From bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM Sat Apr 20 17:01:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 21 Apr 2002 00:01:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24451 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 00:01:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2002 00:01:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (140.186.114.245) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 00:01:38 -0000 Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:01:31 +0000 (UTC) To: lojbab@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020420152618.00aa4600@digitalkingdom.org> (message from lojbab on Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:36:36 -0400) Subject: Re: [lojban] where the mailing lists lie References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419173804.04b5eec0@digitalkingdom.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020418222728.049dde70@digitalkingdom.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020419173804.04b5eec0@digitalkingdom.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20020420152618.00aa4600@digitalkingdom.org> From: "Robert J. Chassell" Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810561 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14081 >As a matter of good governance, a country should never encourage >decent people to lie. That is fine, if "governance" is the issue. The net is a bastion of freedom from government, ... No it is not. First, it is based on government permissions or prohibitions. Second, regardless of what you think of whether a government should provide a sufficiently permanent guarantee to physical property that someone lays a fiber optic line (that is what is meant by `government permissions or prohibitions'), the question arises whether you favor a society, regardless of government, in which your neighbors are dishonest. >The social arrangements should encourage honesty. There will always be people who will take advantage of the honesty of others, which thus may discourage honesty. That is true, but does not meet the issue whether *you* think it is a good idea that the social (regardless of government) motivations should favor dishonesty among your neighbors or honesty. (I am not seeking 100% honesty or full disclosure; simply talking about straightforward issues.) > (Note that `white lies' and other such diplomatic remarks >are quite different from making direct claims that are false. Also, >you should never have to deal with a business as if it were like a >friend wearing mismatched socks.) "Should" is a moral question. Corporations in a free market tend to be amoral, ... Yes, "Should" is a moral question. Corporations were invented by humans to do certain collective tasks. They have done some of them better than governments; and there is no doubt that separating them from the coercive agencies of a government is a good idea. But the question is what social characteristics do you want to give to this social invention? >Indeed, a country should arrange matters such that acting in an honest >manner is without doubt the best action. That means more government interference, something I never thought I would hear you advocate %^) Oddly enough, in this case, it means less government interference. However, government needs to handle the minimal issue whatever is needed to prevent private, non-governmental organizations from gaining governmental power. Let me put it this way: if you hurt as much when you are beaten up by a private thug as by a governmentally paid secret policeman, then the private thug, if the government does nothing about him, has as much power over you as the governmentally paid secret policeman. Both should be banned. (Modern gangsters are more sophisticated than this example; they seldom employ private thugs; they hurt people in other ways.) -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com