From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:15:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: A Libertine Question
Message-ID: <ae22ace002021004da1c@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:19 PM 7/29/96, jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
>I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me.
>Your opinion may vary. ;-)

I don't find it surprising (a different word from "funny") that you are a
kind of "conservative." Many folks calling themselves conservatives
actually want various kinds of laws, safety nets, social order, etc. (Many
"conservative farmers" want government price guarantees, for example.)

>tcmay@got.net wrote:
>>Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their
>>paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when
>>people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on.
>
>One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral
>judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much".

This is quibbling. Use whatever other word or weasel phrase for "fail to
save" and "drink too much." Common euphemisms are: "became a victim of
ethanol addiction," "lacked personal financial skills," etc.

My point was an obvious one, clearly made, which I won't repeat here.

>I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as
>ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their
>ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..."

This is fatuous nonsense. I made no comment even remotely similar to this.
(In fact, in my view, a woman can wear a tiny string bikini and, if
attacked, blow away her attacker; though the bikini may make concealed
carry a bit harder.)

>However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such
>an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be
>deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral
>judgments coming from?

The likely reason you are confused is that you set up a straw man, found it
conflicted with other things I have argued, and now wish me to "explain."


>Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being
>poor or
>indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the
>equation is
>one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the
>equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality
>of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls.

I have strongly argued against curfews, as I don't want cops telling my
15-year-old child when she or he can and can't be on public roads.

As to "insurance," be my guest. That is, you and others are perfectly able
to form insurance pools, old age retirement funds, etc. These are usually
called "pension plans."

However, please don't hold a gun to my head and demand that I contribute to
a plan, especially one which is a Ponzi scheme like Social Security (SS is
not self-funding, and "IOUs" are being placed in the pot for the future, as
is well-known.)

Sounds fair to me.

>The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall
>behind. Think: Soylent Green.

A bad form of argument, citing bad SF movies to prove your points.


--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."