Subject: Re: [lojban] where the mailing lists lie

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:01:31 +0000 (UTC)

>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 [email-masked]
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com