Anonymous stock trades.

>I suppose it depends on what you call "open", eh, Phill?

>If by "open", you mean financial markets where, as Milton Freedman says,
>each new regulation raises the cost of entry and protects the surviving
>firms by killing their smaller competion with red tape, then we have "open"
>markets.

Well, Milton Friedman's method for saving the whale is to leave it to the free 
market, if people want whales in the oceans they won't buy whale meat. The point 
that even if no US person eats whale, a few thousand "gourmets" in Japan can eat 
their way through the remaining stocks of many species in a few years escapes 
him. So forgive me if if find you authority somewhat less than compelling.

Adam Smith makes the point rather better in his analysis of monopolies and how 
they affect the market. But remember that although regulations may be instituted 
as protectionist mechanisms that is not the only purpose that regulations are 
introduced.


>If by "open", you mean that people can't purchase the attention of their
>favorite politician fair and square, without having to play zero-sum games
>with barnyard animals, then we have "open" markets. ;-).

There are so many negatives in that sentence I can't figure out which way you 
are arguing. Certainly there are many senators, congressman etc who can be 
bought for a contribution to their election fund or a huge advance on their 
memoirs. 


>Nothing personal, Phill, but it does seem like it's more a question of what
>you're afraid of, than what *is*, right?

No, it is a case of whether you are applying ideological judgements or prepared 
to analyse the system itself. I do not believe in the idol of the free market. I 
do not consider ecconomists to have justified the level of inane self-satisfied 
certainty about their field that they exude. I was talking to a professor at the 
Sloane school yesterday who made precisely this point.

Deciding what is right implies an ethical judgement. Are you basing your 
argument on Kantian or consequentialist assumptions? I can argue either but 
since most of my thesis is based on a logical positivist approach I'm far more 
sympathetic to the utilitarian point of view.


The free market is not in itself an ethical basis - that would be creating an 
ought from an is. The problem which libertarian idelogues are affraid to face up 
to is that markets have required regulation to keep them open and free. Its all 
very well for people to jump up and down, stampt their feet and claim the 
opposite but this is what every government in the free world believes. The 
effects of deregulation in the savings and loans area make it unlikely any 
further experiments in that area will be tried for a while.


		Phill

*Damn*, I'm having *fun* today...

At 7:27 PM -0400 6/6/96, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu got all "hermeneutic" on us:

> Well, Milton Friedman's method for saving the whale is to leave it to the
>free
> market, if people want whales in the oceans they won't buy whale meat.
>The point
> that even if no US person eats whale, a few thousand "gourmets" in Japan
>can eat
> their way through the remaining stocks of many species in a few years
>escapes
> him. So forgive me if if find you authority somewhat less than compelling.

Yes. And they're tasty, too. I try to eat animal at least once a day,
whether I need it or not.

According to your logic above, it seems that all species are *much* more
important than man. But, with most "liberal" logic, there's a paradox here.
Let's explore it bit, shall we, by looking at the other side of the balance
sheet you just created?

Tell me, Phill, what's *your* pricetag on a single *human* life? The entire
gross global product is not enough? It's this kind of, well, muzzy-headed
innumerate (yes, *Dr.* Hallam-Baker, *innumerate*) silliness that has our
intellectuals believing the hoax, put convincingly enough to get published
in "respected" academic places like "Social Text", that reality (physics,
in this case) is optional.

Can you say "Sophistry", boys and girls? I knew you could. No offense to
the, er, numerate computer science people out there, but it seems that
*Dr.* Hallam-Baker is living proof that you can get an entire *doctorate*
in the field, and not learn to count. I hate to tell you *Dr.*
Hallam-Baker, but Lamarck was wrong, too. Not to mention Lysenko. ;-).
Reality, real, honest-to-god quantitative reality, is, in fact, not
optional.

> Adam Smith makes the point rather better in his analysis of monopolies
>and how
> they affect the market. But remember that although regulations may be
>instituted
> as protectionist mechanisms that is not the only purpose that regulations
>are
> introduced.

You get what you pay for, Phill. The reason, and look it up, that we had
monopolies in *this* country was the same reason that you had monopolies
(and I count labor unions in this) in yours. They were bought and paid for
out of the government trough. So much for the integrity of government.
Frankly, I'd put myself in the hands of those eevill, greeedy, businessmen
any day. Contrary to what they taught you in the Young Pioneers, or
whatever passes for that on your side of the channel, governments not only
screw things up, they kill. Hundreds of millions of people in this century
alone.

>
> >If by "open", you mean that people can't purchase the attention of their
> >favorite politician fair and square, without having to play zero-sum games
> >with barnyard animals, then we have "open" markets. ;-).
>
> There are so many negatives in that sentence I can't figure out which way
>you
> are arguing. Certainly there are many senators, congressman etc who can be
> bought for a contribution to their election fund or a huge advance on their
> memoirs.

Feh. You're just afraid of a little predicate calculus. That looks like
perfect English to me. Even if it's pronounciation isn't quite "received".
Personally, I agree with the Bard. Twain, of course. "A politician is
someone who can take money from the rich and votes from the poor and keep
his job." I suppose if The Earl of Oxford had said it, he'd change "job"
for "head" in the last sentence, but, we live in America, where this
decade's poor is last decade's rich, and vice versa. Or it least it used to
be that way, before these innumerate Keynesians took over our economic
"policy". ;-). "Poor me another Veuve Clicot, Corruthers. I think I have
discovered another way to traitor my class."


> >Nothing personal, Phill, but it does seem like it's more a question of what
> >you're afraid of, than what *is*, right?
>
> No, it is a case of whether you are applying ideological judgements or
>prepared
> to analyse the system itself.

Now, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Phill, we all know you're the
biggest apologist the nation-state has ever had on this list. That's okay,
'cuz you're building the right technology, and someday you'll see the
light. Say AMEN, Somebody!. Sorry. Got carried away in my
techno-evangelism, there...

The point is, Phill, you don't have to pollute the minds of all these
avant-garde young cypherpunks with yesterday's news. I mean, you developed
a double-jointed neck so you could look backwards and walk forwards (*how*
does he keep from *tripping*, brothers and sisters!
It'sa*miracle*sayhalelujia!), but it doesn't mean it's evolutionary
advantageous,  a future dictatorship of the proletariat notwithstanding.
:-).

> I do not believe in the idol of the free market.

Ah. Hmm. Still doesn't get it, does he, folks. A market's not an "idol" to
"believe in", Phill, it's this amazing stuff called "reality". It's really
quite fun. You should try it sometime...

> I
> do not consider ecconomists to have justified the level of inane
>self-satisfied
> certainty about their field that they exude.

Ah. *Your* economists, Phill. Top-down, *Keynesian*,  er, crypto-Marxist,
"control" the political-economy featherheads...

The people who do *financial* economics, just like the people who do
financial cryptography, *experiment* in markets, but they aren't fool
enough to think that they can actually *control* them. Wake up and smell
the coffee, Phill. There's a reason these boys have won all the Nobels,
lately. Reality is not optional. Planned economies aren't, actually.

> I was talking to a professor at the
> Sloane school yesterday who made precisely this point.

Ah. The Sloan school. That paragon of free market thinking. Probably *Dr.*
Thurow, I bet, maybe even <*big* intake of breath> *Dr.* Samuelson?
<oooooh!>. Feh. By, the way, Phill, your appeals to authority are nothing
short of amazing. *Dr.* Hallam-Baker. "*Sloane*" school economist. Feh, and
double-Feh. Credentialism, like any appeal to authority, is the last refuge
of the incompetant. We know *you're* not incompetant, Phill. Stop acting
like somebody who is.

> Deciding what is right implies an ethical judgement.

Yup. Electrons, like prices, are actually ethical creatures, don't you
know. Feh. Next thing he's going to tell us that there's a conciousness
particle... By the way, don't start talkin' that "touch your inner child"
stuff, Phill, or I'm gonna get a two-by-four to keep you off of *mine*...

> Are you basing your
> argument on Kantian or consequentialist assumptions?

Ooooo... Deontological vs. teleological? Wow. A philosopher. Congrats,
Phill. It *does* appear you're educated. At least through first year
ethics...


> I can argue either but
> since most of my thesis is based on a logical positivist approach I'm far
>more
> sympathetic to the utilitarian point of view.

The ganglia twitch. You're making my point for me! Just because you can do
all the mental gymnastics of Gorgias (who maintained, by the way, that
nothing exists) doesn't mean that reality's, er, optional. Remember, Phill,
Gorgias is dead. Not very optional, eh?

> The free market is not in itself an ethical basis - that would be
>creating an
> ought from an is.

Ethical schmethical, Phill. The market, like the rest of physical reality,
is *real*. It is not something to be "believed" in. If you have something I
want, and I have something you want, we trade for it. There has been trade
nearly as long has there has been human artifacts or commodities to trade
with. Hell, trade happens at the *cellular* level, for christsakes, with
stochastic process, markets, if you will. How do you think oxygen transport
works? Market-driven chaos. It's an economy.

Feh! Like Phillip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you change
your mind, doesn't go away." Markets are as real as next month's rent,
Phill.


> The problem which libertarian idelogues are affraid to face up
> to is that markets have required regulation to keep them open and free.

<pardon me, ladies> "Tha's all right, darlin'. I'll only put the head in."
Or, as they say (ooo, this is great!) on the gates of Auschwitz, "Arbiet
Macht Frei". Work makes you free. Freedom is Slavery, right Phill? Read any
Hayek lately? I thought not...

> Its all
> very well for people to jump up and down, stampt their feet and claim the
> opposite but this is what every government in the free world believes.

Yup. You're right, there. Every government, especially the most unfree,
believe that markets can be, *must* be controlled, to make us "free".
Notice the harder they try to "control" markets to make us "free", the more
they control *us*? Eventually they control us so much there's no more
market, Phill. Make sense now? I'll give you a hint. It's called "reality",
and it's not "optional", much less "ethical".

> The
> effects of deregulation in the savings and loans area make it unlikely any
> further experiments in that area will be tried for a while.

This is marvellous. You're making a mobius of yourself! Don't try so hard,
Phill, and you might figure this out. Look, Phill, you've taken logic,
right? Remember the informal fallacy called "false cause"? An increase in
bananna consumption causes suicide? (If you don't believe me, look at the
statistics! I swear! ;-)) Actually, the above line looks more like "Post
hoc, ergo propter hoc".  Yup, all that first-year logic was good for
something. Plain old circular reasoning. Just like the mobius strip you
made of yourself, Phill. Put that double-jointed neck to better use. You
could hurt yourself with these mental contortions...

The reason that deregulation caused so much of a problem in the savings and
loan "industry", was because the "industry" was a creature of government,
which couldn't survive, you guessed it, Phill, "reality". If you ignore
markets, like any other natural force (like, say gas laws, or
thermodynamics, or gravity) you get slapped. Hard. Reality is not optional.

The entire financial system of this country has had to be unwound from all
the regulations that people "controlling markets to make us free" bound
them up in. Starting in the early 70's with the deregulation of brokerage
commissions, through the breaking down of the two equivalents of the Bamboo
(the creation of the savings and loan "industry") and the Iron (the
Glass-Steagal Act) curtains, and, now, the abolition of interstate banking
regulation, (with the internet, you're halfway to anywhere, much to the
relief of our friends in Kentucky) we are starting to have free financial
markets in this country for the first time since we started "consolidating"
it to make it more "efficient" by both the trusts and the trust-busters,
who were really two sides of the same coin: oligopoly and state control.


You just keep it up, Phill. I'm having a great time, here. As we used to
say in Missouri, I haven't had this much fun since the hogs ate my little
brother.


Next?


Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"If they could 'just pass a few more laws',
  we would all be criminals."    --Vinnie Moscaritolo
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

>According to your logic above, it seems that all species are *much* more
>important than man. But, with most "liberal" logic, there's a paradox here.
>Let's explore it bit, shall we, by looking at the other side of the balance
>sheet you just created?

No, you miss the point. Friedman has become a slave to his theory, he is 
attempting to push his idea even to solve a situation it clearly cannot. There 
are good reasons to conserve whale stocks irrespective of your eccological 
position. Without sufficient stocks the whaling industry will go the way of the 
carrier pidgeon canning industry.

>Tell me, Phill, what's *your* pricetag on a single *human* life? The entire
>gross global product is not enough? It's this kind of, well, muzzy-headed
>innumerate (yes, *Dr.* Hallam-Baker, *innumerate*) silliness that has our
>intellectuals believing the hoax, put convincingly enough to get published
>in "respected" academic places like "Social Text", that reality (physics,
>in this case) is optional.

Bob, you are way off base here. You are putting up a straw man. I have not 
endorsed the views of Social text, I've not even mentioned them. 


As I stated I am much more inclined to the logical positivist view than to the 
continental school of philosophy of which social text is an exemplar. My views 
on Derrida and his school are pretty negative, he has perhaps three good ideas 
and has been eeking them out with showmanship. I don't think that the 
deconstructionists are able to enter into a rational debate because they 
continually consider themselves obliged to challenge the terms of the debate. 

I'm fairly familiar with the debate that Social Text engages in and I consider 
it to be pretty bogus. They are arguing that language is insufficient for the 
purposes of their discussion so they create a new vocabulary without 
preconceptions. This project is doomed to failure since there is no means of 
defining the new language except in terms of the one in common usage they have 
rejected. So one might as well use plain language for arguement.

This is why the Web is heavilly influenced by Hermenuetics, the point Sokal was 
making was actually one which is central to the work of Hiedegger and Gadamer. 
The establishment of a shared vocabulary is necessary for communication, 
communication defines being. It is entierely illogical for someone claiming to 
be establishing a theory of communication to do so by attempting to establish a 
private ontology. The Social Text people are refuted by their own work. 


>Can you say "Sophistry", boys and girls? I knew you could. No offense to
>the, er, numerate computer science people out there, but it seems that
>*Dr.* Hallam-Baker is living proof that you can get an entire *doctorate*
>in the field, and not learn to count. 

Bob, you would be able to make your point better if you had an understanding of 
the principles you are discussing. I have some understanding of philosophical 
method and how to apply it. Your point on sophistry is a straw man. Solopcism is 
a paradox, it is an argument which demonstrates the inadequacy of our system of 
thought. Descartes and Hume argued the point at great length, whether mind or 
sensation is primary. 


I fail to see how you make the bridge from comments on Friedman to Social Text. 
I was merely pointing out that I consider Friedman to be overly ideological and 
that the certainty he claims for his results are not backed by empirical proof. 
He has described a theory which is impossible to prove or disprove because it is 
impossible to perform controlled experiments. Would the US ecconomy be stronger 
if Carter had won in 1980 instead of Reagan? Its impossible to say.


If the libertarian fringe does not wish to remain so I suggest you try the 
following:-

1) Never ever start a post by directly stating that someone is an ignoramous.

2) Accept the fact that some people do not accept the axioms you are arguing 
from.

3) Differentiate between advancing your arguement and advancing your ego.


The first is the most important. If you have no respect for the people you are 
arguing against you will utterly fail to convince them of anything.

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> No, you miss the point. Friedman has become a slave to his theory, he is 
> attempting to push his idea even to solve a situation it clearly
> cannot.

I don't believe you when you claim that Friedman said what you claim
at all. I suspect it is, as most of your other comments have been,
either a complete misunderstanding of some actual comments or
something pulled essentially out of the air. The claim you have made
is so at odds with the Milton Friedman who's writings I have been
reading for years (and indeed so out of character for any member of
his economic school) that I find it nearly impossible to believe that
the article exists as stated.

No modern economist would claim that the market solution to preventing
a species from going extinct is for people not to buy it. Its one of
the msot idiotic statements I've heard in years. As a nobel prize
winning economist, Friedman understands things like commons issues and
the public goods problem and I cannot believe he would ever make such
an inane statment, no matter what you claim.

Given your poor record with facts here recently (nearly every
assertion you have made about the Hillary Clinton case, from claiming
she was trading options when she traded futures to obviously having no
knowledge of the size of her trades), I will want to see a reprint of
the article you claim exists before I will accept that there is any
validity to your claims whatsoever.

Perry

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> 
> >I suppose it depends on what you call "open", eh, Phill?
> 
> >If by "open", you mean financial markets where, as Milton Freedman says,
> >each new regulation raises the cost of entry and protects the surviving
> >firms by killing their smaller competion with red tape, then we have "open"
> >markets.
> 
> Well, Milton Friedman's method for saving the whale is to leave it
> to the free market, if people want whales in the oceans they won't
> buy whale meat.

Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, seems to know even less about free market
environmentalism than he knows about futures and options.

Of course, what Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, suggests is idiotic. As
any free market economist would tell you, the way to stop a resource
from being destroyed is not to pray that people won't buy it but to
assure that someone has an ownership stake in the resource, thus
assuring that their investment would be destroyed if the resource
vanished. Thats why, for instance, timber companies happily clear cut
government land that they have leased (after all, not clear cutting
would mean that they wouldn't extract maximum value for their lease
under the idiotic terms that the leases are made under) but will
almost never clear cut their own lands, because that would reduce
their long term value.

Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, however, does not understand economics in
spite of his PhD and thus attributes views to free market economists
that they do not hold, as in his whole cloth synthesis of a viewpoint
which he ascribed to Milton Friedman which Milton Friedman would never
in a million years espouse.


Perry

Perry writes..

>Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, seems to know even less about free market>
>environmentalism than he knows about futures and options.

This is the Perry argument!

Call someone a fool, invite ridicule... ohhh perry does that make you feel big?
does that make you feel like you can argue?

Of course you can't argue or you would not have begun your arguement with a 
gratuitous insult. You are clearly uncertain of your case and feel that you have 
to puff yourself up a bit and try a bit of intimidation. 


I asked my stock broker about the trades Hilary did. Sorry Perry, you were wrong 
5% margin is sufficient in most markets. That means $1000 can cover $20,000. 
Your whole case was based on a false premise.

Since the last time you began a Perrygram by insulting me you turned out to be 
wrong it should be no suprise for this to be a repeat.

The argument from Friedman was as published in a letter to the London Times by 
the man himself. You can even go and look it up if you like, it was published in 
'89 or '90. He did not make a reference to "stakeholders". That was not his 
argument. His argument was based entirely on the mechanism of the market, supply 
and demand.


	-Phill

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> Call someone a fool, invite ridicule... ohhh perry does that make
> you feel big?

Not nearly as big as insisting that all around acknowledge your
doctorate must make you feel, Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD.

I like the fact, by the way, that you essentially ignored the
substance of my comments, and instead chose to discuss peripheral matters.

If anyone wants to see real discussion of environmental issues with an
emphasis on market based solutions, rather than arguments pulled out
of the buttocks of Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, I suggest the writings
of, among others, Karl Hess Jr. (oh, and Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD
might wnat to know that its Dr. Karl Hess)

> I asked my stock broker about the trades Hilary did. Sorry Perry,
> you were wrong 5% margin is sufficient in most markets.

Only in some markets, but that doesn't matter. She had even less than
that on all of her trades, or didn't you pay any attention, Dr. Phill
Hallam-Baker, PhD. You should have been able to figure that out from
my remarks, incidently -- had she merely been controlling $20,000
worth of cattle with a $1000 investment she couldn't possibly have
wiped out her net worth on a single transaction. Control hundreds of
thousands or millions of dollars worth of cattle, however, and a
sneeze in the marketplace will cost a pretty penny.

Frankly, I think this latest flub demonstrates you don't know any of
the facts of the case, You can't name the size of her trades. You
didn't even know whether she was trading options or futures. I suspect
you are just plain ignorant of the entire situation and are pulling
facts out of your buttocks, largely for reasons of your partisan
support of the Clintons.

Perry

>Not nearly as big as insisting that all around acknowledge your
>doctorate must make you feel, Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD.

It was you who insited on calling me "Mr Baker" despite the fact that we have 
been introduced. If you insist on being formal you can get it right. Its a 
D.Phil by the way, not a PhD.


>I like the fact, by the way, that you essentially ignored the
>substance of my comments, and instead chose to discuss peripheral matters.

Good.


	Phill

PS, I don't recommend that people read the works of the late Cato Institute 
staffer mentioned. There are better authorities than the speechwriter of Barry 
Goldwater.

If people are interested in Philosophy then I suggest they read "A History of 
Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russel.

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> PS, I don't recommend that people read the works of the late Cato
> Institute staffer mentioned. There are better authorities than the
> speechwriter of Barry Goldwater.

Karl Hess Jr (PhD). wasn't Barry Goldwater's speechwriter. His father
was. His father didn't have a PhD -- indeed, he never attended a state
run school past his early teenage years. Karl Hess senior also was
never a Cato instutute staffer -- to my knowledge, his son is not on
the staff of the Cato institute either. Its astounding how many
inaccurate comments you can pack into a brief space.

Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil (one wonders how a doctor of philosophy
differs from a PhD since that is also a doctor of philosophy) seems to
spew random inaccuracies left and right.

Perry

Perry, 

	for a person who is picking nits you are getting rather too many wrong:
Fortunately you are now arguing in a region where I can give authoratative 
sources online. 

>Karl Hess Jr (PhD). wasn't Barry Goldwater's speechwriter. His father
>was. His father didn't have a PhD -- indeed, he never attended a state
>run school past his early teenage years. 

I had missed the Jr bit, but Hess Sr is somewhat better known.


> Karl Hess senior also was
>never a Cato instutute staffer -- to my knowledge, his son is not on
>the staff of the Cato institute either.

Wrong, try visitng the Cato Institute's site:

http://www.cato.org/people.html

You can find his papers at:

http://www.cato.org/pa-234es.html


Of course the Cato Institute may have simply added him to their "staff" list to 
make them look more important but I doubt it. 

The piece is not particularly original, Cadilac Desert made the same points in 
the early 80s. On the other hand it is a briefing paper intended to influence 
legislation so thats not suprising. Federal subsidies of water and farmland have 
turned into corporate handouts. This is hardly suprising given the mechanism. 

The farmers want to get a freebie handout while pretending that they are not on 
welfare. This leads to a mechanism which is attempting socialist policies 
without admitting that they are socialist, the handouts have to be disguised  
resulting in far more waste than if an intellectually honest policy were 
followed. In the EU there is a similar system of corrupt price support for 
agriculture, mainly supported by the French. 

I don't know of any serious political movement which supports such policies 
except for farmers advocates which does not recognise them as pork barrel.


		Phill

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
> > Karl Hess senior also was
> >never a Cato instutute staffer -- to my knowledge, his son is not on
> >the staff of the Cato institute either.
> 
> Wrong, try visitng the Cato Institute's site:
> 
> http://www.cato.org/people.html

He's a Cato fellow. I don't think that implies anything more than
he he gets some money from them.

Or are you on the staff of the U.S. government?

.pm

At 2:52 PM -0400 6/7/96, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> If people are interested in Philosophy then I suggest they read "A
>History of
> Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russel.

About the only useful thing he's said here in weeks...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga





-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"If they could 'just pass a few more laws',
  we would all be criminals."    --Vinnie Moscaritolo
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Of course, what Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, PhD, suggests is idiotic. As
> any free market economist would tell you, the way to stop a resource
> from being destroyed is not to pray that people won't buy it but to
> assure that someone has an ownership stake in the resource, thus
> assuring that their investment would be destroyed if the resource
> vanished.

Who is going to assure that someone has an ownership stake in the
Humpback Whales? The World Government? Is that entity supposed to
give the whales to some private whale-watcher's tourism enterprise?
I don't get it.

Who cares about a bunch of Norwegian (or Japaneese) fishermen?

Asgaard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Asgaard wrote:

> Who is going to assure that someone has an ownership stake in the
> Humpback Whales? The World Government? Is that entity supposed to
> give the whales to some private whale-watcher's tourism enterprise?
> I don't get it.

When I first was introduced to free market economics, I had the
same sorts of questions (e.g., "who will own the roads?").  If
you keep at it, though, these questions are easily answered.

Rather than give away the answer to Asgaard's question, I'll
propose the following Socratic response:

Who assures that someone has an ownership stake in the ships
that sail the sea?  


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~