, yes.

> I transitioned, myself, from conservatism to libertarianism in the
> 1980's, but never went more than half way. I still don't understand
> how people can still dispute the inevitability of nations,
> especially after a study of history.

Some of us do, indeed, dispute that, and especially after a study of
history. :)

> Until human nature changes, or until we modify our environment
> sufficiently, there will always be groups of armed men forming
> states. A glance at a globe shows you what I mean.

It hasn't always been that way in all times and places. Some places
have lasted stably for centuries without any sort of monopoly on the
enforcement of laws. However, that's another discussion, perhaps for
another thread.

Anyway, in the early days, back when men were real men, women were
real women, and http hadn't yet spread around the internet like a
virus, most of the paleo-extropians were anarchists of one stripe or
another. One of the precious early issues of Extropy magazine I have
in my possession was devoted entirely to this topic. Sigh...

> > I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
> > transhumanism in the local conversation -- my main interest these days
> > is in figuring out how to surf the tsunami that is heading in from the
> > horizon at just under mach 1.
>
> I need provocative new points of view on this topic. I conceit
> that I haven't seen any really new ideas in 15 years, since I
> started reading Vinge. I don't even bother going to Accelerating,
> Extropian, or Singularity conferences any more because I just don't
> feel I'll hear anything new.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "new".

Certainly the *ideas* haven't changed, any more than one's idea of
gravity is going to alter between the time that you jump out of a
plane to the time you hit the ground at high speed. :) I don't think
there is much I would add to the original ideas about change we were
spouting over a decade ago.

On the other hand, just as the impending onrush of the ground might
give one a more visceral concern about gravity and ways of
ameliorating its effects (such as pulling the rip cord on your
'chute), so the fact that most of the things we said were going to
come to pass are in fact coming to pass has had a, shall we say,
refreshing impact on one's musty-headedness. :)

> > Now, astoundingly enough, it looks like all the curves we drew and
> > musings we had are coming true, or coming true even faster than we
> > expected...
>
> In 1994 Eric Drexler asserted to a Foresight Gathering: "There
> may be children in this audience who are young enough that they
> will experience puberty and a singularity at the same time."

I think he was wrong about that then, and I think it is unlikely that
we'll see that happen during the next 15 years, either. On the other
hand, all the curves have been going at their predicted clip or taking
steps upward. It was predicted that (by certain measures of the
computational capacity of the brain) we would see human computational
equivalence in a supercomputer by 2012, but the Earth Simulator has
already hit that level. You can argue about whether the human mind has
greater or lesser computational capacity, but that's really
significant to me.

Take, as other examples, the expense of analyzing the structure of an
organic macromolecule, or the cost of sequencing DNA per base, or any
other metric you like. The curves are racing ahead, as predicted or
better.

What is not improving -- and what will only get worse -- is our
ability to understand the implications of any of this in a concrete
way. I have little idea what the gene sequencer of 2010 will look
like, and I have little idea when we're going to see assemblers.

On the other hand, ignoring particular technologies, given the trends
in high resolution scanners, improvements in biotechnology, and the
shifts in computation, it looks like we have the ability to do uploads
of various sorts within 20 years. Stunning.

It also seems pretty clear that we're not far at all from grasping
human biochemistry in ways so revolutionary that even only
conventional means we're going to be able to do astounding things.

Just one other note: it took years from the time AIDS was identified
until there was a sequenced HIV genome. It took days from the time
SARS was identified until there was a sequenced genome for the
coronavirus at fault. Many people have become jaded by this sort of
shift -- but I haven't. I have friends who grasped the implications of
the curves years ago but have become jaded waiting for the future,
without realizing "hey, wait a minute, it has all been happening!"
The internet is, for most people, a post-1990 phenomenon, although it
is now ubiquitous. Cell phones are now ubiquitous and I didn't even
own one when the I first found the Extropians. My laptop feels old and
decrepit and beats even a huge non-portable machine from 13 years ago.

If we let ourselves get jaded, we may have less ability to objectively
observe the changes in progress and prepare and/or guide them. If
there is one thing one has to do, it's avoid getting blinded by the
overload into thinking nothing is happening.

> Right. I then thought things were moving much more slowly than
> other Associates did, and I still think so. In 1990, they sent
> around a questionnaire asking when we thought a general assembler
> would be built, and when we thought the singularity would obtain.
> I wrote back 2050 for the former, and 2060 for the latter. I
> haven't seen any reason to change my mind in the last ten or
> twelve years.

I have a reason -- I no longer feel that we're qualified to answer the
question at all. :)

I'd be stunned if it took more than a century, and I'd be shocked if
it took less than eight years. Other than that, though... :)

> > and I'm finding myself and my all-too-human mental capacities
> > straining at what to do about it.
>
> One of my big questions is economic: although I can imagine
> certain plausible points in possibility space, I cannot see how
> our civilization will develop towards those possibilities.
> (One answer may be that the nanny-state just keeps raising
> taxes on the productive, and when the productive are---thanks
> to nano and other future technologies---sufficiently rich,
> almost all of us will be on the dole.)

Well, generally speaking, I don't see how the state will enforce its
mandates in a world where the sentient members of society can just
leave for Deneb if they like. Statism depends on force, and force
requires proximity. I'm not sure in a century that the state will be
able to do much. The more immediate question for me is what happens
during the death throes of the state -- how will the statists,
religionists, earth firsters and other various and sundry forces
against change react in the next decade or two....

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 21, 2003 10:12 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
>
> Just one other note: it took years from the time AIDS was identified
> until there was a sequenced HIV genome. It took days from the time
> SARS was identified until there was a sequenced genome for the
> coronavirus at fault. Many people have become jaded by this sort of
> shift -- but I haven't. I have friends who grasped the implications
> of
> the curves years ago but have become jaded waiting for the future,
> without realizing "hey, wait a minute, it has all been happening!"
> The internet is, for most people, a post-1990 phenomenon, although it
> is now ubiquitous.

Quite so. Just a few years ago, Damien Broderick heckled me in our
online discussion with Vinge about what the singularity was. I
conceived it as more of an event horizon and that those riding the wave
will really never cease thinking of themselves as 'human', and will see
their current day as normality, that the event horizon will still be in
the future to one degree or another.

I agree that we shouldn't get jaded, though continuously walking into
the future blinded by "Wow, this is cool" doesn't serve the critical
faculties that we need to avoid pitfalls of the future. As an example,
blindly believing in the inevitability of the future will blind you to
the extreme reactionism of the luddite movement. The world of The
Matrix is essentially one in which the luddites never reconciled or
admitted defeat.

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:25 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> I agree that we shouldn't get jaded, though continuously walking into
> the future blinded by "Wow, this is cool" doesn't serve the critical
> faculties that we need to avoid pitfalls of the future.

Oh, sure. I was mostly commenting on the danger of thinking "those
predictions seem silly now -- why, nothing much feels different now
than it did in 1990".

> As an example, blindly believing in the inevitability of the future
> will blind you to the extreme reactionism of the luddite movement.

I doubt the luddites can win. They probably can manage to cause a
bunch of damage along the way, of course, but I'm not sure that it is
worth thinking about them in detail. I've come to view the state, the
luddites, and all the rest the way that someone in an earthquake zone
thinks of the ground shaking -- dangerous, potentially even deadly,
but ultimately just another factor to take into account, and not worth
spending your daily life obsessing about.

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:16 AM
To: eudeamonists_matus1976.com
Subject: FSP

Mike Lorrey said:

"Once the FSP has it's vote next month, NH will likely become the Free
State"

Mike, had this vote taken place yet? This message was sent by you to
the list on 8/13

From: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:24 AM
To: matus_matus1976.com
Subject: eudaemonists Digest of: get.1_99

eudaemonists Digest of: get.1_99

Topics (messages 1 through 99):

test
1 by: matus
2 by: matus
3 by: matus
4 by: Crylar612.aol.com
5 by: matus
6 by: matus
7 by: matus
8 by: matus
9 by: matus

New Mailing List - Welcome to Eudaemonists!
10 by: matus
11 by: Lee Corbin
12 by: Dehede011.aol.com
19 by: Lee Corbin

Game Theory Problem
13 by: Lee Corbin
16 by: matus
17 by: matus
22 by: Lee Corbin
27 by: Lee Corbin
35 by: Lee Corbin
43 by: Lee Corbin
46 by: matus
68 by: Lee Corbin

Korean War Question
14 by: Lee Corbin
23 by: Lee Corbin
24 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Worst Case Scenario
15 by: Lee Corbin
20 by: Lee Corbin
30 by: Lee Corbin
31 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
32 by: Dehede011.aol.com
33 by: Lee Corbin
34 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
36 by: Lee Corbin

Libertarians who loathe Israel
18 by: matus
21 by: Lee Corbin

Reply To all
25 by: matus

Dumbass extropian list
26 by: matus

Blackout
28 by: matus

Re: (offlist) RE: [eudaemonists] Worst Case Scenario
29 by: Dehede011.aol.com

[eudaemonists_matus1976.com] Front Page Mag
37 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
38 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
39 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com

Inalienable Rights
40 by: Lee Corbin
65 by: Mike Lorrey
66 by: Dehede011.aol.com
67 by: Lee Corbin
69 by: Dehede011.aol.com
71 by: Mike Lorrey
72 by: Lee Corbin
73 by: Lee Corbin
99 by: Lee Corbin

Re: Front Page Mag
41 by: Lee Corbin
42 by: Lee Corbin
44 by: Dehede011.aol.com
50 by: Dehede011.aol.com
52 by: Lee Corbin
53 by: Lee Corbin
55 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Re: Bell Curve and IQ
45 by: matus
47 by: Lee Corbin
48 by: Lee Corbin
49 by: Dehede011.aol.com
54 by: Dehede011.aol.com
58 by: Lee Corbin
60 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
61 by: Lee Corbin

War on Terrorism, last great war
51 by: matus

"Countering anti-extropic memes"
56 by: matus
57 by: Lee Corbin
59 by: Dehede011.aol.com
64 by: Mike Lorrey
85 by: Lee Corbin

The Survivors
62 by: Lee Corbin

IQ and Bell Curve
63 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Lee Corbin's Goodbye on Extropy List
70 by: matus

You Do What You Have To Do To Survive
74 by: Lee Corbin
75 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
76 by: Lee Corbin

Natural law
77 by: Dehede011.aol.com
80 by: Lee Corbin

Doing what you have to do -- Cherokees
78 by: Dehede011.aol.com
81 by: Lee Corbin
82 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Now, Cherokee
79 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Land of the Murdered
83 by: matus

Re: Land of let's only talk about whats wrong with the US
84 by: matus

Bell Curve Predictions
86 by: Lee Corbin
90 by: Dehede011.aol.com
92 by: Lee Corbin
95 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Re: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan, Bhutan, Laos, East Timor, and North Korea
87 by: matus

Re: Land of the imprisoned, not counting Iraq, Afghanastan...
88 by: matus

Land of the imprisoned
89 by: Dehede011.aol.com
91 by: Lee Corbin
94 by: matus
96 by: Lee Corbin
98 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com

[Eudaemonists] Levitt's Findings
93 by: Lee Corbin

Re: Misguided Intuition
97 by: Lee Corbin

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the eudaemonists list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

For help and a description of available commands, send a message to:
<eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com>

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<eudaemonists-subscribe_matus1976.com>

To remove your address from the list, just send a message to
the address in the ``List-Unsubscribe'' header of any list
message. If you haven't changed addresses since subscribing,
you can also send a message to:
<eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com>

For addition or removal of addresses, I'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.

If you need to get in touch with the human owner of this list,
please send a message to:

<eudaemonists-owner_matus1976.com>

Please include a FORWARDED list message with ALL HEADERS intact
to make it easier to help you.

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <matus_matus1976.com>
Received: (qmail 24267 invoked by uid 508); 22 Sep 2003 12:24:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO GREYBOOK) (68.233.73.30)
by hosting-132-3.phpwebhosting.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 12:24:01 -0000
From: "Matus" <matus_matus1976.com>
To: <eudaemonists-get.1_99_matus1976.com>
Subject:
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:23:51 -0400
Message-ID: <000701c38104$61d9c5a0$6401a8c0_GREYBOOK>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C380E2.DAC825A0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C380E2.DAC825A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C380E2.DAC825A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C380E2.DAC825A0--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:24 AM
To: matus_matus1976.com
Subject: eudaemonists Digest of: get.100_200

eudaemonists Digest of: get.100_200

Topics (messages 100 through 183):

Re: Inalienable Rights
100 by: Dehede011.aol.com
104 by: Dehede011.aol.com
105 by: Dehede011.aol.com
108 by: Lee Corbin
110 by: Dehede011.aol.com
111 by: Dehede011.aol.com
112 by: Lee Corbin
113 by: Lee Corbin
114 by: Lee Corbin
116 by: Dehede011.aol.com
117 by: Dehede011.aol.com

The 1st Annual Membership Drive
101 by: Dehede011.aol.com
102 by: matus
103 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Mao Ze Dong now up to 65 million?
106 by: Lee Corbin
107 by: Mike Lorrey

Re: Land of the imprisoned
109 by: Lee Corbin

Rights and Approval
115 by: Lee Corbin
118 by: Mike Lorrey
127 by: Lee Corbin
129 by: Lee Corbin

Hello
119 by: Dehede011.aol.com
120 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
121 by: Lee Corbin
126 by: matus

Re: When the Future Will Happen
122 by: Lee Corbin
123 by: Spudboy100.aol.com

Bright Script Kid
124 by: Spudboy100.aol.com

Have a cow, man!
125 by: Spudboy100.aol.com

Re: Advantages and Disadvantages of Monolithic Viewpoint
128 by: Lee Corbin

Casualties
130 by: Lee Corbin
131 by: Spudboy100.aol.com
132 by: Mike Lorrey
133 by: Lee Corbin
134 by: Lee Corbin
137 by: Dehede011.aol.com
138 by: Lee Corbin
141 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Re: Casualties (math error)
135 by: Lee Corbin
136 by: Mike Lorrey

Re: Post WWII: German Wolverine Assassinations
139 by: Lee Corbin
143 by: Dehede011.aol.com

Korean War at Intrepid Museum
140 by: matus
142 by: Dehede011.aol.com
144 by: matus
146 by: Lee Corbin
147 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
152 by: Lee Corbin
159 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
160 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
162 by: matus

Socialism kills
145 by: matus
150 by: Lee Corbin
151 by: Lee Corbin

Bush=Hitler
148 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
149 by: Dehede011.aol.com
153 by: Lee Corbin

Re: Taiwan (was: RE: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V)
154 by: matus
156 by: Lee Corbin
157 by: matus

Re: SPACE: Loss of the Saturn V
155 by: matus

Iraq is still not Vietnam..and neither is Vietnam for that matter
158 by: MaxPlumm.aol.com
161 by: matus

Edward Teller, 1908-2003
163 by: matus
164 by: Mike Lorrey
165 by: Dehede011.aol.com
166 by: matus
167 by: Lee Corbin
168 by: matus
169 by: Lee Corbin
170 by: Mike Lorrey
171 by: Lee Corbin

Edward Teller
172 by: John K Clark

eudamonists home page?
173 by: Mike Lorrey
174 by: Dehede011.aol.com
175 by: Lee Corbin
177 by: Dehede011.aol.com

New to the list; archives?
176 by: Russell Whitaker
178 by: Perry E. Metzger

hello, and a comment or two
179 by: Perry E. Metzger
180 by: Lee Corbin
181 by: Perry E. Metzger
182 by: Mike Lorrey
183 by: Perry E. Metzger

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the eudaemonists list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

For help and a description of available commands, send a message to:
<eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com>

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<eudaemonists-subscribe_matus1976.com>

For addition or removal of addresses, I'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.

If you need to get in touch with the human owner of this list,
please send a message to:

<eudaemonists-owner_matus1976.com>

Please include a FORWARDED list message with ALL HEADERS intact
to make it easier to help you.

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <matus_matus1976.com>
Received: (qmail 24287 invoked by uid 508); 22 Sep 2003 12:24:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO GREYBOOK) (68.233.73.30)
by hosting-132-3.phpwebhosting.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 12:24:11 -0000
From: "Matus" <matus_matus1976.com>
To: <eudaemonists-get.100_200_matus1976.com>
Subject:
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:24:01 -0400
Message-ID: <000c01c38104$679adb00$6401a8c0_GREYBOOK>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C380E2.E0893B00"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C380E2.E0893B00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C380E2.E0893B00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C380E2.E0893B00--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:29 AM
To: 'eudaemonists'
Subject: [eudaemonists] FSP

Mike Lorrey said:

"Once the FSP has it's vote next month, NH will likely become the Free
State"

Mike, had this vote taken place yet? This message was sent by you to
the list on 8/13

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:20 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FSP

Nevermind, just checked the web site out

"Ballots have been mailed
If you do not receive one by Aug 30, email members_freestateproject.org
Return your ballot ASAP to ECL using the enclosed envelope
Absolute deadline for receipt (not postmark) of ballots is September 25
If we don't receive your ballot by September 15th, we'll send you a
message to that effect
Announcement of state choice will be October 1 in New York City"

I'm hoping for New Hampshire!

-----Original Message-----
From: Matus [mailto:matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:29 AM
To: 'eudaemonists'
Subject: [eudaemonists] FSP

Mike Lorrey said:

"Once the FSP has it's vote next month, NH will likely become the Free
State"

Mike, had this vote taken place yet? This message was sent by you to
the list on 8/13

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:41 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

> "Hi, I'm Perry Metzger, and I'm a paleo-extropian."
>

Hi Perry, first let me welcome you to my mailing list.

>
>
> One thing, though, that I noticed in reading the archives around here
> is that all the discussion to date has been about statist foreign
> policy. I must admit to opposing the war in Iraq and everywhere else,
> largely because I oppose the nation state that is needed to run such a
> war and resent the money being taken from me to fight it which I would
> rather spend on *my* personal goals, not George W. Bush's personal
> goals. Given that I oppose the state in all its forms I have
> difficulty playing the "what foreign policy is best?" game except as a
> form of cocktail party conversation in which I pretend for a while to
> believe in the state for purposes of passing the time.

The conversations as of late have focused around this topic since it
happens to be of interest to the 8 or so people signed up so far. I am
sure topics will diverge as more people join in. As for your comments,
I welcome opposing viewpoints; the early comments on this list regarding
the extropian list were generally in relation to their intolerance to
pro-war opinions, I do not welcome intolerance to opposing viewpoints.
Additionally their apparent elitist worship of the 'in' crowd on that
list grew tiresome.

As for the war and my feelings on nation-states, I have gone on record
as considering myself a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist. In response
to your comments, I would say your discourse on dissolving the nation
state is nothing more than cocktail party flights of fancy, and, imo,
mostly a waste of time to discuss. I think this for a few reasons,
first no anarcho-capitalist society is anywhere near close to being
formed. Second, one can not be formed and survive unless all
totalitarian non-democratic states are dissolved. How do you think an
anarcho-capitalist nation state would fare if it neighbored Iraq, or
North Korea? Third, an anarcho-capitalist society necessarily supports
the formation of insurance agents as protection agencies, and due to the
economies of scale, it would only make sense that the vast majority of
protection services will end up in the hands of a small number of
companies, perhaps even only one company. This is really no different
than a minarchist state, and why I find it unreasonable to separate the
two entirely. Fourth to assert that you oppose any nation state or
system which does not abide by your absolute ideal basically means no
progress will ever be made toward such a state. History has shown that
better nations are born from worse ones, we must deal the most crushing
blow to opposition that is reasonable at that time. During the founding
of the US, the south insisted that every black be counted as one person,
The North insisted that none be counted, since they had not voice of
their own. The compromise was the 3/5ths clause, this was the worse
blow to slavery that could be made at the time. Opposing the US and
everything it does because, and solely because, it is a nation-state
ignores the fact that no non-nation state will exist until the world is
free of totalitarian despots. No country has done more to halt the
spread of totalitarianism, despotism, and communism, and to encourage
the spread of democracy than the United States. Not one single country
the soviet union sponsored ever became anything other than a communist
hell-hole until after the Soviet Union fell. A good portion of the
states the Unites States supported, even when run by thugs and immoral
leaders of their own, became democracies in time, and now enjoyed
unparalleled standards of living and freedoms.

Yes, I am staunchly opposed to drug laws, corporate subsidies, trade
restrictions, encroachments on civil liberties, etc. etc. But not
better nation will arise until all nations are at least up to this level
or one similar fostered by rule of law, market based economies, and
democratic governments.

There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war, and
no democratic nation has ever been at war with another nation.
Democracy and peace go hand in hand.

To oppose everything about this US and place it in the same moral
category as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and
Saddam's Iraq is to ignore the phenomenal progress that has been made
and to shoot in the foot the chances of any further progress.

> I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
> transhumanism in the local conversation --

This is not specifically a transhuman or extropian group, there are
all-ready groups for those.

I will post soon a Eudaemonists home page and welcome page for the list,
which should hopefully makes its purpose clearer.

Regards,

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: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:45 AM
To: 'Matus'
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

>
> There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
> becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war,
and
> no democratic nation has ever been at war with another nation.

That's, "No democratic nations has ever been at war with another
_democratic_ nation" Sorry for the typo

Michael

From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:45 AM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

That's, "No democratic nations has ever been at war with another
_democratic_ nation" Sorry for the typo

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:36 PM
To: Matus
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

"Matus" <matus_matus1976.com> writes:
> Second, one can not be formed and survive unless all
> totalitarian non-democratic states are dissolved. How do you think an
> anarcho-capitalist nation state would fare if it neighbored Iraq, or
> North Korea?

If it is anarcho-capitalist, it isn't a "nation state". :)

I think that a sufficiently large anarcho-capitalist territory is
likely to do just fine against an Iraq or a North Korea. (If it is too
small, it doesn't matter what its mode of organization is.) I
generally believe this to be the case because I think that free market
driven enterprises are far more efficient than state controlled
ones.

The extreme inefficiency of most national armies is well known -- the
inefficiency of US military procurement alone, ignoring the rest of
the operation, is astounding. It is likely that defense operations
conducted on a for-profit basis under contract to insurance providers
and other purchasers would be operated much more cleanly and
efficiently.

Or, to put it another way: if you believe free farmers do better at
supplying food than Stalinist five year plans, why do you believe that
free defense forces wouldn't do better than Stalinist centrally
planned defense forces?

I'm hardly the only person to have thought about this -- hell, there's
even a small amount of fiction with this premise. See, for example,
Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned".

> Third, an anarcho-capitalist society necessarily supports
> the formation of insurance agents as protection agencies,

Not necessarily. That's just one postulated mechanism. The truth is,
the market will do what the market will do, and we can't really
predict what directions it will take. We just know it will work more
efficiently than a non-Pareto optimal solution.

> and due to the economies of scale, it would only make sense that the
> vast majority of protection services will end up in the hands of a
> small number of companies, perhaps even only one company.

I find that rather unlikely. If (as a libertarian) you don't believe
that monopolies naturally arise in most areas of endeavor, why should
they arise in this area? What makes security different from food
production or computer manufacture?

As someone who has has been involved in many large enterprises, let me
note that there are very serious limits to economies of scale,
especially in a service organization. Internal company politics and
bureaucracy are not much more pretty than that of the nation
state. The only thing that keeps companies in check is the market --
but luckily, that's an immense check.

> Fourth to assert that you oppose any nation state or
> system which does not abide by your absolute ideal basically means no
> progress will ever be made toward such a state.

I think you misunderstand. I merely note that I oppose the state in
all its forms, not that I do not have preferences if forced to live
with one. I prefer the liberal democracies to fascism and communism,
without any serious thought being needed on the question.

However, to me, discussing whether the US should be intervening in the
affairs of countries far from our shores has an obvious answer -- no,
I do not want to be taxed, and I certainly don't want to be taxed to
pay for creating more enemies to interrupt my peace and quiet. War is
the health of the state, but I have better things to do with my
money, like pay for my own health.

> History has shown that better nations are born from worse ones,

Well, that's sort of a tautology, isn't it? Worse ones are also born
from better ones.

In any case, I doubt any of our subtle political planning or even the
"United States" will survive the transition to a posthuman era, and
given that such an era is approaching at tremendous speed, I think I
have better uses for my time.

Right now, I have a friend living in a very pleasant foreign city with
a low cost of living, doing consulting work over the net, taxed in no
country, and having a ball. That friend isn't spending any time
worrying about politics -- they're living the eudaemonic ideal and
maximizing their own fun, today, here and now. I'm rather envious.

> Opposing the US and everything it does because, and solely because,
> it is a nation-state ignores the fact that no non-nation state will
> exist until the world is free of totalitarian despots.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly that hasn't been the historical
pattern -- anarchist regions have survived for centuries in spite of
active opposition -- and non-states are more efficient than
totalitarian regimes. However, lets ignore this. Lets discuss the US
if you insist.

The US spends a great deal of tax money creating those despots you
feel we have a duty to extirpate. I have before me a lovely picture of
Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while conducting an arms deal in
1983 with him, during the period where we created him. Have a look at
it:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Vast amounts of extorted tax dollars have been spent creating folks
like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and then our lovely
government promises to tax us to death fighting them.

Lest you believe this is done with, like the old lady who swallowed
the cat to catch the frog which she swallowed to catch the spider
which she swallowed to catch the fly, we are continuing in our path of
creating new and better fascist lunatics we'll later have to
oppose. Right now, we're funding several totalitarian lunatics around
Central Asia, largely because they've given us military bases with
which to conduct our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doubtless in a
decade the landscape will have shifted and we'll then be ranting about
Turkmenistan and such, but for now we are happy giving them all the
money their secret police desire -- all taken at gun-point from you and
me, productive citizens of a free market economy, and transfered to
these totalitarian regimes to sustain them.

Really, it is all madness. If we're really worried about North Korea,
we have more than enough nuclear weapons to promise to vaporize every
inch of the country if they ever touched Los Angeles or some such. The
South Koreans and Japanese have more than enough money to take care of
themselves.

> No country has done more to halt the spread of totalitarianism,
> despotism, and communism, and to encourage the spread of democracy
> than the United States.

I am afraid I can't agree. We funded despots around the world for the
last 50 years. Names like "Ferdinand Marcos", "Suharto", "bin Laden"
(yes, we spent money training him and his friends on how to fight the
Soviets), "Mobuto Sese Seko", "Saddam Hussein" (who was not our enemy
before we failed to make it clear we didn't want him attacking
Kuwait), and dozens of others spring readily to mind. Through most of
the cold war, we taxed our citizens to spread death around the
world. War is the health of the state.

> Not one single country the soviet union sponsored ever became
> anything other than a communist hell-hole until after the Soviet
> Union fell.

So what? The question is not whether Stalinists prefer funding
Stalinism, or whether Stalinism was a good thing. Obviously Stalinists
were evil and liked spreading more of the same. The question is why it
is that we find a photo of Rumsfeld, special envoy of Ronald Reagan,
shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

> Yes, I am staunchly opposed to drug laws, corporate subsidies, trade
> restrictions, encroachments on civil liberties, etc. etc. But not
> better nation will arise until all nations are at least up to this level
> or one similar fostered by rule of law, market based economies, and
> democratic governments.

I don't see much evidence of that....

> There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
> becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war,

We have. Multiple times. California used to be Mexico, remember? How
about that slogan "Remember the Maine" -- remember it? Do you remember
a little trumped up incident in the Gulf of Tonkin? A little country
called Grenada? Another one called Panama? How about the Dominican
Republic? Even, dare I say it, Iraq? I'm not even covering half of
them, either.

That's just the United States, of course. If you go over the histories
of the U.K., France, and a dozen other "liberal democracies" you'll
see a similar pattern. No one invited the French to take over
Vietnam. The Chinese did not start the opium wars, and the Indians did
not peaceably invite the British to colonize India. I could go on for
hours.

By the way, Churchill didn't succeed with the last democratic
constitution imposed at gun-point on Iraq. Why are we assuming we'll do
better?

> To oppose everything about this US and place it in the same moral
> category as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and
> Saddam's Iraq is to ignore the phenomenal progress that has been made
> and to shoot in the foot the chances of any further progress.

Oh, I don't disagree that we're a MUCH better place than any of those
locations. What I'm disputing is your premise that our foreign
intervention makes us safer.

After all, that's the key here, isn't it? We're being forced at
gun-point to pay tribute to the folks in D.C. on the premise that they
will make us safer with that money. I argue that they have done no
such thing.

> > I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
> > transhumanism in the local conversation --
>
> This is not specifically a transhuman or extropian group, there are
> all-ready groups for those.

Well, it seems the extropian group isn't very interested in
extropianism. Extropianism was as much about politics as it was about
transhumanism -- indeed, in the mind of the person who started the
mailing list, the two were inextricably linked.

> I will post soon a Eudaemonists home page and welcome page for the list,
> which should hopefully makes its purpose clearer.

That will be cool.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:44 PM
To: Matus
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

"Matus" <matus_matus1976.com> writes:
> > There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
> > becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war,
> and
> > no democratic nation has ever been at war with another nation.
>
> That's, "No democratic nations has ever been at war with another
> _democratic_ nation" Sorry for the typo

That one isn't true either, though it is a common myth. Hell, there's
even been a war over (essentially) a soccer championship. I will agree
that democracies do tend not to start wars with other democracies, but
it does happen.

Perry
From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:44 PM
To: Matus
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 22, 2003 1:11 PM
To: Matus
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] FSP

The vote is almost complete. There will be a news conference in NYC on
Oct 1 downtown at the Skyline, which is a few blocks from a lot of news
studios, to announce the results. I will post the press release here
when it is finalized...

--- Matus <matus_matus1976.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey said:
>
> "Once the FSP has it's vote next month, NH will likely become the
> Free
> State"
>
> Mike, had this vote taken place yet? This message was sent by you to
> the list on 8/13
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Matus
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FSP

Those of you who have the ear of journalists of any stripe, I ask and
encourage you to forward the following to them. Those of you who are
freelance and can make it to this conference, you are welcome. We don't
to my knowledge put any limits on credentials:

PRESS CONFERENCE MEDIA ADVISORY

CONTACT:

Elizabeth McKinstry, Media Relations
Free State Project, Inc.
Phone: (734) 904-5712
Email: emckinstry_freestateproject.org
Website: www.freestateproject.org

WHICH STATE WILL BE THE FREE STATE?

Drop by to find out:

October 1, 2003, 11:00 am.
1050 Restaurant
Skyline Hotel
10th Ave. at 50th Street
New York City

* Group seeks migration of 20,000 liberty-oriented individuals
to one small state.
* Results of membership-wide "Which State?" vote to be announced
at press conference.
* Flag of winning state to be unfurled during the celebration.

The Free State Project (FSP) is a plan in which 20,000 or more
liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where
they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope
of government. The success of the FSP would likely entail reductions in
burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an
end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional
federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest
of the nation and the world.

The 5,000-plus FSP participants who have so far signed up, already one
year ahead of schedule, share a desire to work toward this goal. Each
has pledged to move to one small state within a five-year time frame if
and when the total membership reaches 20,000. Once there, they hope to
serve as humble and loyal reinforcements for the state's existing
culture of liberty.

FSP participants have just completed a voting process to choose which
state they will migrate to. They selected from ten candidates, all low
population states and characterized by a strong culture of individual
freedom. The contenders: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The
results of the Condorcet vote will be announced at this press
conference.

Panelists will include:

* Dr. Jason Sorens, President and Founder
* Ms. Elizabeth McKinstry, Vice President and Director of Media
Relations
* Mr. Matthew Cheselka, Secretary
* Mr. Tim Condon, Director of Member Services

###

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
From: Mike Lorrey [mlorrey_yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:21 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] FSP

PRESS CONFERENCE MEDIA ADVISORY

CONTACT:

Elizabeth McKinstry, Media Relations
Free State Project, Inc.
Phone: (734) 904-5712
Email: emckinstry_freestateproject.org
Website: www.freestateproject.org

WHICH STATE WILL BE THE FREE STATE?

Drop by to find out:

October 1, 2003, 11:00 am.
1050 Restaurant
Skyline Hotel
10th Ave. at 50th Street
New York City

Panelists will include:

* Dr. Jason Sorens, President and Founder
* Ms. Elizabeth McKinstry, Vice President and Director of Media
Relations
* Mr. Matthew Cheselka, Secretary
* Mr. Tim Condon, Director of Member Services

###

__________________________________
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: Monday, September 22, 2003 2:33 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
> The extreme inefficiency of most national armies is well known -- the
> inefficiency of US military procurement alone, ignoring the rest of
> the operation, is astounding. It is likely that defense operations
> conducted on a for-profit basis under contract to insurance providers
> and other purchasers would be operated much more cleanly and
> efficiently.

This is something I've found an unanswered question, IMHO. How,
exactly, do rigid anarcho capitalists purport that producer/consumer
price signalling will occur in the fog of war? While ancap theory would
likely work during peacetime in preparing for potential war, how would
it deal with sustained combat operations, especially if the ungoverned
area is being invaded in whole or in part.

IMHO Vinge's short story uses a gimmick to get out of this dillema and
doesn't honestly deal with the issue, and I've not seen anybody else
deal with it sufficiently either.

Saying "People and insurance providers will simply stockpile ammo and
supplies" doesn't do the trick. Stockpiles and ammo dumps can be bombed
(as we've seen recently) in the blitzkrieg, and this doesn't deal with
what happens when stockpiles that remain are used up.

Having an inefficient supply system during peacetime really isn't that
important. What is important is that sufficient supplies are available
on a sustained basis to meet combat operations needs, and that the
combat operations are efficient. If combatants are not efficient at
dominating the enemy, it doesn't matter how efficient UPS is at getting
your bullets to you.

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:00 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> --- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> > The extreme inefficiency of most national armies is well known -- the
> > inefficiency of US military procurement alone, ignoring the rest of
> > the operation, is astounding. It is likely that defense operations
> > conducted on a for-profit basis under contract to insurance providers
> > and other purchasers would be operated much more cleanly and
> > efficiently.
>
> This is something I've found an unanswered question, IMHO. How,
> exactly, do rigid anarcho capitalists purport that producer/consumer
> price signalling will occur in the fog of war?

I don't think that they will occur in the fog of war. I'm not even
sure we'll end up with things that resemble what we currently think of
as "war". Indeed, as I'm far from clear that there will be humans in a
century, I would be even more hard pressed to explain what I suspect
war would look like conducted in a future containing neither flesh and
blood people nor states. :)

However, I'm willing to speculate.

> While ancap theory would likely work during peacetime in preparing
> for potential war, how would it deal with sustained combat
> operations, especially if the ungoverned area is being invaded in
> whole or in part.

Well, this is just speculation, since I don't know what the
marketplace would bring, but I'd imagine that you might end up with
something very much like what you have now, which is to say, a
combination of paid professional security forces and
irregulars/militia, tied together by contractual obligations to
fight. I don't see that the current organizational paradigm would be
per se impossible sans government, although I am hardly certain that
the efficient solution really is what we have now.

> IMHO Vinge's short story uses a gimmick to get out of this dillema and
> doesn't honestly deal with the issue, and I've not seen anybody else
> deal with it sufficiently either.

I'm not sure the gimmick is really a gimmick. I doubt even Kim Jong Il
would want to face people willing to use nukes on him indiscriminately.
The notion that individuals with nuclear weapons might be very
dangerous folks to roll over the land of doesn't seem all that
implausible to me. That is not to say that I expect any future war to
resemble "The Ungoverned", but I don't expect to understand how the
future will look in any case so that's to be expected.

> Saying "People and insurance providers will simply stockpile ammo and
> supplies" doesn't do the trick. Stockpiles and ammo dumps can be bombed
> (as we've seen recently) in the blitzkrieg, and this doesn't deal with
> what happens when stockpiles that remain are used up.

Possibly you just buy more. The U.S. has no better plan than that
right now, you know. We have no emergency mobilization plans to keep
ourselves in munitions for a 10 year war -- current doctrine depends
on short wars and adequate supplies of armaments in the
marketplace. If a state-based solution operates that way, I don't see
why one should require a better solution of the non-state solution.

Of course, it is possible that the non-state solutions the marketplace
comes up with might be better. We can only speculate at best,
regardless of whether there is a state.

> Having an inefficient supply system during peacetime really isn't that
> important. What is important is that sufficient supplies are available
> on a sustained basis to meet combat operations needs, and that the
> combat operations are efficient. If combatants are not efficient at
> dominating the enemy, it doesn't matter how efficient UPS is at getting
> your bullets to you.

Well, again, I don't entirely see what advantage the state has
here. It is possible to contract for to assure potential future
purchases (i.e. you can make contracts saying "I pay you X dollars
today, and if in the future we need the entire output of your factory
in an emergency you agree to give it to us). It is possible to buy
factories to produce goods if out-sourcing isn't considered
sufficient. It is possible for a non-state based organization to
either contract for future shipping services or to purchase equipment
with which to transport its own goods.

In any case, we have worked examples of private armies and security
services working just fine throughout history, which is of course
hardly surprising.

I'm really rather surprised that you aren't asking any of the hard
questions. The stuff that gets hard is of an entirely different nature
-- how you deal with financing in the face of the free rider problem
and such, rather than anything mundane like how you buy more bullets
or where you hire security personnel. I have answers for that stuff
(such as thoughts about cross contracting of services no different
from today's reinsurance webs), but they are all based on stuff that
is more speculative than straightforward notions like how to buy guns
when you need more.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:05 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> Wrote:

>all the curves have been going at their predicted clip or taking
>steps upward [.]the expense of analyzing the structure of an
>organic macromolecule, or the cost of sequencing DNA per base, or any
>other metric you like. The curves are racing ahead, as predicted or
>better.

That's true, just today in the New York Times there is a big article about
how Sun Microsystems hopes to increase the internal communication inside
computers a hundred times by getting rid of conventional circuit boards and
placing the edge of one chip directly in contact with the edge of another;
on the same page another article is about AMD's new 64 bit microprocessor to
be introduced on Tuesday. But there is one area that has been disappointing,
medicine. If you have one of the major cancers today the outcome will not be
much different than if it was 1960, you might take a month or two longer to
die but that's about it. Despite knowing vastly more biology there hasn't
been a dramatic improvement in healing since antibiotics were introduced
more than half a century ago and for the first time doctors actually did
more good than harm.

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:27 PM
To: John K Clark
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] hello, and a comment or two

"John K Clark" <jonkc_att.net> writes:
> But there is one area that has been disappointing, medicine.

I have to disagree, on two fronts.

First of all, there haven't been any "curves" we've failed to achieve
in the medical arena. The price of sequencing a DNA strand or of
determining the folding of a protein have fallen exponentially, just
like everything else.

Now, it is true that those curves don't correlate as strongly as one
would like with outcomes, but things HAVE been getting much better.
Life expectancy in developed countries has gone up substantially since
1960, the year you mention. We have miracle drugs for a wide variety
of diseases that we didn't have in 1960 -- everything from statins to
proton pump inhibitors to various anti-retroviral treatments. You can
be cured of chronic viral hepatitis today -- you could not be in
1960. Smallpox was around in 1960 -- today it is gone, and almost
ditto for Polio....

> If you have one of the major cancers today the outcome will not be
> much different than if it was 1960, you might take a month or two longer to
> die but that's about it.

That depends very much on the cancer. Some have had astounding
improvements in treatment (like Hodgkins), some have not. In any case,
though, the major reason more people are dying of cancer these days is
that life expectancy has increased enough

> Despite knowing vastly more biology there hasn't
> been a dramatic improvement in healing since antibiotics were introduced
> more than half a century ago and for the first time doctors actually did
> more good than harm.

I am really not sure about that. If you want to take the fifty year
perspective:

Today, if your arm is cut off it can be reattached, with high
success.
Today, if you get to a hospital in time, a variety of things can be
done to mitigate your heart attack or stroke, including the use of
clot dissolving drugs and drugs that reduce tissue damage due to
oxygen deprivation.
Today, if you need it, we can transplant a wide variety of organs,
and you have a strong chance of living a long time without
suffering organ rejection.
Today, if you get severe burns, we can treat you, albeit
imperfectly.
Today, if your cholesterol levels will not lower themselves, there
are drugs that are safe and effective and will do the job pretty
well.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. There are plenty more.

I think that the real revolution in medicine is only happening now
that we actually can "read the code" and understand the system down to
the bare metal. Until recently, we were operating quite blindly, and
had little to know idea what it was we were looking at. That has
changed radically in just the last decade.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:52 PM
To: eudamonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Dehede011_aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 9/22/2003 2:01:12 PM Central Standard Time,
> perry_piermont.com writes:
> > I don't think that they will occur in the fog of war. I'm not even
> > sure we'll end up with things that resemble what we currently
> > think of as "war". Indeed, as I'm far from clear that there will
> > be humans in a century, I would be even more hard pressed to
> > explain what I suspect war would look like conducted in a future
> > containing neither flesh and blood people nor states. :)
>
> In my past when I sold ideas in the companies I worked for I tested
> each link in the chain until I could present it as a certainty and
> then tested the way the chain strung together to be sure there was
> absolutely no reason to think the entire chain wouldn't be as
> reliable as each individual link.
> I can't think of a single instance where I asked the company to bet the
> ranch on one idea.
> Yet we seem urged to bet the ranch and our lifes on an unproven idea

I'm urging no such thing.

I'm not asking you to bet your ranch or anything else. Take whichever
actions suit you.

I don't particularly think it matters what people believe or want,
though. I find it exceptionally unlikely that the world is going to
look very similar to the way it does now for particularly long,
regardless of your desires or mine.

Or, put another way, "The avalanche has begun -- it is too late for
the pebbles to vote."

> when link by link is full of "I'm not sure," "Maybe," "far from
> clear," and such phrases. I can't even accurately cound the
> qualifiers in that few sentences quoted above.

That's because I'm honest. When contemplating the future, only a fool
is certain. Given that I strongly anticipate that the near future will
be dominated by creatures thinking millions of times faster than we
do, and likely with equally improved mental capacities, how would I
make an accurate prediction about how the world of, say, 2150 might
work? I have no idea -- and neither, for that matter, does anyone
else. What I do know, however, is this: Pareto optimal systems work
far better than monopolies, and voluntary exchange works better than
coercion.

The basis on which I have adopted my political beliefs is, in any
case, far stronger than the basis most people choose. You have no
evidence for the value of statism, and yet choose to cling to it,
never mind the obvious costs.

I admit that I no more know what form anarcho-capitalism might take
were it the system we lived under than someone in 1900 could predict
the rise of supermarket chains by the late 20th century. Would you
have urged people to pick socialism in 1900 on the basis that five
year plans are more re-assuring than a chaotic market in which no one
knows what kinds of companies or inventions will pop up next?

By the way, I'm continuing to be surprised by the content of this
discussion. I thought y'all were paleo-extropians. This is all very
basic stuff.

Still enjoying the banter for now,

Perry
From: John K Clark [jonkc_att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:12 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> Wrote:

>Vast amounts of extorted tax dollars have been spent creating folks
>like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and then our lovely
>government promises to tax us to death fighting them.

First let me say that I too consider myself to be a strong libertarian and a
moderate to strong anarchists, but as powerful as my feelings for those
subjects are my desire for self preservation is even stronger. Yes,
everybody would be better off if there were no nation states on planet earth
but we are so astronomically far from that it just doesn't seem relevant
when discussing what we should do NOW about 911, that's why I
enthusiastically endorsed the war in Afghanistan and I'd be curious to know
if you did too. And I hate government as much as you do but I still think
you should be fair, the USA supported Saddam Hussein because he seemed
better than the religious nuts in Iran and we supported people like Osama
bin Laden because he seemed better than the USSR. Now both those decisions
turned out to be wrong but I can certainly see how they would seem like a
good idea at the time, I would have probably made the same mistake.

John K Clark jonkc_att.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:31 PM
To: John K Clark
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

"John K Clark" <jonkc_att.net> writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> Wrote:
> >Vast amounts of extorted tax dollars have been spent creating folks
> >like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and then our lovely
> >government promises to tax us to death fighting them.
>
> First let me say that I too consider myself to be a strong libertarian and a
> moderate to strong anarchists, but as powerful as my feelings for those
> subjects are my desire for self preservation is even stronger.

My primary desire is for self preservation. I come by my anarchism for
very practical reasons.

> Yes, everybody would be better off if there were no nation states on
> planet earth but we are so astronomically far from that it just
> doesn't seem relevant when discussing what we should do NOW about
> 911, that's why I enthusiastically endorsed the war in Afghanistan
> and I'd be curious to know if you did too.

I enthusiastically supported the idea of arresting al Qaeda
members. After all, given that Mr. bin Laden killed friends of mine, I
see no reason that he should not be brought to justice. On the other
hand, we have yet to arrest Mr. bin Laden.

Instead, we seemed to get ourselves involved in a regional conflict --
one which it is far from clear that we have succeeded in "fixing". To
this day, Afghanistan appears to be a basket case, ruled by regional
warlords who are crippling the local economy and who are hardly
"allies" of the United States. At the same time, in order to get
ourselves even the current degree of success, we've strongly bolstered
a number of regional dictatorships in the former soviet Central Asian
republics, none of which are particularly savory -- indeed, I would go
so far as to say several are ticking time bombs.

Or, to put it another way, we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq to
make us safer. Are we safer now than we were before we did these
things? I'm far from sure. Indeed, I see little evidence of it. What I
do see is my money being sucked out of my pocket to pay for all of
this, and in bulk. The economy is hardly doing better as a result.

I knew an old lady who swallowed a fly
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly, Perhaps she'll die

I knew an old lady who swallowed a spider
That wiggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed a spider to catch the Fly
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly, Perhaps she'll die

I knew an old lady who swallowed a Bird
How absurd, to swallow a bird
She swallowed a bird to catch the spider
That wiggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly, Perhaps she'll die

Right now, we're funding a bunch of new dictatorships because they
seem like they're being helpful to our short term goals. Is this a
good idea? Who can say, but I think we have a very bad track record on
all of this.

> Now both those decisions turned out to be wrong but I can certainly
> see how they would seem like a good idea at the time, I would have
> probably made the same mistake.

I may have as well. An excellent argument, I think, for not making
such decisions -- especially since the historical record doesn't seem
to indicate that we succeed at making them.

I am unaware of terrorist incidents striking in the streets of Zurich or
Stockholm. Perhaps that is because neutral countries produce fewer
resentments in the international violent lunatic community.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.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: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:25 PM
To: Perry E. Metzger
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
> I'm really rather surprised that you aren't asking any of the hard
> questions. The stuff that gets hard is of an entirely different
> nature
> -- how you deal with financing in the face of the free rider problem
> and such, rather than anything mundane like how you buy more bullets
> or where you hire security personnel. I have answers for that stuff
> (such as thoughts about cross contracting of services no different
> from today's reinsurance webs), but they are all based on stuff that
> is more speculative than straightforward notions like how to buy guns
> when you need more.

I'm an actual military veteran, which I don't find is THAT common in
ancap circles. As a grunt, so of course I have the grunts attitude of
"Don't give me any supply chain bullshit, just gimme da weapons and
I'll get the job done." Of course, intellectually I am entirely aware
of the generals maxim that "amateurs talk tactics, dillettants talk
strategy, professionals talk logistics", and history certainly
demonstrates that he with the best supply chain and industrial
infrastructure wins, for as long as that chain and infrastructure last.

The Nazis dominated on the battlefield until we started bombing their
trains, rail centers, factories and warehouses. The axis never bombed
American industry and transportation, and only marginally affected
oceanic transport, so they lost.

Using the counter examples of Vietnam and Afghanistan don't cut it,
because both sides supply chains were never truly affected, both wars
were lost with propaganda and treasonous politicians on the home front
and not better battle tactics or supplies.

In this respect, better supply chain management isn't going to be an
ungoverned society's strength. Better propaganda and fifth columns in
the enemy's rear are what is necessary to win, and without a source of
supply from an ally outside the ungoverned area, there is really no
hope at all.

__________________________________
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: Russell Whitaker [whitaker_best.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:41 PM
To: Mike Lorrey; Perry E. Metzger
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

At 3:24 PM -0700 9/22/03, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>
>I'm an actual military veteran, which I don't find is THAT common in
> ancap circles.

I'm a military veteran. I'm "ancap" too (first I've seen that contraction... leave it to a military
man to be comfortable with it!).

--
Russell Whitaker
http://www.survivalarts.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: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:52 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

> --- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> > The stuff that gets hard is of an entirely different
> > nature -- how you deal with financing in the face of the free rider
> >problem and such,

Nation states have free rider problems too: draft dodgers, treasonous
politicians, turncoat saboteurs, profiteers, etc.

An ancap society, in order to remain an ancap society and not revolve
toward statism, must keep statist free riders to some minimal percent
of society, so despite what many libertarians and ancaps like to claim,
some means of immigration controls must be in place which in peacetime
will contain statist trends and in wartime will minimize free riders.
Such controls may be embedded in the market, as in: those who don't
like guns or want police protection won't move to an ungoverned area to
start with, etc. (this is another fault I find in "The Ungoverned", the
idea that a protection agency in an ancap area would survive with a 'no
right to bear arms' contract rider.)

> > or where you hire security personnel.

In laissez faire Britain, first sons inherited, in order to keep the
estate, the family firm, in one piece. Other offspring had to make
their way in the world by marriage or career, and large numbers of the
males went into military service with the crown or with one of the land
companies (Hudsons, East India, West India, etc).

> > I have answers for that stuff
> > (such as thoughts about cross contracting of services no different
> > from today's reinsurance webs),

Reinsurance is certainly a good strategy, but ideally such contracts
would extend beyond ungoverned areas toward friendly states.

As a counterexample to Vinge's short story, I suggest reading S Andrew
Swann's "Hostile Takeover" series, about a campaign by an interstellar
UN to take over an anarchist planet called Bakunin.

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:12 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> In this respect, better supply chain management isn't going to be an
> ungoverned society's strength.

Are you sure? WalMart's supply chain management makes current US
military logistics look utterly primitive.

I find something about this discussion really bizarre: people who are
reputedly libertarians, and thus familiar with the efficiencies of the
market and private organizations over centrally planned solutions,
none the less have great trust that the centrally planned solutions
will do things like supplying bullets better!

> and without a source of supply from an ally outside the ungoverned
> area, there is really no hope at all.

And why would that be? Is it impossible to produce bullets without a
government?

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 22, 2003 7:13 PM
To: Russell Whitaker; Perry E. Metzger
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- Russell Whitaker <whitaker_best.com> wrote:
> At 3:24 PM -0700 9/22/03, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >I'm an actual military veteran, which I don't find is THAT common in
> > ancap circles.
>
> I'm a military veteran. I'm "ancap" too (first I've seen that
> contraction... leave it to a military
> man to be comfortable with it!).

I cannot tell a lie. Military men are more well known to scrounge and
loot.... I picked the term up from discussions at
http://www.anti-state.com which is a pretty good "market anarchism"
website with a Yabb discussion board that is pretty active. ;)

__________________________________
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: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:15 PM
To: jonkc_att.net; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

John Clark replied to Perry Metzger:

> And I hate government as much as you do but I still think
> you should be fair, the USA supported Saddam Hussein because he seemed
> better than the religious nuts in Iran and we supported people like Osama
> bin Laden because he seemed better than the USSR. Now both those decisions
> turned out to be wrong but I can certainly see how they would seem like a
> good idea at the time, I would have probably made the same
> mistake.

An interesting take, John. However, I must disagree with your almost cavalier dismissal of the US government's decision to back the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan as "the wrong decision." This in my view seems to suggest in some way that the Soviet Union was not that big a deal, instead of what it was, the most powerful tyranny in the history of mankind. The endgame was without question flawed, as, for example, the CIA was still pouring millions of dollars worth of equipment into that nation even after the last Red Army units had withdrawn.

But of course the same could be said for the end of World War II. Indeed, as early as the Teheran Conference in November 1943, Winston Churchill confided to his one of his ministers of state (and future British Prime Minister) Harold Macmillan: "Germany is finished, though it may take some time to clean up the mess. The real problem now is Russia. I can't get the Americans to see it." The imperfect ending of World War II (in terms of political settlement), which would see half of Europe enveloped under the shroud of an equally evil form of totalitarianism, does not diminish the great victory for the forces of freedom and progress which proceeded it. Nor does the tragedy of September 11th invalidate the efforts to check Soviet expansionism and bring down that most evil empire.

Max Plumm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:24 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> > --- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> > > The stuff that gets hard is of an entirely different
> > > nature -- how you deal with financing in the face of the free rider
> > >problem and such,
>
> Nation states have free rider problems too: draft dodgers, treasonous
> politicians, turncoat saboteurs, profiteers, etc.
>
> An ancap society, in order to remain an ancap society and not revolve
> toward statism, must keep statist free riders to some minimal percent
> of society,

I don't think that's true. Solutions that work don't depend on
people's good will -- they depend on serving people's needs so that
they remain stable in the face of pressure. I think mechanisms like
reinsurance "webs" in practice would end up solving the problem.

> so despite what many libertarians and ancaps like to claim,
> some means of immigration controls must be in place which in peacetime
> will contain statist trends and in wartime will minimize free riders.

I'm afraid that I don't know how one would enforce immigration
controls in even a minarchist society, let alone an anarchist one, and
I don't see any reason one would wish to do so. Immigrants are, after
all, the greatest economic resource there is -- motivated labor. Who
would rationally want to keep them out?

Of course, I'm not really aware of libertarians who oppose
immigration. After all, if you are in favor of the NCP, it gets rather
difficult to conceive of immigration controls, or a reason for them.

> Such controls may be embedded in the market, as in: those who don't
> like guns or want police protection won't move to an ungoverned area to
> start with, etc. (this is another fault I find in "The Ungoverned", the
> idea that a protection agency in an ancap area would survive with a 'no
> right to bear arms' contract rider.)

One can conceive of all sorts of contracts people might be willing to
sign, some more plausible than others. The question is whether or not
an unarmed customer would be a greater or lower cost to a security
company. I also doubt they would be a greater expense, but if they
proved to be I could see companies giving discounts for pledges to
remain unarmed.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.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: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:27 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> > In this respect, better supply chain management isn't going to be
> an
> > ungoverned society's strength.
>
> Are you sure? WalMart's supply chain management makes current US
> military logistics look utterly primitive.
>
> I find something about this discussion really bizarre: people who are
> reputedly libertarians, and thus familiar with the efficiencies of
> the
> market and private organizations over centrally planned solutions,
> none the less have great trust that the centrally planned solutions
> will do things like supplying bullets better!

If an ancap platoon lieutenant spends half his battle time vyying for
ammunition on ebay, his platoon is gonna get dead.

>
> > and without a source of supply from an ally outside the ungoverned
> > area, there is really no hope at all.
>
> And why would that be? Is it impossible to produce bullets without a
> government?

No, but governments have one advantage in the financial arena: their
power to tax means that a gun maker whose plant gets bombed by
Uberstate Air Force stealth bombers isn't going to have to sit on his
ass for six months waiting for an insurance check until the enemy's
tanks roll into his parking lot. The government is going to build him a
newer and better one in a more secure location, gratis, ASAP.
Furthermore, the money they use for this costs a lot less than the gun
maker can get it for himself, cause the power to tax gives the
government better interest rates on their debt than anybody else...
(I have another advantage here, my dad's an engineer at Ruger, and I'm
really familiar with their operations).

An insurance company is going to send their bean counters out and
investigate for fraud, sabotage, etc etc to find some reason to avoid
paying him, especially since the insurance company has to treat the
enemy that bombed him like an uninsured driver...

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:34 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> > Are you sure? WalMart's supply chain management makes current US
> > military logistics look utterly primitive.
> >
> > I find something about this discussion really bizarre: people who are
> > reputedly libertarians, and thus familiar with the efficiencies of
> > the
> > market and private organizations over centrally planned solutions,
> > none the less have great trust that the centrally planned solutions
> > will do things like supplying bullets better!
>
> If an ancap platoon lieutenant spends half his battle time vyying for
> ammunition on ebay, his platoon is gonna get dead.

Sure, but the guys at Merrill Lynch are supplied with computers by
free market suppliers and yet you don't find traders spending half
their day buying new keyboards on ebay. Instead, the organization
lowers transaction costs and improves efficiency by purchasing for the
group. Similarly, one could imagine a private security company run
much like the current public alternatives, with a central logistics
group that arranges for purchases rather than forcing individual
personnel to buy their own equipment. Indeed, I would never have
imagined your proposed alternative before you mentioned it -- it seems
rather implausible.

> > > and without a source of supply from an ally outside the ungoverned
> > > area, there is really no hope at all.
> >
> > And why would that be? Is it impossible to produce bullets without a
> > government?
>
> No, but governments have one advantage in the financial arena: their
> power to tax means that a gun maker whose plant gets bombed by
> Uberstate Air Force stealth bombers isn't going to have to sit on his
> ass for six months waiting for an insurance check until the enemy's
> tanks roll into his parking lot.

That, too, strikes me as an implausible set of scenarios, for a number
of reasons.

1) One would expect insurance to pay off far more rapidly. I've had
serious insurance losses that have been paid in less than 24 hours.
2) One finds it implausible that a government run munitions operation
would recover more quickly than a private one. The private sector
almost always delivers faster.
3) Regardless if one was paid immediately, building a new tank factory
won't happen rapidly. The state doesn't create magic.

> The government is going to build him a
> newer and better one in a more secure location, gratis, ASAP.

Why would we imagine the government to be more efficient at this, and
yet so utterly inept at almost everything else it does?

> An insurance company is going to send their bean counters out and
> investigate for fraud, sabotage, etc etc to find some reason to avoid
> paying him, especially since the insurance company has to treat the
> enemy that bombed him like an uninsured driver...

I've been hit by uninsured drivers and paid within days.

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 22, 2003 7:40 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
> I've been hit by uninsured drivers and paid within days.

I was hit by one, though the insurance company and I dickered for three
months as to the value of my car, in the end I got what I wanted for
totalling the car, plus three months of parking space rent for keeping
it in my driveway, but I was riding buses around town in the interim.
Whereupon my policy was cancelled.

__________________________________
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: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:43 PM
To: Perry E. Metzger
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
>
> Why would we imagine the government to be more efficient at this, and
> yet so utterly inept at almost everything else it does?

One thing I do know that government does better than a private firm is
look out for it's own survival. In the private firm, management is only
concerned about their own severance package and quarterly bonuses, not
whether the firm exists a year from now.

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:47 PM
To: MaxPlumm_aol.com
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

MaxPlumm_aol.com writes:
> An interesting take, John. However, I must disagree with your almost
> cavalier dismissal of the US government's decision to back the
> mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan as "the wrong
> decision." This in my view seems to suggest in some way that the
> Soviet Union was not that big a deal, instead of what it was, the
> most powerful tyranny in the history of mankind.

I'm afraid that I still have trouble seeing why I should have been
forcibly taxed to pay for such things. "Non-Coercion Principle" and
all that. If we had truly wished to bury the Soviet Union, open
immigration, eliminating the income tax, true free trade and a half
dozen other simple measures, implemented after the Second World War,
would have at least doubled our economic growth rate. By 1989 we would
have been so much richer than we were in our actual timeline that we
could have paid them to bury themselves with spare pocket change and
they would have gladly done it.

All this geopolitical strategy is great fun -- a fabulous game if
you're in control of the ill-gotten resources of a continent or two --
but I don't think it did as much for the American taxpayer as simply
not paying taxes would have done.

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Russell Whitaker [whitaker_best.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:50 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike writes:

>If an ancap platoon lieutenant spends half his battle time vyying for
>ammunition on ebay, his platoon is gonna get dead.

I'd assume he'd have his secretary or personal shopper do that for him.

Your point is specious, Mike. You're strongly implying that the butterbar working in
a government platoon would of necessity be more efficiently supplied. I thought
you, an _experienced_ military man, would prefer Wal-Mart's logistical operation.

Oh, wait... didn't the Commandant of Marines not too long ago notice that his Marines
were often paying for certain types of bivuoac gear out of their own pockets, when the
quartermaster ran out - which is quite often, given that it's the Navy's ugly stepdaugher
when it comes to getting supplied... look at the choppers those poor guys get saddled with! -
they usually went to Wal-Mart for their gear. The Commandant ordered the USMC's
logistics re-built on the Wal-Mart model.

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower_mag/april2001/Brill.html
http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/cw/mpviewce.cfm?vceid=3024&vbcid=1941

related:
http://www.mmt-kmi.com/print_article.cfm?DocID=174
http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/chairman/quantico_230298.html

--
Russell Whitaker
http://www.survivalarts.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:56 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> --- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> > Why would we imagine the government to be more efficient at this, and
> > yet so utterly inept at almost everything else it does?
>
> One thing I do know that government does better than a private firm is
> look out for it's own survival. In the private firm, management is only
> concerned about their own severance package and quarterly bonuses, not
> whether the firm exists a year from now.

That sounds like a fine sentiment, much like I'd hear from someone at
the AFL-CIO or in Mother Jones magazine, but I have strong doubts as
to whether it is true. Generally, the quality of management is up to
the shareholders, who have final authority. If they are incapable of
watching out for their own interests, well, that's generally speaking
their problem isn't it?

We are all libertarians, objectivists and similar types here, right?
(Just checking...)

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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, September 22, 2003 7:57 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> Indeed, I would never have
> imagined your proposed alternative before you mentioned it -- it
> seems rather implausible.

I've been thinking a lot of implausible things lately. Until seeing the
US engineered implosion of the Taliban infrastructure, I was a wild
eyed "ancap warfare is better" adherent. These days I'm not so sure.

Ancap war theory doesn't deal with the asymmetry of strategic bombing:
non-initiation principles and refusal to assert collective culpability
on enemy populations will give the enemy the ability to destroy the
ancap infrastructure without a symmetric reply.

__________________________________
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: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:59 PM
To: Mike Lorrey
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

Mike Lorrey <mlorrey_yahoo.com> writes:
> --- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry_piermont.com> wrote:
> > I've been hit by uninsured drivers and paid within days.
>
> I was hit by one, though the insurance company and I dickered for three
> months as to the value of my car, in the end I got what I wanted for
> totalling the car, plus three months of parking space rent for keeping
> it in my driveway, but I was riding buses around town in the interim.
> Whereupon my policy was cancelled.

I suggest getting a better insurance company, then. Mine haven't done
that. Then again, I stick to firms with good customer satisfaction
ratings, which I'm careful to check in advance. Caveat Emptor and all
that.

Perry

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Matus [matus_matus1976.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:00 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: RE: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: perry_snark.piermont.com [mailto:perry_snark.piermont.com] On
Behalf
>
> "Matus" <matus_matus1976.com> writes:
> > Second, one can not be formed and survive unless all
> > totalitarian non-democratic states are dissolved. How do you think
an
> > anarcho-capitalist nation state would fare if it neighbored Iraq, or
> > North Korea?
>
> If it is anarcho-capitalist, it isn't a "nation state". :)
>
> I think that a sufficiently large anarcho-capitalist territory is
> likely to do just fine against an Iraq or a North Korea. (If it is too
> small, it doesn't matter what its mode of organization is.)

I disagree, respectfully. Do you assert that in all cases a market
based form of defense funded by free individuals *always* beat a
totalitarian despot, with forced conscription, spending 30% of GDP on
armed forces, etc? Mike Lorry and I spent some time discussing this
topic on the extropy list a while back, perhaps he will have more to say
on the subject. But your disclaimer emphasizes the point, any
anarcho-capitaist *area* (or whatever you want to call it, it'll have
borders, right?) will be smaller than merely two or three other despotic
totalitarian regimes. As long as totalitarian regimes abound, anarchist
areas will not be able to survive.

I
> generally believe this to be the case because I think that free market
> driven enterprises are far more efficient than state controlled
> ones.

I agree, in general that is the case, though I am hesitant to state as
much absolutely, since that has yet to be objectively proven true. Are
you privy to information, proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a
non-state free market military is better than a state sponsored one? Or
are you just drawing the conclusion that since free market, tomatoes,
for instance, are better than collectivized tomato farms, that free
market militias are also better than state militaries?

>
> The extreme inefficiency of most national armies is well known -- the
> inefficiency of US military procurement alone, ignoring the rest of
> the operation, is astounding. It is likely that defense operations
> conducted on a for-profit basis under contract to insurance providers
> and other purchasers would be operated much more cleanly and
> efficiently.

Likely, but yet to be proven. Is it likely enough that you would stake
your life on it, without any further evidence? Such a free market
militia would have to have comparable resources available to it as well,
to oppose any foreign aggressors.

Again, these are the reasons why I don't think their will be any
anarcho-capitalist area that springs up out of nowhere, instead the
entire world will continue to progress toward such a system, or a
minarchist system very similar. Which is why I would prefer to work
toward that goal, a more realistic and practical one, then to chatter
about perfect states.

>
> Or, to put it another way: if you believe free farmers do better at
> supplying food than Stalinist five year plans, why do you believe that
> free defense forces wouldn't do better than Stalinist centrally
> planned defense forces?

Because food is not an organized army. Just because free marketers do
better at a,b,c and d, does not prove, implicitly, that it will do
better at x,y, and z.

> > Third, an anarcho-capitalist society necessarily supports
> > the formation of insurance agents as protection agencies,
>
> Not necessarily. That's just one postulated mechanism. The truth is,
> the market will do what the market will do, and we can't really
> predict what directions it will take. We just know it will work more
> efficiently than a non-Pareto optimal solution.

You can't predict what direction it will take, but you *know* it will
work more efficiently than state run militaries? And *how* do you know
that precisely, since you can't predict what direction it will take?

>
> > and due to the economies of scale, it would only make sense that the
> > vast majority of protection services will end up in the hands of a
> > small number of companies, perhaps even only one company.
>
> I find that rather unlikely. If (as a libertarian) you don't believe
> that monopolies naturally arise in most areas of endeavor,

I Notice your 'most' qualifier, why?

why should
> they arise in this area? What makes security different from food
> production or computer manufacture?

A lot of things make it different, namely every single salient variable.
I think a better question would be what makes it so similar that you
assume beyond any reasonable doubt it will work better than a massive
conscripted totalitarian army?

>
> As someone who has has been involved in many large enterprises, let me
> note that there are very serious limits to economies of scale,
> especially in a service organization. Internal company politics and
> bureaucracy are not much more pretty than that of the nation
> state. The only thing that keeps companies in check is the market --
> but luckily, that's an immense check.

So assume you make an uninformed protection decision. Next thing you
know, you are invaded and enslaved by the nearest communist expansionist
regime or fantical islam theocracy. Darn, I should have gone with ACME
Private Defense, stupid me, I always fall for the flashy ads!

>
> > Fourth to assert that you oppose any nation state or
> > system which does not abide by your absolute ideal basically means
no
> > progress will ever be made toward such a state.
>
> I think you misunderstand. I merely note that I oppose the state in
> all its forms, not that I do not have preferences if forced to live
> with one. I prefer the liberal democracies to fascism and communism,
> without any serious thought being needed on the question.

But you are forced to live in one, yet you oppose everything it does on
principle, even if it makes the likelihood of a non-state system more
probable. It seems you want all or nothing. Either the perfect system,
or you will not support it.

>
> However, to me, discussing whether the US should be intervening in the
> affairs of countries far from our shores has an obvious answer -- no,
> I do not want to be taxed, and I certainly don't want to be taxed to
> pay for creating more enemies to interrupt my peace and quiet.

Ah, so the truth comes out. Would you support your tax dollars (having
all ready been confiscated at gunpoint) to be used in a manner which you
were 100% positive would create fewer enemies to interrupt your peace
and quite? In other words, you had all ready decided the outcome of the
Iraq war, and opposed it because of that, not because it was a nation
state using confiscated dollars in an effort to ensure your security (an
effort as of yet un proven, but which you are positive was in vain)

What makes you 100% sure that it will create more enemies? Perhaps a
democratic market based IRAQ will become a shining beacon of democracy
in an Arab sea of tyranny, oppression, and stagnation? Perhaps
neighboring Arab people will see how well the free Iraqi's live in a
democratic market based system, and start wanting one for themselves.
What crystal ball are you gazing into to be so confident of the outcome
of such complicated scenarios?

> War is
> the health of the state, but I have better things to do with my
> money, like pay for my own health.

Was WWII just to spur the economy, to keep power hungry megalomaniacs in
office? Or was it a morally sound effort to stop a murderous regime?

>
> > History has shown that better nations are born from worse ones,
>
> Well, that's sort of a tautology, isn't it? Worse ones are also born
> from better ones.

Admittedly poorly stated. Do you feel the world is a better place now
than, say, in 1960? Are there more free people, or fewer? 1860? If
there are more free people, why is that so, and what can we do to
accelerate that trend? These are the questions I ponder, and objective
answers to them suggest directions courses of actions should take to
make the world a better place for all involved.

>
> In any case, I doubt any of our subtle political planning or even the
> "United States" will survive the transition to a posthuman era, and
> given that such an era is approaching at tremendous speed, I think I
> have better uses for my time.
>

You seem to have an almost religious confidence for the perfectness of
the anarcho-capitalist system and the transcendence of humanity. What
if assemblers never come about, uploading is deemed infeasible, or a
fantic Islamic militant engineers a virus that wipes out humanity?

> Right now, I have a friend living in a very pleasant foreign city with
> a low cost of living, doing consulting work over the net, taxed in no
> country, and having a ball. That friend isn't spending any time
> worrying about politics -- they're living the eudaemonic ideal and
> maximizing their own fun, today, here and now. I'm rather envious.

Well other people are doing the worrying for them. Just because they
don't worry about it, does not mean it is not a problem that could end
up killing them. I may not spend my time worrying about gigantic
asteroids, but that asteroid won't care when it pummels into me. Nor do
murderous expansionist states care if the people they are murdering and
expanding into 'worry' about them. Would your friend be able to do that
if he lived in, say, North Korea? Likely he would be on the verge of
starvation and forcibly in the military.

>
> > Opposing the US and everything it does because, and solely because,
> > it is a nation-state ignores the fact that no non-nation state will
> > exist until the world is free of totalitarian despots.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly that hasn't been the historical
> pattern -- anarchist regions have survived for centuries in spite of
> active opposition --

Interesting, Which ones?

> and non-states are more efficient than
> totalitarian regimes.

That is your contention, it is yet unproved. You can not assume it to
be true a priori, as a skeptic I would require sufficient evidence to
believe this is the case.

However, lets ignore this. Lets discuss the US
> if you insist.
>
> The US spends a great deal of tax money creating those despots you
> feel we have a duty to extirpate. I have before me a lovely picture of
> Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand while conducting an arms deal
in
> 1983 with him, during the period where we created him. Have a look at
> it:
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
>
> Vast amounts of extorted tax dollars have been spent creating folks
> like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and then our lovely
> government promises to tax us to death fighting them.

Ever hear of the cold war? You know, that murderous expansionistic
regime, the soviet union, who's brand of government has killed an
estimated 170 million people *this century*. I certainly do not assert
that every US foreign policy decision was reasonable, but I will assert
that the vast majority were, and that is was a moral cause, to slow the
spread of the most murderous system the world has seen, a system, which,
btw, was the least free, most oppressive, and most stagnating.

Would you see a singularity arise in a world wide communist empire?
Where the Internet was illegal? Make no mistake, the Soviet union was
bent on world domination, and had the US not opposed it everywhere it
could, dealing the worst blows it could at that time, the world would be
a very different place. You, for instance, would probably be a poor,
ignorant peasant farmer, ready to accuse your neighbor of being a
capitalist, and extolling your needs and the lack of your abilities,
that is, if you weren't unlucky enough to have just already been killed.

As an extreme example, lets look at life under the Khmere Rouge in
Cambodia

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF6.TAB.6.3.GIF

>
> we are continuing in our path of
> creating new and better fascist lunatics we'll later have to
> oppose.

An opinion, we could also be pouring the foundation of progress, peace,
and prosperity for the entire human civilization.

Right now, we're funding several totalitarian lunatics around
> Central Asia, largely because they've given us military bases with
> which to conduct our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, you deal the worse blow to an enemy that circumstances allow. We
are not on the verge of invading china, even though we should be morally
opposed to almost everything it does. Moving against China is too
likely to be devastating to the US, so we don't. We also allied
ourselves with Stalin in WWII to fight a greater enemy, Hitler and
Hirohito. I am sure you can find some pictures with Churchill meeting
with Stalin, probably even shaking hands with ol Uncle Joe. But just as
we did then, we defeated a greater enemy of our safety and security,
then turned on the previous ally, who had then been escalated up the
totem pole of enemies.

Doubtless in a
> decade the landscape will have shifted and we'll then be ranting about
> Turkmenistan and such, but for now we are happy giving them all the
> money their secret police desire -- all taken at gun-point from you
and
> me, productive citizens of a free market economy, and transfered to
> these totalitarian regimes to sustain them.

In a fight against greater enemies. Did you oppose the US allying with
the Soviet Union in world war II? All of your comments are completely
accurate in describing that relationship as well, Yet Stalin in every
shape was the worst murderer the world has seen. Do you think we
shouldn't have allied with him? All of the alliances we formed with
thugs during the cold war paled in comparison to Stalin's brutality.

>
> Really, it is all madness. If we're really worried about North Korea,
> we have more than enough nuclear weapons to promise to vaporize every
> inch of the country if they ever touched Los Angeles or some such. The
> South Koreans and Japanese have more than enough money to take care of
> themselves.

'Touched' Los Angelas? How about vaporizing Los Angeles? I guess you
don't live in LA, but do you care about the people that do, or care
about the 30 million people enslaved by Kim Jong Il in North Korea?
>
> > No country has done more to halt the spread of totalitarianism,
> > despotism, and communism, and to encourage the spread of democracy
> > than the United States.
>
> I am afraid I can't agree. We funded despots around the world for the
> last 50 years. Names like "Ferdinand Marcos", "Suharto", "bin Laden"
> (yes, we spent money training him and his friends on how to fight the
> Soviets), "Mobuto Sese Seko", "Saddam Hussein" (who was not our enemy
> before we failed to make it clear we didn't want him attacking
> Kuwait), and dozens of others spring readily to mind. Through most of
> the cold war, we taxed our citizens to spread death around the
> world. War is the health of the state.

You presented nothing to disagree with the statement. Name another
country that has done more to spread democracy and freedom than the
United States. You keep repeating that 'War is the Health of the State'
it depends on what you mean by health. If you mean ensuring the
continuation, then yes it is in the face of murderous expansionist
regimes, which the soviet union clearly was. If you mean health in the
sense that nations create wars solely to justify their own existence, I
would like to see how you consider WWII to be a war created merely to
keep governments busy.

>
> > Not one single country the soviet union sponsored ever became
> > anything other than a communist hell-hole until after the Soviet
> > Union fell.
>
> So what? The question is not whether Stalinists prefer funding
> Stalinism, or whether Stalinism was a good thing.

It matters because all the acts above that you are so ready to criticize
were done to counter the spread of communism. They did not occur in a
geopolitical void, they occurred in a world for degrees of evil, a world
where the worse murderous regime the ever known was spreading it murder,
enslavement, and destruction anywhere it could. The question isn't was
Stalinism a good thing, the question was what should be done about it.
What do you think should have been done about it? It seems from your
comments that pretty much nothing should have been done, is that the
case, or do you have an alternative scenario in which the cold war
should have been fought, perhaps an all out conventional ground war of
attrition.

Obviously Stalinists
> were evil and liked spreading more of the same. The question is why it
> is that we find a photo of Rumsfeld, special envoy of Ronald Reagan,
> shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

Because Stalinists and the Soviet union were evil, and Saddam was used
to halt the spread or murderous communism. You practically answer your
own question. Do you feel we should have allied ourselves with Stalin
in WWII?

>
> > Yes, I am staunchly opposed to drug laws, corporate subsidies, trade
> > restrictions, encroachments on civil liberties, etc. etc. But not
> > better nation will arise until all nations are at least up to this
level
> > or one similar fostered by rule of law, market based economies, and
> > democratic governments.
>
> I don't see much evidence of that....

I Haven't presented any, foreign policy and its importance or lack there
of is the topic of this discussion. You have encountered only a small
sample of my opinions, so please be aware I have a great many more, my
interests do not rest solely on foreign policy.

>
> > There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
> > becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war,
>
> We have. Multiple times. California used to be Mexico, remember?

See my follow up post on Democracy and Wars

> > To oppose everything about this US and place it in the same moral
> > category as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and
> > Saddam's Iraq is to ignore the phenomenal progress that has been
made
> > and to shoot in the foot the chances of any further progress.
>
> Oh, I don't disagree that we're a MUCH better place than any of those
> locations. What I'm disputing is your premise that our foreign
> intervention makes us safer.

And I am disputing your premise that it has made us less safe. The
world would today be a sprawling soviet style communist utopia if the US
had not staunchly opposed communism and dealt the most crushing blows at
each conflict. Do you think the Soviet expansionism would have just
stopped?

>
> After all, that's the key here, isn't it? We're being forced at
> gun-point to pay tribute to the folks in D.C. on the premise that they
> will make us safer with that money. I argue that they have done no
> such thing.

An opinion. If it were proven to you, beyond a reasonable doubt that
they are making you safer, would you then acquiesce and let your tax
dollars be spent on such efforts? (assuming the tax dollars had all
ready been confiscated at gun point of course)

>
> > > I also must admit that I was a bit surprised to see very little
> > > transhumanism in the local conversation --
> >
> > This is not specifically a transhuman or extropian group, there are
> > all-ready groups for those.
>
> Well, it seems the extropian group isn't very interested in
> extropianism. Extropianism was as much about politics as it was about
> transhumanism -- indeed, in the mind of the person who started the
> mailing list, the two were inextricably linked.

I argued as much frequently on that list when people would get annoyed
with my political postings. Extropianism wont get very far if
computers, the internet, and education are outlawed, as has been the
case in many communist countries. Politics will play a very important
role (obviously) in the well being of the future.

Regards,

Michael Dickey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: Russell Whitaker [whitaker_best.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:07 PM
To: Mike Lorrey; eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

At 4:57 PM -0700 9/22/03, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>[SNIP]
>
>Ancap war theory doesn't deal with the asymmetry of strategic bombing:
>non-initiation principles and refusal to assert collective culpability
>on enemy populations will give the enemy the ability to destroy the
>ancap infrastructure without a symmetric reply.
>

Mike, this is simply evil. Are you still calling yourself "libertarian" nowadays,
or have you done the intellectually honest thing and changed your self-description?

--
Russell Whitaker
http://www.survivalarts.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: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:13 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

--- Russell Whitaker <whitaker_best.com> wrote:
> At 4:57 PM -0700 9/22/03, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >Ancap war theory doesn't deal with the asymmetry of strategic
> bombing:
> >non-initiation principles and refusal to assert collective
> culpability
> >on enemy populations will give the enemy the ability to destroy the
> >ancap infrastructure without a symmetric reply.
> >
>
> Mike, this is simply evil. Are you still calling yourself
> "libertarian" nowadays,
> or have you done the intellectually honest thing and changed your
> self-description?

Nope. And saying I'm not doesn't invalidate the argument. I've made no
moral judgement about anybody's refusal to assert collective
culpability, I've only pointed out the weakness of doing so in the face
of an enemy willing to do so. What tactic or strategy do you offer to
mitigate this problem other than just calling me evil?

FWIW: The World's Shortest Political Quiz consistently places me into
solid libertarian territory, usually a notch to the right of a centrist
Libertarian stance.

__________________________________
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: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:49 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

In a message dated 9/22/2003 2:01:12 PM Central Standard Time,
perry_piermont.com writes: I don't think that they will occur in the fog of war. I'm not
even sure we'll end up with things that resemble what we currently think of as
"war". Indeed, as I'm far from clear that there will be humans in a century, I
would be even more hard pressed to explain what I suspect war would look like
conducted in a future containing neither flesh and blood people nor states. :)

In my past when I sold ideas in the companies I worked for I tested each link
in the chain until I could present it as a certainty and then tested the way
the chain strung together to be sure there was absolutely no reason to think
the entire chain wouldn't be as reliable as each individual link.
I can't think of a single instance where I asked the company to bet the
ranch on one idea.
Yet we seem urged to bet the ranch and our lifes on an unproven idea
when link by link is full of "I'm not sure," "Maybe," "far from clear," and such
phrases. I can't even accurately cound the qualifiers in that few sentences
quoted above.
I say go back and finish your engineering on this idea and I will be
ready to sit down and consider 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: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:13 PM
To: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: [eudaemonists] Democracy and War

Perry had some concerns about my comments that no democratic nation has
ever started a war with another nation, and no two democracies have ever
been at war with each. Some obvious questions arise, namely the
definition of 'democracy' and the definition of 'war' and the definition
of 'start' I invite those interested to read Rummels powerfull site
"Power Kills"

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

This is a phenomenally well argued researched, and balanced site.

For starters, From Rummel's "Power Kills" site, his "Q and A on
Democracy and War"

" In early 1994, under the title "The Most Important Fact of Our Time,"
I posted on several internet news groups and e-mail lists the finding
that democracies do not make war on each other, and suggested that
through democratic freedom we now have a solution to war. This posting
stimulated many questions and arguments. I then summarized the most
important of these, provided my answers, and posted it on the internet
under the title given this appendix. This appendix is a revision of that
posting. The research details underlying this appendix are given in
Chapter 2.** "

from - http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM

Some of the more relevant questions follow...

Q: But what about the American Civil War, War of 1812, Spanish-American
War, democratically appointed Hitler and WWII, Finland versus the Allies
in WWII, current war in former Yugoslavia, etc. etc.? Did not these
constitute wars among and between democracies?

A: Those who have investigated these and many other exceptions (and
especially Ray [1995] and Weart [1995]) have concluded that these do not
constitute meaningful exceptions. The United Kingdom versus Finland is
perhaps the most often mentioned, next to the war of 1812, as a possible
exception. Although the United Kingdom did bomb German run mining
operations in Finland, there was no actual fighting between Finnish
forces and those of the democratic allies. Regarding the war of 1812,
the United Kingdom was not a democracy by any definition until later in
the century. Regarding Hitler, once he was given the power to rule by
decree in 1933 and suppressed opposition, his government was no longer
democratic. Freedom of speech and religion, along with other rights, was
eliminated; regular competitive elections were no longer held, and the
Nazis were above the law.

Regarding the American Civil War, an often mentioned exception, the
South was not a sovereign democracy at that time. For one, it was not
recognized by any major Power, which means that it was not recognized as
an independent state. But aside from this, the franchise was limited to
free males (which constituted about 35 to 40 percent of all males in the
Confederacy), President Jefferson Davis was not elected, but appointed
by representatives themselves selected by the confederate states. There
was an election in 1861, but it was not competitive.

As with many facts by which we guide our lives, ***we need not be hung
up on such possible exceptions. All alleged exceptions are at the
margins of what we call liberal democracies. Although none have been
accepted as exceptions to the rule by those who have done research on
them, let us suppose that they are in fact exceptions. This still would
not weaken the proposition that well established democracies do not make
war on each other.*** This is because in no case have undoubted
democracies (such as Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, United States, and
Canada) made war on each other and none are mentioned as exceptions.

------------------

Q: Okay, okay, what about democracies, particularly the United States,
carrying on covert action against other countries, some of which were
democracies?

A: Yes, but this was during the Cold War and was part of the largely
successful policy to contain communism, particularly Soviet power.
Mistakes were made, actions were taken which in hindsight many democrats
are embarrassed about. Even then, there was no military action between
democracies.
This having been said, there is also a deeper explanation. Democracies
are not monolithic; they are divided into many agencies, some of which
operate in secrecy and are really totalitarian subsystems connected only
at the top to democratic processes. The military, especially in wartime,
and the secret services, such as the CIA, are examples. These near
isolated islands of power operate as democratic theory would assume.
Outside of the democratic sunshine and processes, they do things that
were they subject to democratic scrutiny would be forbidden. The answer
to this problem is more democratic control. And with the spread of
democracy around the world, armies and secret services would be less and
less needed. Indeed, with near universal democratization, they could be
eliminated altogether.

-----------------

Q: Even if that democracies do not make war on each other is true, how
can you generalize to the future? Because something never happened in
the past you cannot say it will not in the future.

A: That democracies do not make war on each other, that they create a
zone of peace among themselves, is now the most firmly established
proposition in international relations and the most important. Given
this, we have a solid base for forecasting that there never will be a
war between democracies and that universalizing democracy will end
international wars.

All public policies are based on perceptions of historical patterns.
Indeed, all scientific predictions are based on established
theoretical/empirical patterns. No prediction of the future is thus
certain; all are based on the past. The question is how good the
established patterns are that underlie the predictions. Are they
reliable, well verified, theoretically understood. The historical
pattern that there is no war between democracies meets all these
requirements. Even those who have been very skeptical when starting
their research on this have become convinced. One has said that this is
now the best established law of international relations.

Given all this and the absolute importance of eliminating war, should we
not implement the best empirical/theoretical solution now in our hands?
That is, as practical and desired by the people involved, to
universalize democracy?

---------

Additionally, Perry Specifically mentions the Mexican American war.
While I am unfamiliar with its cause, Rummel and other experts assert it
is not a valid objection. I defer to his judgment, as an expert on the
matter, I am sure he has studied the question in much greater depth than
I or Perry.

Perry, if you are privy to information that shows beyond a reasonable
doubt that the United States initatied the Mexican American conflict
unprovoked or without just cause, I am sure Rummel would note it as a
valid exception.

I could find no mention on the site of any two countries going to war
over a soccer game.

The Democratic Peace - http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM

Rummel is the author of 14 books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-au
thor=Rummel%2C%20R.%20J./102-3688462-2871310

Of note

LIBERTARIANISM AND INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE -
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP83.HTM

Abstract:

Based on theory and previous results, three hypotheses are posed:

Libertarian states have no violence between themselves.
The more libertarian two states, the less their mutual violence.
The more libertarian a state, the less its foreign violence.

These hypotheses are statistically tested against scaled data on all
reported international conflict for 1976 to 1980; and where appropriate,
against a list of wars from 1816 to 1974, and of threats and use of
force from 1945 to 1965. The three hypotheses are found highly
significant. Tests were also made for contiguity as an intervening
variable and were negative. Finally, two definitions of "libertarian"
are tested, one involving civil liberties plus political rights, the
other adding in economic freedom. Both are highly positive, but economic
freedom is also found to make a significant added reduction in the level
of violence for a state overall or between particular states.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: eudaemonists-unsubscribe_matus1976.com
For additional commands, e-mail: eudaemonists-help_matus1976.com

From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:26 PM
To: Matus
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy

"Matus" <matus_matus1976.com> writes:
> > I think that a sufficiently large anarcho-capitalist territory is
> > likely to do just fine against an Iraq or a North Korea. (If it is too
> > small, it doesn't matter what its mode of organization is.)
>
> I disagree, respectfully. Do you assert that in all cases a market
> based form of defense funded by free individuals *always* beat a
> totalitarian despot, with forced conscription, spending 30% of GDP on
> armed forces, etc?

Once you're spending 30% of GDP by force, you'll soon have very little
GDP in absolute dollars to spend. We've spent a lot of time building
up our claims about North Korea, but I find it hard to believe that
people who are starving half to death can fight effectively, or that a
country run that badly can earn enough money to build an effective
fighting force.

> But your disclaimer emphasizes the point, any
> anarcho-capitaist *area* (or whatever you want to call it, it'll have
> borders, right?)

I am not sure why it would have borders. Borders are a statist concept.

> will be smaller than merely two or three other despotic totalitarian
> regimes.

I don't know why any such region would necessarily be small. I was
merely noting that a sufficiently large group is often going to be
able to overwhelm a very small group. I would not want to pit the army
of Singapore against that of China, regardless of the comparative per
capita GDPs.

> As long as totalitarian regimes abound, anarchist areas will not be
> able to survive.

I am, again, far from sure about that. The traditionalist anarchism of
Somalia seems to have not merely wiped out the remnants of the Barre
regime but seem to actually be making a reasonable go of portions of
the country. (Mogadishu is a bit of a mess but other places aren't.)
This is in spite of the fact that there are lots of people nearby who
don't wish the traditionalist forms of law well. Numerous attempts to
re-establish the state there have failed, though.

This is not an entirely surprising turn of events, of
course. Non-state based systems tend to be quite resilient.

> > I
> > generally believe this to be the case because I think that free market
> > driven enterprises are far more efficient than state controlled
> > ones.
>
> I agree, in general that is the case, though I am hesitant to state as
> much absolutely, since that has yet to be objectively proven true. Are
> you privy to information, proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a
> non-state free market military is better than a state sponsored one?

No, but then again, I'm not certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the
local government won't decide some time to kill all of us as
pests. After all, governments do that sort of thing.

> Or are you just drawing the conclusion that since free market,
> tomatoes, for instance, are better than collectivized tomato farms,
> that free market militias are also better than state militaries?

Well, I'll admit that is the core of the argument. I don't think
people have yet found an area where the state does a better job than
the market...

> > The extreme inefficiency of most national armies is well known -- the
> > inefficiency of US military procurement alone, ignoring the rest of
> > the operation, is astounding. It is likely that defense operations
> > conducted on a for-profit basis under contract to insurance providers
> > and other purchasers would be operated much more cleanly and
> > efficiently.
>
> Likely, but yet to be proven. Is it likely enough that you would stake
> your life on it, without any further evidence?

Are you willing to stake your life on the notion that the state can
defend you efficiently? Some day you may require efficient defense,
you know. Myself, I live in a building with private security,
precisely because the State does such a bad job.

> Such a free market militia would have to have comparable resources
> available to it as well, to oppose any foreign aggressors.

Almost certainly.

> > Or, to put it another way: if you believe free farmers do better at
> > supplying food than Stalinist five year plans, why do you believe that
> > free defense forces wouldn't do better than Stalinist centrally
> > planned defense forces?
>
> Because food is not an organized army. Just because free marketers do
> better at a,b,c and d, does not prove, implicitly, that it will do
> better at x,y, and z.

It is rather difficult to "prove" things about human
endeavors. However, I've seen enough evidence to lead me to believe
that, in general, the state is never the efficient solution.

> > > Third, an anarcho-capitalist society necessarily supports
> > > the formation of insurance agents as protection agencies,
> >
> > Not necessarily. That's just one postulated mechanism. The truth is,
> > the market will do what the market will do, and we can't really
> > predict what directions it will take. We just know it will work more
> > efficiently than a non-Pareto optimal solution.
>
> You can't predict what direction it will take, but you *know* it will
> work more efficiently than state run militaries? And *how* do you know
> that precisely, since you can't predict what direction it will take?

I don't know what life forms will be around in 100,000 years, but I do
know that any that are there will be good at assuring their own
survival and reproduction. I don't know the names of the people who
will be robbed tomorrow in New Orleans, but I can predict that there
will be such people. I don't know what specific technologies will be
used to make our computers faster in ten years, but I know the
computers then will be faster.

Similarly, I can't tell you what the most efficient end product of the
evolutionary process that is the market will be. I know, for example,
that if I free the economy of North Korea the transportation of food
will be done most efficiently by private companies, but I don't know
the names of their owners, whether they will prefer trucks or trains,
and what forms their enterprises will take. I simply know that the
free market will do better.

> > > and due to the economies of scale, it would only make sense that the
> > > vast majority of protection services will end up in the hands of a
> > > small number of companies, perhaps even only one company.
> >
> > I find that rather unlikely. If (as a libertarian) you don't believe
> > that monopolies naturally arise in most areas of endeavor,
>
> I Notice your 'most' qualifier, why?

Monopolies sometimes arise for a time by accident.

> > why should
> > they arise in this area? What makes security different from food
> > production or computer manufacture?
>
> A lot of things make it different, namely every single salient variable.

I've heard the same excuse from statists about nearly
everything. "Power generation is different. It must be regulated."
"Drugs are different. They must be regulated or people will be sold
dangerous and ineffective drugs." "Banking must be regulated." "Trains
must be run by the government." -- the list goes on and on.

> I think a better question would be what makes it so similar that you
> assume beyond any reasonable doubt it will work better than a massive
> conscripted totalitarian army?

I've no doubt about that at all -- slaves never work as hard as loyal
employees. It is hard to make people work enthusiastically at
gunpoint. The only question is whether or not the conscript army can
be so much larger so as to overwhelm, but it can never work as well.

> > As someone who has has been involved in many large enterprises, let me
> > note that there are very serious limits to economies of scale,
> > especially in a service organization. Internal company politics and
> > bureaucracy are not much more pretty than that of the nation
> > state. The only thing that keeps companies in check is the market --
> > but luckily, that's an immense check.
>
> So assume you make an uninformed protection decision. Next thing you
> know, you are invaded and enslaved by the nearest communist expansionist
> regime or fantical islam theocracy. Darn, I should have gone with ACME
> Private Defense, stupid me, I always fall for the flashy ads!

Well, Caveat Emptor. Go to the wrong doctor and you die. Live in a
house designed by a bad engineer and the earthquake kills you. Live in
the wrong country, and die at the hands of looney statists. The world
is a dangerous place.

> > However, to me, discussing whether the US should be intervening in the
> > affairs of countries far from our shores has an obvious answer -- no,
> > I do not want to be taxed, and I certainly don't want to be taxed to
> > pay for creating more enemies to interrupt my peace and quiet.
>
> Ah, so the truth comes out. Would you support your tax dollars (having
> all ready been confiscated at gunpoint) to be used in a manner which you
> were 100% positive would create fewer enemies to interrupt your peace
> and quite?

I don't generally support the use of my confiscated tax money for any
purpose other than being returned to me. That said, I'm generally less
upset when the money is used to fix the pothole on my street than when
it is used to enrage people into blowing up more buildings in the town
I live in.

> In other words, you had all ready decided the outcome of the
> Iraq war, and opposed it because of that, not because it was a nation
> state using confiscated dollars in an effort to ensure your security (an
> effort as of yet un proven, but which you are positive was in vain)
>
> What makes you 100% sure that it will create more enemies?

Iraq had nothing to do with any sort of attacks on the United States,
although right now 70% of the American public has been convinced by
vague propaganda that Saddam Hussein was involved somehow in 9/11. It
is true that the government there was pretty awful, but then again so
are many governments.

Meanwhile, we've spent huge amounts of cash on this enterprise, much
of which would have been better left in the hands it was taken
from. Our economy is in shambles, and the current situation is not
helping one bit.

> Perhaps a democratic market based IRAQ will become a shining beacon
> of democracy in an Arab sea of tyranny, oppression, and stagnation?
> Perhaps neighboring Arab people will see how well the free Iraqi's
> live in a democratic market based system, and start wanting one for
> themselves.

And perhaps the suicide bombing this morning didn't happen. Perhaps
the US didn't forbid a private entrepreneur from running flights into
and out of Bagdad on the basis that they hadn't yet worked out the
regulations. Perhaps we didn't cancel self organized municipal
elections in the Shiite south. Perhaps pigs will fly. Who knows?

> What crystal ball are you gazing into to be so confident of the outcome
> of such complicated scenarios?

When you read about the U.S. disrupting attempts by locals to rebuild
the Iraqi economy because we're basically into regulation, you take a
dim view of the possibility that Iraqis will be running a big stock
exchange any time soon.

> > War is the health of the state, but I have better things to do
> > with my money, like pay for my own health.
>
> Was WWII just to spur the economy, to keep power hungry megalomaniacs in
> office? Or was it a morally sound effort to stop a murderous regime?

Would that regime have even existed were it not for the insanity of
the First World War, and the further insanity of the Versailles
settlement?

> > In any case, I doubt any of our subtle political planning or even the
> > "United States" will survive the transition to a posthuman era, and
> > given that such an era is approaching at tremendous speed, I think I
> > have better uses for my time.
>
> You seem to have an almost religious confidence for the perfectness of
> the anarcho-capitalist system and the transcendence of humanity. What
> if assemblers never come about,

That seems rather unlikely. It might take far longer than I'm
expecting, of course...

> uploading is deemed infeasible,

Well, again, that seems rather unlikely, though it might take much
longer than expected.

> or a fantic Islamic militant engineers a virus that wipes out humanity?

I have my doubts about the feasibility of that, but if they do, well,
I suppose we'll all die.

> > Right now, I have a friend living in a very pleasant foreign city with
> > a low cost of living, doing consulting work over the net, taxed in no
> > country, and having a ball. That friend isn't spending any time
> > worrying about politics -- they're living the eudaemonic ideal and
> > maximizing their own fun, today, here and now. I'm rather envious.
>
> Well other people are doing the worrying for them.

Well, then it would be foolish to do the worrying ones self if there
are others willing to take it on, wouldn't it?

> > > Opposing the US and everything it does because, and solely because,
> > > it is a nation-state ignores the fact that no non-nation state will
> > > exist until the world is free of totalitarian despots.
> >
> > Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly that hasn't been the historical
> > pattern -- anarchist regions have survived for centuries in spite of
> > active opposition --
>
> Interesting, Which ones?

The frequent example is usually Medieval Iceland, but there are others.

> > The US spends a great deal of tax money creating those despots you
> > feel we have a duty to extirpate.
[...]
> Ever hear of the cold war? You know, that murderous expansionistic
> regime, the soviet union, who's brand of government has killed an
> estimated 170 million people *this century*. I certainly do not assert
> that every US foreign policy decision was reasonable, but I will assert
> that the vast majority were, and that is was a moral cause, to slow the
> spread of the most murderous system the world has seen, a system, which,
> btw, was the least free, most oppressive, and most stagnating.

It appears that we're continuing with this policy, though. We're now
financing dictatorships in the former Soviet Central Asian "Republics"
so that they'll provide us with bases for the ill-named "War on
Terrorism".

"I don't know why she swallowed the fly...."

Some cures are worse than their diseases. I'm hardly convinced that US
cold war policy did terribly much to "win" anything. What killed
Communism in the end was the fact that Communism doesn't work. If you
believe that Communism would have worked forever, though, why do you
oppose it?

> Make no mistake, the Soviet union was bent on world domination, and
> had the US not opposed it everywhere it could, dealing the worst
> blows it could at that time, the world would be a very different
> place.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I will say this: people give enormous credit to
the competence of a system they claim to have opposed because of its
unworkability. The same folks who could not turn out needed consumer
goods and who produced apartment buildings that began decaying before
they were finished are simultaneously claimed to have been potential
geniuses at world domination.

> > we are continuing in our path of
> > creating new and better fascist lunatics we'll later have to
> > oppose.
>
> An opinion, we could also be pouring the foundation of progress, peace,
> and prosperity for the entire human civilization.

By supporting loony dictators in places like Turkmenistan? How are
their new mini-gulags supporting "peace, progress and prosperity" by
arresting people for opposing the government?

> > Right now, we're funding several totalitarian lunatics around
> > Central Asia, largely because they've given us military bases with
> > which to conduct our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> Again, you deal the worse blow to an enemy that circumstances allow.

Or, perhaps we just play a foolish game because global power roulette
seems fun to the same folks who enjoy backstabbing in the corridors of
Washington.

> We
> are not on the verge of invading china, even though we should be morally
> opposed to almost everything it does. Moving against China is too
> likely to be devastating to the US, so we don't. We also allied
> ourselves with Stalin in WWII to fight a greater enemy, Hitler and
> Hirohito. I am sure you can find some pictures with Churchill meeting
> with Stalin, probably even shaking hands with ol Uncle Joe. But just as
> we did then, we defeated a greater enemy of our safety and security,
> then turned on the previous ally, who had then been escalated up the
> totem pole of enemies.

"She swallowed the bird to catch the spider... she swallowed the
spider to catch the fly..."

> In a fight against greater enemies. Did you oppose the US allying with
> the Soviet Union in world war II?

Since I wasn't alive, I didn't have much of an opportunity to oppose
it.

> All of your comments are completely accurate in describing that
> relationship as well, Yet Stalin in every shape was the worst
> murderer the world has seen. Do you think we shouldn't have allied
> with him?

There are those that argue that we perhaps should not have. If he
really was such an awful guy (the worst murderer that the world has
seen, you say), why was it better to be on his side than on Hitler's?
Why indeed pick either brutal maniac's side?

> > Really, it is all madness. If we're really worried about North Korea,
> > we have more than enough nuclear weapons to promise to vaporize every
> > inch of the country if they ever touched Los Angeles or some such. The
> > South Koreans and Japanese have more than enough money to take care of
> > themselves.
>
> 'Touched' Los Angelas? How about vaporizing Los Angeles? I guess you
> don't live in LA, but do you care about the people that do,

He couldn't vaporize the place. He doesn't have thermonuclear devices
and can't build them. It isn't even clear he could build something
that could handle a large enough atomic bomb to make much of a
difference, and the accuracy on his equipment is piss poor. However,
he would never be stupid enough to do it because, as I said, we'd
vaporize his country.

Anyway, I don't see why anyone thinks he's crazy for wanting nukes. We
said he was one of the "Axis of Evil", and we've gone off and deposed
one of the other people of that designation. Seems perfectly sane that
he'd want a way of deterring the US from invading to raise GWBs poll
ratings or whatever other cause he invades countries for. (Certainly
it isn't to find non-existent WOMDs).

> or care
> about the 30 million people enslaved by Kim Jong Il in North Korea?

There are billions of people who's lives I am not responsible for, and
these are just a few of them. I do not ask others to live their lives
for me, and I do not live my life for them.

I might be convinced to give money to a charity to fund mercs to take
out Kim Jong Il, were that legal (which our regime does not permit --
they want the sole right to kill people for themselves), but I deeply
resent being asked to care about them or anyone else with dollars
taken from me at gunpoint. My money, my life, my choice about what to
do with my life and the money I earn with it.

> > > No country has done more to halt the spread of totalitarianism,
> > > despotism, and communism, and to encourage the spread of democracy
> > > than the United States.
> >
> > I am afraid I can't agree. We funded despots around the world for the
> > last 50 years. Names like "Ferdinand Marcos", "Suharto", "bin Laden"
> > (yes, we spent money training him and his friends on how to fight the
> > Soviets), "Mobuto Sese Seko", "Saddam Hussein" (who was not our enemy
> > before we failed to make it clear we didn't want him attacking
> > Kuwait), and dozens of others spring readily to mind. Through most of
> > the cold war, we taxed our citizens to spread death around the
> > world. War is the health of the state.
>
> You presented nothing to disagree with the statement. Name another
> country that has done more to spread democracy and freedom than the
> United States.

I don't think we've done anything to spread democracy or freedom,
except by accident. We've funded people who've brutally murdered by
the trainload, though. There used to be a lot of ethnic Chinese in
Indonesia before they were all murdered by folks we nodded and winked
at. I seem to remember the slaughter of tens of thousands in East
Timor. I seem to remember thousands dying at the hands of the Shah's
secret police, thousands dying at the hands of the government of El
Salvador, thousands dying at the hands of Saddam Hussein, thousands
dying in that insane cannibal Bokasa's African nightmare. Tell them
about what a great country we are, and that it was all necessary and
needed because of "realpolitic".

You claim to care about those North Koreans. What about all the guys
that will be killed by the petty dictators we are funding right now,
today, as we speak?

> > > Not one single country the soviet union sponsored ever became
> > > anything other than a communist hell-hole until after the Soviet
> > > Union fell.
> >
> > So what? The question is not whether Stalinists prefer funding
> > Stalinism, or whether Stalinism was a good thing.
>
> It matters because all the acts above that you are so ready to criticize
> were done to counter the spread of communism.

At what cost?

> > Obviously Stalinists
> > were evil and liked spreading more of the same. The question is why it
> > is that we find a photo of Rumsfeld, special envoy of Ronald Reagan,
> > shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.
>
> Because Stalinists and the Soviet union were evil, and Saddam was used
> to halt the spread or murderous communism.

I was unaware that the Iran-Iraq war was fought over the spread of
Communism. I thought it was about Saddam Hussein wanting to seize
Iranian oil fields and about us thinking that was a neat way to get
revenge over the hostage crisis. Little did I know that the Iranians
were secret communists, all the while Saddam was gassing the Kurds.

> > > There are more democracies than ever before, and more countries are
> > > becoming democracies. No democratic nation has ever started a war,
> >
> > We have. Multiple times. California used to be Mexico, remember?
>
> See my follow up post on Democracy and Wars

And why do we own California, anyway?

> > > To oppose everything about this US and place it in the same moral
> > > category as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and
> > > Saddam's Iraq is to ignore the phenomenal progress that has been made
> > > and to shoot in the foot the chances of any further progress.
> >
> > Oh, I don't disagree that we're a MUCH better place than any of those
> > locations. What I'm disputing is your premise that our foreign
> > intervention makes us safer.
>
> And I am disputing your premise that it has made us less safe. The
> world would today be a sprawling soviet style communist utopia if the US
> had not staunchly opposed communism and dealt the most crushing blows at
> each conflict. Do you think the Soviet expansionism would have just
> stopped?

I think our attempts at "stopping" it were wholly ineffectual. I
think in the end it failed from its own weight. I think it is ironic
that people who so oppose Communism seem to have such an inflated view
of its efficacy.

> > After all, that's the key here, isn't it? We're being forced at
> > gun-point to pay tribute to the folks in D.C. on the premise that they
> > will make us safer with that money. I argue that they have done no
> > such thing.
>
> An opinion. If it were proven to you, beyond a reasonable doubt that
> they are making you safer, would you then acquiesce and let your tax
> dollars be spent on such efforts? (assuming the tax dollars had all
> ready been confiscated at gun point of course)

I would need to be shown not merely that my money was being used to
positive effect, but that it was being used more efficiently than it
could be otherwise used. Since Pareto Optimality pretty much says
that the second it is taken at gunpoint you no longer have a maximally
efficient system, that might be a tall order indeed.

--
Perry E. Metzger perry_piermont.com
From: perry_snark.piermont.com on behalf of Perry E. Metzger [perry_piermont.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:26 PM
To: Matus
Cc: eudaemonists_matus1976.com
Subject: Re: [eudaemonists] foreign policy