🚀 go-pugleaf

Hal's Extropians Digest      Fri, 12 Jun 1992       Volume 92 : Issue   0003

    Selected messages from the Extropians list.  To join, send to:
    <extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu>.  Messages from the Extropians
    list may not be cross-posted without permission from the poster.
    Such permission has been obtained for all messages in this Digest.

    Hal Finney
    Extropians Digest Moderator

Today's Topics:
			     Smart Drugs
			      F.O. Ref:
      Who cares for the poor in a libertarian society? (2 msgs)
		 Maximizing the good of all? (5 msgs)

Administrivia:

I was asked to change the name of this digest because there will soon
be another digest which includes _all_ messages from the Extropians
list (presumably its distribution will be limited to Extropians list
members), and it will be called "Extropians List Digest".

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 08:52 CDT
From: "Charles T. Munson" <uunet!macc.wisc.edu!CMUNSON>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Smart Drugs

Yo, smart drug fans!  I work in a drug abuse prevention center
and usually see all the latest in anti-drug materials (I don't
necessary agree with the anti-drug movement, I'm a libertarian
when it comes to drug use)

D.I.N. (Do It Now) publications out of Arizona has just come
out with a pamphlet with the "facts" on smart drugs.  While
no telling people outright to avoid them, there is a strong
skeptical note to it.  Anybody who would like more info,
contact them or me.

chuck0

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 10:51:20 PDT
From: uunet!spectrx.Saigon.COM!edgar (Edgar W. Swank)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: F.O. Ref:

I sent this on June 2, but have not seen any echo, so I'm sending
it again.  Sorry if you've seen it already.
..........................................................
FWIW, I spotted a magazine called "Islands" in my lawyer's outer
office. Just glancing at it, it seems to have a lot of articles and
advertisements about island-oriented vacations and real estate.
Might provide some good leads for "Free Oceania" research.
Subscriptions are apparently $19.95/year and more info can
be obtained at 800-284-7958.

Probably formal sovereignty is not offered here, but sometimes de facto
sovereignty can be had informally (bribes). e.g. Jim Jones in Guyana.

--
edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005  Silicon Valley, Ca

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 10:17 EST
From: Ann Perbohner <uunet!vms.cis.pitt.edu!ACPST2>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Who cares for the poor?


Personally I don't see giving to charity as a way to prevent future crimes, but
as a spiritual law of the universe.  It can be called many things, but giving
service is how I see it.  We are all part of this planet/universe,each part
effecting the other.  I find what I give comes back many-fold, but it has been
a hard lesson learning this.  Mostly I give my time where I can, as I have
limited financial resources.
	I'm glad you brought up this idea because I was wondering about the
Libertarian philosophy on just such things.  Who cares for those who are sick
or disabled or abandoned or etc. in a Libertarian society?

00    	-----

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

Ann Perbohner                      The waking state is also a dream

acpst2@vms.cis.pitt.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 11:24:02 -0700
From: uunet!auburn.ee.washington.edu!davisd
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Who cares for the poor in a libertarian society?


From: Ann Perbohner <ACPST2@vms.cis.pitt.edu>

	I'm glad you brought up this idea because I was wondering about the
Libertarian philosophy on just such things.  Who cares for those who are sick
or disabled or abandoned or etc. in a Libertarian society?

********************

Those who care to care for them. Note that in a libertarian society, these
people have more resources to work with, as they are not impoverished by
a huge federal government taxing them to support its existence.

Buy Buy -- Dan Davis

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:18:56 MDT
From: [...]
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: [Maximizing the good of all?]

> [$1 million spent on electricity for penguin cooling in Batman.]

  This is a very interesting problem.  It could be rephrased as: How can
we maximize the good for all?

  Suppose there was some rich man, and he spent all of his money hiring
workers to move a pile of dirt back and forth every week.  He spends lots
and lots of money moving that pile back and forth until he dies, when
he makes a trust which will do it for him.

  Is this bad?  For the society, it does appear to be a waste.  Those
workers are getting paid, but they are wasting their time and energy doing
nothing at all.  However, they are humoring the rich guy, and that has to
be worth something.

  A lot of people think that a reasonable goal of society is to maximize the
good for all.  Do you think so?  Capitalism is founded on this principle, and
it works to some degree.  But if you have ever worked for a large company,
you know that a lot of resources are poured down a rat hole.

   Clearly, leisure and entertainment are worthwhile to society and is good
for those who partake of it.  But is extreme spending on these items
worthwhile to society?  Are the penguins really going to make BATMAN returns
more entertaining to watch?  (They may be)

  How about if part of the society is poor and destitute, is it rational
to deny them a hand up in the interest of maximizing the good of the whole?
At what cost to others?

  There are some objectivists floating around here, and I personally entirely
take odds with their position.  Is it working towards the maximal good
to only think of self interest?

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 08:51:45 EST
From: "Thomas E. Kunselman" <uunet!UKCC.uky.edu!VAATEK>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: [Maximizing the good of all?]

From Thu, 11 Jun 92 17:18:56:
>
>  Is this bad?  For the society, it does appear to be a waste.  Those
>workers are getting paid, but they are wasting their time and energy doing
>nothing at all.  However, they are humoring the rich guy, and that has to
>be worth something.
>
>  A lot of people think that a reasonable goal of society is to maximize the
>good for all.  Do you think so?  Capitalism is founded on this principle, and
>it works to some degree.  But if you have ever worked for a large company,
>you know that a lot of resources are poured down a rat hole.
>
I don't think these things can be judged in 'good'  or 'bad' terms.  I think
first a society must decide upon a range of goals to achieve before you can
decide whether a job contributes to society or not.  When you say maximize
the good for all, what exactly does that tell us we are striving for?

Is it that everyone in society should have food?  Should have a diamond ring?
Clothing, shelter, medical care, an education?

I believe that society is too fractured to come up with a single set of
goals to achieve at this time.  While some would want to feed the poor,
others would be trying to save the wetlands and others still will be trying
to rescue animals from research labs.

What I see as the main problem is that people refuse to take responsibility
for their lives.  Because we have so much freedom, I believe we delude
ourselves into thinking that we are also responsible individuals.  However,
I would say that most of us yield our responsibilities to the state and
therefore we can always put the blame on someone else for societal problems.

There are people out there taking responsibility for solving some of these
problems, and it doesn't require a consensus of all members of a society.
People who feel that housing is a problem, group together to form organizations
which help those who need it find shelter.  People who feel that hunger is
a problem group together to form organizations that feed people.

I think it is easy to be overwhelmed by the immensity of problems out there,
but I don't think a person needs to have a hand in a solution of them all.
Just pick one or two concerns that are important to you and then put all
your effort into finding solutions.  Don't settle for an organization which
just treats the symptoms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Kunselman                   |    INTERNET: VAATEK@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Information Specialist                |      BITNET: VAATEK@UKCC
Office of the Assistant Chancellor    |    NeXTMAIL: tek@mik.uky.edu
#8 Administration Building            |
University of Kentucky                |    Real Democracy through
Lexington, KY 40506-0032              |    technology!
Phone:(606) 257-1805                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 6:15:33 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!smo
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: the good for all?

  [...] writes:

    This is a very interesting problem.  It could be rephrased as: How can
  we maximize the good for all?

I think the best way to maximize good for all (assuming we all consider the
same things good, assuming there is some useful metric for good, assuming
the good of 'all' is even worth considering) would be to concentrate on
what is good for each individual.  It could be rephrased as:  How can each
individual maximize his own good?

    Suppose there was some rich man, and he spent all of his money hiring
  workers to move a pile of dirt back and forth every week.

As a third party commenting on what is essentially only the affair of the
individuals involved, I would say 'great, it seems they are operating in
an environment that does not interfere with voluntary agreements between
individuals.'

    Is this bad?  For the society, it does appear to be a waste.

The real waste is to worry about what is good for 'society'.  Can societies
exist without individuals? No.  Can individuals exist without societies? Yes.
Which is the abstraction?  Which, then, should we concern ourselves with?
The rich man offers some workers a job, the workers accept the offer and
get to work.  Where is the need for a third party to judge the 'good' in this?

  Those workers are getting paid, but they are wasting their time and energy
  doing nothing at all.

I would rather live in a system where I can freely enter contracts than in
one where I must justify my every action to a third party in order to get
the stamp of 'social good'.  Looking at interactions between individuals
for the value to society inevitably leads to the utterly useless waste of
governments.  Do you wish to justify your every action in terms of societal
good?

    A lot of people think that a reasonable goal of society is to maximize the
  good for all.  Do you think so?

How can society have a goal?  Let's deal with reality, a group of individuals
would have to get together to deem what is good for society; they would then,
presumably, attempt to enforce this view?  No, I do not think so.  I do not
think either society or good are useful terms in this sense.  I do not think
maximizing societal good is my concern, nor do I wish to be slave to those
that make it their concern.

  Capitalism is founded on this principle, and
  it works to some degree.  But if you have ever worked for a large company,
  you know that a lot of resources are poured down a rat hole.

In a free market an inefficient company would have competition, since someone
would surely be willing to run a more efficient company for the profit.

    Clearly, leisure and entertainment are worthwhile to society and is good
  for those who partake of it.  But is extreme spending on these items
  worthwhile to society?  Are the penguins really going to make BATMAN returns
  more entertaining to watch?  (They may be)

Do you go to the movies for the net benefit to society?  Or do you go because
someone put together a movie you are willing to pay to see?  How would you
feel if some other group of people told you the movie you yearn to see has
not been deemed beneficial to society?  Or that it had previously, but cost
overruns had shifted the good/cost ratio such that it was no longer favorable
to society?

    How about if part of the society is poor and destitute, is it rational
  to deny them a hand up in the interest of maximizing the good of the whole?
  At what cost to others?

The 'good of the whole' invariably means the good of those that determine the
good of the whole.  If you are willing to give up your freedom for someone
else's idea of societal good, then go ahead.  The poor can further themselves.
What is the cost of the entire structure of redistribution this seems to
propose?  What is the cost of losing your freedom?

  Is it working towards the maximal good to only think of self interest?

I consider it in my own self interest to be a free individual.  I do not
go to college for the maximal good, nor do I go to the movies for the maximal
good.  The last book I read was for my own good and if I buy stock in a company
it is because I think I will turn a profit.  If any of these things happens to
benefit others as well, great, but I do not live my life to maximize anyone's
societal good nor would I suffer those that would force me.

-Shawn
 smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu


   `... the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to
    better his condition, the principle from which public and national,
    as well as private opulence is derived,' has been `powerful enough
    to maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
    spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
    errors of administration.'  --Adam Smith, and his invisible hand.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 13:43:23 MDT
From: [...]
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: the good for all?


>     This is a very interesting problem.  It could be rephrased as: How can
>   we maximize the good for all?

> I think the best way to maximize good for all (assuming we all consider the
> same things good, assuming there is some useful metric for good, assuming
> the good of 'all' is even worth considering) would be to concentrate on
> what is good for each individual.  It could be rephrased as:  How can each
> individual maximize his own good?

Ahh. Now we must ask, does each individual maximizing his own good maximize
the good for all?    I will say no.  As a simplistic example, consider
the game theory concept where the overall good is served by both parties
cooperating, but the individual will gain a lot by not cooperating.  Even
in the long run (where the selfish party must cooperate sometimes) the
overall good is served better by mutual cooperation.  This is not
purely in the interest of the individual.  A good discussion of this can be
found in "The Prisoners Dilemma" by William Poundstone.

>     Suppose there was some rich man, and he spent all of his money hiring
>   workers to move a pile of dirt back and forth every week.

> As a third party commenting on what is essentially only the affair of the
> individuals involved, I would say 'great, it seems they are operating in
> an environment that does not interfere with voluntary agreements between
> individuals.'

Now you have implicitly brought up contracts.  Who is enforcing the meeting
of contracts?
Also, would you agree to abolishing the Constitution?  I argue that every
individual has inherint rights (for the public good) and that these rights
can not be contracted away.  What would your opinion be on this?

>     Is this bad?  For the society, it does appear to be a waste.

> The real waste is to worry about what is good for 'society'.  Can societies
> exist without individuals? No.  Can individuals exist without societies? Yes.
Individuals can not exist without environmental support (air, food, land, etc)
Some individuals can not exist outside of a human society.  Every human has
needs which they can NOT fulfill on their own.  The environment can not
survive without support from the human societies.  Everything is interlinked.
Are you concerned about environmental destruction?  Unless you consider the
good of the whole you will make mistakes which are irreversible.

> I would rather live in a system where I can freely enter contracts than in
> one where I must justify my every action to a third party in order to get
> the stamp of 'social good'.

The third party is you yourself.  You are the society.  If you do not like
a society, then join/start a different one.  I do not think that someone
else can decide what is good for you, but neither do I trust any individual
to decide what is good for the whole.  There is a compromise.

> Looking at interactions between individuals
> for the value to society inevitably leads to the utterly useless waste of
> governments.  Do you wish to justify your every action in terms of societal
> good?

Yes, every action must serve some good.  Most actions will only serve my
own self pleasure- but this is good for society.

> How can society have a goal?  Let's deal with reality, a group of individual
> would have to get together to deem what is good for society; they would then
> presumably, attempt to enforce this view?  No, I do not think so.  I do not
> think either society or good are useful terms in this sense.  I do not think
> maximizing societal good is my concern, nor do I wish to be slave to those
> that make it their concern.

If you walk about eliminating other people, you will be stopped.  Whether or
not you agree that their is a social good, you are forced to comply to it.
As long as there are others that you interact with, they will force you
to comply to certain things. (such as not eliminating them)

> In a free market an inefficient company would have competition, since someon
> would surely be willing to run a more efficient company for the profit.

Unfortunately, pseudo monopolies are rampant.  Again, I would argue that
pure monopolies need to be broken up for the common good.  Would you agree or
not?
>
> Do you go to the movies for the net benefit to society?  Or do you go becaus
Yes, my own personal satisfaction is good for the society.

> someone put together a movie you are willing to pay to see?  How would you
> feel if some other group of people told you the movie you yearn to see has
> not been deemed beneficial to society?

No person or group can decide what is good for society.  It is in the hands
of all.  Clearly, maximal good is not found by having someone dictate what
is right and wrong.  Neither is it found by every individual acting only
in pure self interest.  Compromise.

>I consider it in my own self interest to be a free individual.  I do not
>go to college for the maximal good, nor do I go to the movies for the maximal
>good.The last book I read was for my own good and if I buy stock in a company
>it is because I think I will turn a profit. If any of these things happens to
>benefit others as well, great, but I do not live my life to maximize anyones
>societal good nor would I suffer those that would force me.

I consider it in societies best interest for everyone to be free.  All of
those things you  mention help yourself, and thus help the society.  You
are the society as well.  Some things you may wish to do (steal some
goodies) are detrimental to society, and you will be forced not to do those
things.

>    `... the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to
>     better his condition, the principle from which public and national,
>     as well as private opulence is derived,' has been `powerful enough
>     to maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
>     spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
>     errors of administration.'  --Adam Smith, and his invisible hand.

Now this is good!  You seem to end on a note of agreement.  However, the
invisible hand does not protect the environment, does not protect
individual rights, and does not always serve the maximal good.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 19:17:14 EDT
From: Mark Edward Desilets <uunet!skylab.src.umd.edu!desilets>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: the good for all?

>
>
> >     This is a very interesting problem.  It could be rephrased as: How can
> >   we maximize the good for all?
>
> > I think the best way to maximize good for all (assuming we all consider the
> > same things good, assuming there is some useful metric for good, assuming
> > the good of 'all' is even worth considering) would be to concentrate on
> > what is good for each individual.  It could be rephrased as:  How can each
> > individual maximize his own good?
>
> Ahh. Now we must ask, does each individual maximizing his own good maximize
> the good for all?    I will say no.  As a simplistic example, consider
> the game theory concept where the overall good is served by both parties
> cooperating, but the individual will gain a lot by not cooperating.  Even
> in the long run (where the selfish party must cooperate sometimes) the
> overall good is served better by mutual cooperation.  This is not
> purely in the interest of the individual.  A good discussion of this can be
> found in "The Prisoners Dilemma" by William Poundstone.

  I think your analysis of the prisoner's dilemma is faulty.  It is precisely
  because a cooperative strategy *is* in the interest of the individual
  that the cooperative strategy is optimal and stable.  That is, you
  state that an "individual will gain a lot by not cooperating", but
  this only holds for the first breakout from a cooperative strategy.
  Depending on whether the opponent is playing a forgiving strategy or
  not, it is likely that the long term losses from a "cheat" will offset
  the short term gain.  This assumes the players are in the game for the
  "long run".  Of course this whole discussion assumes a payoff matrix
  for which a cooperative strategy is optimal and stable.  In this
  case, it is true that the individual maximizes his own good while
  simultaneously maximizing the good of the group.

  We could pursue this more deeply if you still disagree.

                                                        Mark

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

End of Hal's Extropians Digest Volume 92 Issue #0003
****************************************************