From: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 00:11:54 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
Message-ID: <199705051536.IAA12717@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:50 5/02/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 12:34:19AM -0800, Jim Bell wrote:

>The basic point, really, is that organizational complexity grows 
>with the size of the organization, at a greater than linear rate.  
>This is because organizational complexity is a function of 
>interactions between members of the organization, which is at least 
>n-squared.  (However, when you consider that alliances form and can 
>interact, the true complexity grows at a much faster rate.) 

You seem to be taken with making all sorts of bare, unsupported claims,
obviously with the intention of explaining (for example) away what was
apparently an INTENTIONAL increase in the size of Federal government between
(say) 1932 and today.   

To read your paragraph above, its increase in size was simply the
unavoidable consequence of nature's laws or something akin to it.  Maybe a
product of number theory, or the Fibbonacci sequence, exponential increase,
or something like that.  Which would, if true, remove just about all the
blame from those who were in control of the situation.

BULLSHIT!

Chances are good that at least 75% of the size of the US Federal government
today is due to spending that wasn't considered the proper Constitutional
function of the government before 1930, and certainly not before 1900 or so.
(Large peacetime military, Socialist Insecurity, Welfare, Medicare,
Medicaid, interest on national debt caused by deficit spending that occurred
due to funding these previous atrocities, etc.)

>> But NONE of this is truly needed.  I have a solution to that problem.
>
>Jim, have you considered the interaction between religious beliefs and
>AP? You apparently don't have direct knowledge of this, but after a
>certain level of economic security has been reached economics becomes
>a much less important as a motivator [Maslow].

Other people have blown this claim away, so I don't think I need bounce the
rubble further.  However, I wonder why you think that people will not resent
the theft of their property simply because they've reached "a certain level
of economic security."?

Frankly, it sounds like yet another of your "let's justify the government
through specious arguments" exercises.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com