Re: The Real Bell Issue / Re: Bell, etc

Duncan Frissell wrote:

> He could have been aggressive and fought instead of wimping out.  Lots of
> people have faced much more serious crimes and won.  It's not like Jim had
> anything better to do.

  The fact of the matter is, none of us know what Jim knows, and what
he knows is likely only what his government appointed schill has told
him. I recall Vin Suprynowicz mentioning a prominent attorney contacting
Bell's attorney in an effort to help, and receiving no reply.
  Neither do we know if Bell has merely decided that he should concede
the legal ground in order to be able to pursue the issue later, on
turf that suits him better.
 
> In such cases, an aggressive show of strength of character is best.  Weakness
> invites oppression. 

  We have already seen the results of Tim McVeigh wanting his government
schill replaced--a big FUCK YOU.
  McVeigh's problem is not weakness, but lack of knowledge about the
legal system and the quality of his legal representation. Unfortunately,
I have no doubt that the government already has lawyers in place whose
job thus far has been to gain McVeigh's trust, so that they can screw
up his appeals, as well.

TruthMonger

First off, I don't believe _anyone_ should ever have a "court-appointed
attorney." We don't believe people should get state-subsidized food, or
shelter, or medical care, and so on....or at least most of us don't. So why
the big exception for hiring attorneys?

Second, nothing I have seen, and I've seen a lot, could've gotten McVeigh
off. While I can understand what his mental state may have been, and thus
can"understand" his motives, the facts are pretty clear that he did it.

It is conceivable that a "dream team" costing many millions of dollars, a
la Johnny Cockroach and the rest of the Simpson team, could have obfuscated
issues, confused a jury, etc., and gotten at least a mistrial (meaning:
more millions for them in Round Two).

But why should I pay for such a team? I paid too much for the Stephen
Jones/Jeralyn Merritt/etc. team as it was.

At 12:00 AM -0700 8/20/97, Anonymous wrote:

>  We have already seen the results of Tim McVeigh wanting his government
>schill replaced--a big FUCK YOU.
>  McVeigh's problem is not weakness, but lack of knowledge about the
>legal system and the quality of his legal representation. Unfortunately,
>I have no doubt that the government already has lawyers in place whose
>job thus far has been to gain McVeigh's trust, so that they can screw
>up his appeals, as well.

It's time to stop this "court appointed attorney" nonsense. If we as a
nation want to change our legal system to one where the court appoints both
sides of a case, prosecution and defense, as in many other countries, fine.
But it's absurd to finance the hiring of defense lawyers.

A better solution is to have relatively few things that are criminal, with
no laws against most of the things that now clog the courts. And short
trial, with none of the bullshit we saw in the Simpson case (or in any of
the other show trials of late). And no court appointed attorneys.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> First off, I don't believe _anyone_ should ever have a "court-appointed
> attorney." We don't believe people should get state-subsidized food, or
> shelter, or medical care, and so on....or at least most of us don't. So why
> the big exception for hiring attorneys?

Maybe for the simple reason that some people might not have the money to
defend themselves ?

-- 
| Patrick Oonk -    http://patrick.mypage.org/  - patrick@pine.nl |
| PGP Key ID 0xDA2E93FA   -   Internic PO59   -   <clicketyclick> |
| Pine Internet B.V.           Consultancy, installatie en beheer |
| Tel: +31-70-3111010 - Fax: +31-70-3111011 - http://www.pine.nl/ |

At 10:35 AM -0700 8/20/97, Patrick Oonk wrote:
>> First off, I don't believe _anyone_ should ever have a "court-appointed
>> attorney." We don't believe people should get state-subsidized food, or
>> shelter, or medical care, and so on....or at least most of us don't. So why
>> the big exception for hiring attorneys?
>
>Maybe for the simple reason that some people might not have the money to
>defend themselves ?

And what of those without the money to feed themselves? Etc.

I see no reason why an indigent McVeigh should be given a multimillion
dollar defense team (Jones et. al.)

You are, of course, welcome to pay for the defense of anyone, in the
Netherlands or here in the U.S. or wherever. Just don't expect me to.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 10:49 PDT on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, Tim May wrote:

|>Maybe for the simple reason that some people might not have the money to
|>defend themselves ?
|
|And what of those without the money to feed themselves? Etc.

The difference is that the lack of means to feed oneself is usually self-
selected.  Political criminals, or people simply unaware that they're felons
under an increasing number of laws, seldom have a choice whether they will
be arrested and tried.

Certainly the preferred solution is to junk most of the laws on the books.
However until committing a felony is an explicit conscious act, we will
need court-appointed attorneys for persecution victims.

/pbp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:14 PM 8/20/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>I don't buy this. You are, of course, welcome to join Patrick Oonk in
>funding lawyers for those unable (or unwilling) to pay. Demanding that I
>pay for your charitable desires is, of course, theft.
>
>Why should those who managed to save money, for example, subsidize those
>who did not? Jim Bell, for example (but not to pick on him...but he's the
>current example), is almost as old as I am. And yet he made choices in his
>career which left him indigent, or unable to pay for a legal defense. So
>why should I and other taxpayers, including those working for $7 an hour at
>Taco Bell, subsidize his lawyer-in-training?

Besides, as Bell & McVeigh found out free lawyers are worth what you pay 
them.  Most felons could do a better job in their own case (or at least no 
worse) than these two did.  Besides, if you have a lawyers, you are usually 
prevented from using some of the more creative defenses because a lawyer has 
too much to lose.

Note what happened with Kevorkian's lawyer the last time he and "Jack the 
Dripper" were in court.  This lawyer has over the years changed from being a 
lawyer to being a total partisan for his client.  After his opening statement 
a few months ago on the latest of the Good Doctor's prosecutions for assisted 
suicide, the judge granted a mistrial because the statement was so 
prejudicial.  The DA later announced that he would not refile because they 
couldn't stop the lawyer from doing the same thing again.  Anyone can do this 
sort of thing and get at least one mistrial but ordinarily a lawyer won't do 
it because it will cause him problems.

Jury nullification and aggressive attacks on the judge and the prosecutor are 
just a few of the defense strategies that a lawyer won't indulge in but a 
client proceeding in pro per is free to use.

DCF

"I respectfully request that your Honor recuse yourself because you have a 
financial interest in the outcome of these proceedings.  Your salary is paid 
from tax monies and if my arguments on the tax system are accepted, your 
income will be cut off.  I request appointment of a judge who does not 
receive payment from taxation."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM/upP4VO4r4sgSPhAQHm7gP8CHCKx1l0ob5ldcglz5oTmnz56YRk6ZAi
zgNvOJm10oKdwBKfLccEilrQn6zBHuUbLshOyFJwVOZYD4BK1Gde1iFPsOFeIYkL
338dAJIEgA1Yy05ncdI9wIwWTqFIoC4xDL0xa37gOAOSBGQgxtMVn8c/ZE4PNptx
CCr48DvGaMk=
=Ve7H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 12:00 PM -0700 8/20/97, Paul Pomes wrote:
>At 10:49 PDT on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, Tim May wrote:
>
>|>Maybe for the simple reason that some people might not have the money to
>|>defend themselves ?
>|
>|And what of those without the money to feed themselves? Etc.
>
>The difference is that the lack of means to feed oneself is usually self-
>selected.  Political criminals, or people simply unaware that they're felons
>under an increasing number of laws, seldom have a choice whether they will
>be arrested and tried.
>
>Certainly the preferred solution is to junk most of the laws on the books.
>However until committing a felony is an explicit conscious act, we will
>need court-appointed attorneys for persecution victims.

I don't buy this. You are, of course, welcome to join Patrick Oonk in
funding lawyers for those unable (or unwilling) to pay. Demanding that I
pay for your charitable desires is, of course, theft.

As to your stipulation that this is for "political" cases, I of course
agree that there are too many laws. So? The fix is not to add fuel to the
engine of the beast by subsidizing a large infrastructure of "public
defenders" (really just taxpayer-funded "apprenticeships" for lawyers to
eventually enter private practice).

Why should those who managed to save money, for example, subsidize those
who did not? Jim Bell, for example (but not to pick on him...but he's the
current example), is almost as old as I am. And yet he made choices in his
career which left him indigent, or unable to pay for a legal defense. So
why should I and other taxpayers, including those working for $7 an hour at
Taco Bell, subsidize his lawyer-in-training?

Not that Bell's lawyer did any good....

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> 
> 
> At 12:00 PM -0700 8/20/97, Paul Pomes wrote:
> >At 10:49 PDT on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, Tim May wrote:
> >
> >|>Maybe for the simple reason that some people might not have the money to
> >|>defend themselves ?
> >|
> >|And what of those without the money to feed themselves? Etc.
> >
> >The difference is that the lack of means to feed oneself is usually self-
> >selected.  Political criminals, or people simply unaware that they're felons
> >under an increasing number of laws, seldom have a choice whether they will
> >be arrested and tried.
> >
> >Certainly the preferred solution is to junk most of the laws on the books.
> >However until committing a felony is an explicit conscious act, we will
> >need court-appointed attorneys for persecution victims.
> 
> I don't buy this. You are, of course, welcome to join Patrick Oonk in
> funding lawyers for those unable (or unwilling) to pay. Demanding that I
> pay for your charitable desires is, of course, theft.

I am glad I live in the Netherlands, where there's at least of bit
of social consciousness left.


-- 
| Patrick Oonk -    http://patrick.mypage.org/  - patrick@pine.nl |
| PGP Key ID 0xDA2E93FA   -   Internic PO59   -   <clicketyclick> |
| Pine Internet B.V.           Consultancy, installatie en beheer |
| Tel: +31-70-3111010 - Fax: +31-70-3111011 - http://www.pine.nl/ |

At 1:16 PM -0700 8/20/97, Patrick Oonk wrote:

>I am glad I live in the Netherlands, where there's at least of bit
>of social consciousness left.
>

As the repercussions of strong, unbreakable, untraceble crypto are felt,
this "social consciousness" will return to what it must be, individual
consciousness. Thus, you, Patrick Oonk, will be perfectly free to donate
money to whatever causes interest you.

But the ability of a herd to take a vote, real or alleged, will not be
sufficient to collect tribute from those who don't want to make the
contribution freely.

As to the billion or so underpeople who are incapable of contributing that
which others are willing to freely compensate them for, think of it as
evolution in action.

Besides, in about 6.7 years, the world will have replaced them. People are
like Doritos...the world will make more.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Wed, Aug 20, 1997 at 08:51:09PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> At 1:16 PM -0700 8/20/97, Patrick Oonk wrote:
> 
> >I am glad I live in the Netherlands, where there's at least of bit
> >of social consciousness left.
> >
> 
> As the repercussions of strong, unbreakable, untraceble crypto are felt,
> this "social consciousness" will return to what it must be, individual
> consciousness. Thus, you, Patrick Oonk, will be perfectly free to donate
> money to whatever causes interest you.
> 
> But the ability of a herd to take a vote, real or alleged, will not be
> sufficient to collect tribute from those who don't want to make the
> contribution freely.

Note another characteristic of cult thinking -- total separation of
the illuminati from the "herd" -- the idea that the "chosen" are
irrevocably different from those other unfortunate creatures that
accidentally share the same physical form. 

It is also worth noting that frequently cult members are very
intelligent, very capable people -- high intelligence is absolutely no
defense against insanity. 

> As to the billion or so underpeople who are incapable of contributing that
> which others are willing to freely compensate them for, think of it as
> evolution in action.
> 
> Besides, in about 6.7 years, the world will have replaced them. People are
> like Doritos...the world will make more.

One wonders if there is a microscope powerful enough to resolve Tim 
May's heart.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> One wonders if there is a microscope powerful enough to resolve Tim 
> May's heart.

Meethinks (not speaking for Tim) that years under a fascist natzi-like
regime bent on ripping out all out freedoms one by one and confiscating
all things threatening to it would cause any awake person to lose any
compassion for the scum that run our Freeh country.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 20, 1997 at 08:51:09PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > At 1:16 PM -0700 8/20/97, Patrick Oonk wrote:
> > 
> > But the ability of a herd to take a vote, real or alleged, will not be
> > sufficient to collect tribute from those who don't want to make the
> > contribution freely.

> Note another characteristic of cult thinking -- total separation of
> the illuminati from the "herd" -- the idea that the "chosen" are
> irrevocably different from those other unfortunate creatures that
> accidentally share the same physical form. 

the idea is that the "competent" (not "chosen") are irrevocably different 
from those other "incompetent and parasitical" (and not "unfortunate") 
creatures that accidentally share the same physical form.

best,
vipul

-- 

Vipul Ved Prakash                 | - Electronic Security & Crypto 
vipul@pobox.com 	          | - Web Objects 
91 11 2233328                     | - PERL Development 
198 Madhuban IP Extension         | - Linux & Open Systems 
Delhi, INDIA 110 092              | - Networked Virtual Spaces

On Thu, Aug 21, 1997 at 11:54:31AM -0400, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > One wonders if there is a microscope powerful enough to resolve Tim 
> > May's heart.
> 
> Meethinks (not speaking for Tim) that years under a fascist natzi-like
> regime bent on ripping out all out freedoms one by one and confiscating
> all things threatening to it would cause any awake person to lose any
> compassion for the scum that run our Freeh country.

Tim's problem is not lack of compassion for government workers - his 
problem is lack of compassion, period.  He wasn't talking about 
governments -- he was talking about a billion or so people -- the 
"sheeple", the "herd", the "underclass" -- whatever cute word he can 
overload with the considerable bile and and contempt at his command.  

The old saying, Ray, is that you can travel any path you want, but be
sure to choose one with heart.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

On Fri, Aug 22, 1997 at 12:40:29AM +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 1997 at 08:51:09PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > > At 1:16 PM -0700 8/20/97, Patrick Oonk wrote:
> > > 
> > > But the ability of a herd to take a vote, real or alleged, will not be
> > > sufficient to collect tribute from those who don't want to make the
> > > contribution freely.
> 
> > Note another characteristic of cult thinking -- total separation of
> > the illuminati from the "herd" -- the idea that the "chosen" are
> > irrevocably different from those other unfortunate creatures that
> > accidentally share the same physical form. 
> 
> the idea is that the "competent" (not "chosen") are irrevocably different 
> from those other "incompetent and parasitical" (and not "unfortunate") 
> creatures that accidentally share the same physical form.

And how is it that one knows that one is "competent"?

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 1997 at 12:40:29AM +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> > 
> > the idea is that the "competent" (not "chosen") are irrevocably different 
> > from those other "incompetent and parasitical" (and not "unfortunate") 
> > creatures that accidentally share the same physical form.
> 
> And how is it that one knows that one is "competent"?

One doesn't.  But if one is not competent, one is likely to find out the
hard way.

There's precious little evolutionary pressures around at the moment,
the race could use some more.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

On Sat, Aug 23, 1997 at 12:53:08AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> 
> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 1997 at 12:40:29AM +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> > > 
> > > the idea is that the "competent" (not "chosen") are irrevocably different 
> > > from those other "incompetent and parasitical" (and not "unfortunate") 
> > > creatures that accidentally share the same physical form.
> > 
> > And how is it that one knows that one is "competent"?
> 
> One doesn't.  But if one is not competent, one is likely to find out the
> hard way.
> 
> There's precious little evolutionary pressures around at the moment,
> the race could use some more.

The evolutionary definition of "competent" is "propagate your genetic 
material".  A rough corollary is that those who raise the most children 
to child-bearing age are the most competent.  In practice it seems to 
be the case, however, that intelligence and "evolutionary competence" 
are negatively correlated.  As I am sure you are aware, there are all 
kinds of evolutionary strategies...

I think this goes a little deeper, in fact.  The kind of intelligence
that leads to high technical achievement is not even necessarily a
kind of intelligence that favors survival under difficult situations. 
If society dissolves it is my belief that computer geeks, like us, are
not the ones that will be most likely to survive.... 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 1997 at 12:53:08AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> > 
> > One doesn't.  But if one is not competent, one is likely to find out the
> > hard way.
> > 
> > There's precious little evolutionary pressures around at the moment,
> > the race could use some more.
> 
> The evolutionary definition of "competent" is "propagate your genetic 
> material".  A rough corollary is that those who raise the most children 
> to child-bearing age are the most competent.  In practice it seems to 
> be the case, however, that intelligence and "evolutionary competence" 
> are negatively correlated.  

I was going to rant about the negative evolutionary pressures, but I
kept it short.  I agree fully.

There are a few evolutionary pressures, but they are insignificant
compared to all the negative pressures.

Positive examples?  

- motorbike riding
- aggresive drivers
- manic depressives
- mountain climbers
- hard drug takers
- drug pushers
- DEA agents

A couple of those don't deserve the negative evolutionary pressures
they surely inflict upon themselves or inherit, a couple do.

There are lots of things around which will kill you slowly, or offer
you a measurable though small chance of dying young, but this usually
doesn't affect that persons chances of reproducing.  Examples might be
smoking, heavy drinking, overeating, etc.

> I think this goes a little deeper, in fact.  The kind of
> intelligence that leads to high technical achievement is not even
> necessarily a kind of intelligence that favors survival under
> difficult situations.  If society dissolves it is my belief that
> computer geeks, like us, are not the ones that will be most likely
> to survive....

So start collecting guns and doing target practice.  Intelligence
includes ability to adapt and forsee likely future events.

Not taking my own advice here owning no guns.  My wife is a crack shot
though from pistol target shooting.  Problem is they're trying to
outlaw most/all types of target pistol over here.

Have lots of children .. to counteract the welfare cases tendencies.
Mormon polygamy?  Harem?

(Again not following own advice, only two children ... so far).

The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of
view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative
evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way.

Welfare cases in the UK are encouraged to hav children by the way the
system is structured.  A single mother is the highest priority case,
with pretty much guaranteed 16 years of preferential treatment, higher
payouts, higher on housing priority lists, and so on.  Female
divorcees with children often get more money, better accomodation, and
more extra fringe benefit handouts than they would ever have married.
Welfare is better than the minimum wage earners lot by a significant
amount.

The problem is what can you do about it?  Well I guess you could
negatively structure the welfare hand out system to discourage them.
You could scrap the welfare system.  They already offer free birth
control advice to teenagers and hand out condoms free without
questions etc.  Free abortions?

The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart
socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll
never manage it.

"The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
funded negative evolutionary pressures.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

At 10:43 AM 8/23/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
>The problem is what can you do about it?  Well I guess you could
>negatively structure the welfare hand out system to discourage them.
>You could scrap the welfare system.  They already offer free birth
>control advice to teenagers and hand out condoms free without
>questions etc.  Free abortions?

One thing that has been tried here, but was quickly shot down by the
welfare lobby was making Norplant (a two ? year hormonal birth control
device that gets implanted subcutaneously) implants a requirement for
receiving welfare checks.


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

Hi Adam.  A nice analysis.  However:

At 2:43 AM -0700 8/23/97, Adam Back wrote:
>The problem is what can you do about it?  Well I guess you could
>negatively structure the welfare hand out system to discourage them.
>You could scrap the welfare system.  They already offer free birth
>control advice to teenagers and hand out condoms free without
>questions etc.  Free abortions?
If we are going to do anything for free, it should be things which
encourage population reduction.  Anyone for a charity?

>
>The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart
>socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll
>never manage it.
>
>"The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
>funded negative evolutionary pressures.

Don't always assume that these are negative evolutionary pressures.  One of
the hallmarks of Homo's evolutionary survival has been the ability to live
in many niches.  Welfare is one niche, and no one should be surprised when
organisms decide to live in an available niche.  The question is, what
happens when that niche goes away?

For example, I have one friend who raised her two children (spaced 12 years
apart) on welfare.  They are now grown and she has a job as a Unix
sysadmin.  She obviously has the ability to move from niche to niche.  (And
doesn't subscribe to the Protestant work ethic.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:
> At 2:43 AM -0700 8/23/97, Adam Back wrote:
> >The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart
> >socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll
> >never manage it.
> >
> >"The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
> >funded negative evolutionary pressures.
> 
> Don't always assume that these are negative evolutionary pressures.  One of
> the hallmarks of Homo's evolutionary survival has been the ability to live
> in many niches.  Welfare is one niche, and no one should be surprised when
> organisms decide to live in an available niche.

Welfare does indeed seem to be a thriving niche.

> The question is, what happens when that niche goes away?

We get to see how well the welfare recipient adapts.  Guess we get
some real life evolutionary pressures :-)

However, I think that western countries are rich enough that there's
not really much danger of anyone starving to death.  Most of the
welfare recipients could find sufficient employment to feed themselves
if they had no other choice.

> For example, I have one friend who raised her two children (spaced
> 12 years apart) on welfare.  They are now grown and she has a job as
> a Unix sysadmin.  She obviously has the ability to move from niche
> to niche.  (And doesn't subscribe to the Protestant work ethic.)

Yeah, I'm not trying to be insensitive.  I know how to work systems
just as well as any other.  Clearly plenty of intelligent people can
make a decision to work the welfare system to their financial
advantage.

My claim was that the average welfare recipient is less intelligent
than the average non-welfare recipient.  There will be plenty of
counter examples, lazy people, people who have more interesting things
to do than work, and are happy enough with the adequate lifestyle
welfare brings.

It does seem unfair however for those who could easily obtain work to
live from the indirectly stolen assetts of those who are working for a
living.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

At 2:43 AM -0700 8/23/97, Adam Back wrote:

>There are a few evolutionary pressures, but they are insignificant
>compared to all the negative pressures.
>
>Positive examples?
>
>- motorbike riding
>- aggresive drivers
>- manic depressives
>- mountain climbers
>- hard drug takers
>- drug pushers
>- DEA agents

I have no idea if the traits associated with these activities are to be
considered good or bad, bright or not bright, heritable or not heritable,
etc. Does the slightly greater tendency of mountain climbers to die earlier
than philosophers mean anything? I doubt it.

...
>Have lots of children .. to counteract the welfare cases tendencies.
>Mormon polygamy?  Harem?
>
>(Again not following own advice, only two children ... so far).

Main point: The human genome is now "weighed down" with more than 7 billion
persons, a large fraction of them still capable of reproducing. Bluntly
put, it ain't going _anywhere_, at least not very fast. Changes in the
characteristics of a species, loosely speaking, "evolution," happen faster
in small populations. The tribe of hominids forced out of trees by loss of
forestation in the Rift Zone, for example, will undergo rapid changes over
a few hundred generations.  Billions of humans in the modern era, with
essentially everyone reaching reproductive age, will not. The human genome
is like a supertanker being hit by tennis balls: it just won't move.

Minor point: Adam's children will most likely tend toward the mean. Smart
people tend to mate with other smart people, more or less. Dumb people tend
to mate with other dumb people, more or less. Lots of reasons for this, but
look around and confirm it. So, this will lead to an ever-broader Bell
curve of intelligence, right? Nope. For whatever complicated reasons, the
curve has essentially reached its "normal broadness," to invent a phrase.
Or so I think is the case. Certainly there are ample statistics to show
this.

Other minor point, possibly major: The ROI on the human genome for Adam to
have more children, so as to counteract the stupid breeding more stupid
people, is virtually nil. If Adam likes children, or wants them around him
for whatever reason, fine. But any notion that 2 or 3 or even 5 children
will affect the genome is wishful thinking. Look at the math.

(And not even the infamous "But what if _all_ smart and educated people
thought this way?" applies. First, what Adam or Tim or Blanc does about
having children will not affect the decisions of others. Magical Thinking
101 again. Second, the aforementioned tendency to the mean, for complicated
biochemical/genetic reasons.  Third, even if Adam's children inherited a
persistent "gene for intelligence" which passed on undiminished with time
(or at least in proportion to other such genes from other reproductive
partners in the future), think of how many generations until Adam's magic
gene is in just 0.001% of the population. Hint: a lot.)

Have children if you personally want them, but don't think your having or
not having children has anything to do with saving the species.


>The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of
>view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative
>evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way.

I doubt this in the strongest possible way.

Australia was populated by the common criminals of England, the louts and
scoundrels and thieves and murderers. (Perhaps some "political prisoners,"
but mostly common criminals.) And yet within a generation or two, Australia
was thriving, and today nobody would argue that the descendants of convicts
are dumb or backward.

We aren't changing the genome.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> Main point: The human genome is now "weighed down" with more than 7
> billion persons, a large fraction of them still capable of
> reproducing. Bluntly put, it ain't going _anywhere_, at least not
> very fast. Changes in the characteristics of a species, loosely
> speaking, "evolution," happen faster in small populations.

I can see sufficiently small populations evolving quickly because in a
small population -- say 10 monkeys -- the monkey which got run over by
a truck because it was deaf, splat, end of deaf monkey gene, if it's
the only one.

But over large numbers say 700,000 or whatever, I can't see that it
makes much difference whether it's 700,000 or 7 billion.

I would've thought at that point it's more to do with the proportion
of the population with the genetic feature in question and the
magnititude of evolutionary pressure exerted by that feature.  

Clearly environment affects this, and a large population is more
likely to be geographically dispersed, and hence less prone to sudden
adverse environmental changes.

> The tribe of hominids forced out of trees by loss of forestation in
> the Rift Zone, for example, will undergo rapid changes over a few
> hundred generations.

So if 10% of the hominids by chance have an genetic characteristic
which increases their chances of `hacking it' long enough to propogate
their genes with no trees to 90% as compared to 20% for those without
this characteristic, clearly that gene set is going to propogate
pretty damn fast.

You could get some pretty fast propogation even in a population of 7
billion.  If there were an AIDs like virus with a airborne common cold
propogation vector, and a year incubation period, and 1% of the
population had some quirky genes which just happened to make them
immune to it, well that 1% gene would propogate very quickly.

> Billions of humans in the modern era, with essentially everyone
> reaching reproductive age, will not. The human genome is like a
> supertanker being hit by tennis balls: it just won't move.

There are currently practically no physical genetic advantages which
radically affect ability to breed (apart from extreme ones which mean
near certain death).  So yes, it's stagnant from that point of view.

There are however significant pressures exerted by different cultures,
which have different genetics.  Some cultures shun the idea of birth
control, and tend to have 2 or 3 times more children than average
educated westerners.  If that statistic holds for a few generations
there will be a lot more people around from these cultures.  There are
I think enough genetic differences between european genes and arabs,
asians as an example that I think it would be reasonable to argue that
this is having an effect on the human gene pool.

It is our collective shared memes which are suffering large scale
negative evolutionary pressures.  Be socially responsible, global
warming, food shortages, have few children.  Lots of other reasons
people don't have so many children ... gets in the way of career, long
term chore, commitment etc.  Reasons for welfare recipients to breed
more welfare recipients.

> Dumb people tend to mate with other dumb people, more or less. Lots
> of reasons for this, but look around and confirm it. So, this will
> lead to an ever-broader Bell curve of intelligence, right? Nope. For
> whatever complicated reasons, the curve has essentially reached its
> "normal broadness," to invent a phrase.  Or so I think is the
> case. Certainly there are ample statistics to show this.

That's a pretty interesting result.

Intelligence is an awfully hard thing to measure.  IQ tests and SAT
scores only show you what they test, ability to score at IQ test and
SATs.

> If Adam likes children, or wants them around him for whatever
> reason, fine. But any notion that 2 or 3 or even 5 children will
> affect the genome is wishful thinking. Look at the math.

A change in cultural values, societal norms, and welfare structures
over a sustained period could start to have some effects.

(Cultural norms change -- one of my grandfathers, an englishman, was
one of 20 children -- this used to be much more common.  17 of them
made it to adult life).

> (And not even the infamous "But what if _all_ smart and educated
> people thought this way?" applies. First, what Adam or Tim or Blanc
> does about having children will not affect the decisions of
> others. Magical Thinking 101 again.

Memes propogate in meme-space also.  The meme of global warming,
potential food shortages

> >The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of
> >view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative
> >evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way.
> 
> I doubt this in the strongest possible way.
> 
> Australia was populated by the common criminals of England, the
> louts and scoundrels and thieves and murderers. (Perhaps some
> "political prisoners," but mostly common criminals.) And yet within
> a generation or two, Australia was thriving, and today nobody would
> argue that the descendants of convicts are dumb or backward.

Likely due be a number of effects, perhaps demonstrates that
intelligence and being exported from England don't necessarily
negatively correlate.  Also perhaps intelligence isn't that strongly
based on genetics.

There probably weren't any significant average genetic differences
between the freshly exported "scoundrels" by 18th century standards as
compared to the average genetic make up of english population.

Also I did hear that Hitlers super-race of children bred for selected
traits didn't work out that well.  Perhaps the environment they were
bought up in didn't help.  

Are there any studies which demonstrate any difference in intelligence
between races even, asians, africans, chinese, europeans, red-indians
etc?

There seems to be an observable difference in business acumen between
races .. of course this could easily be explained by their society and
customs.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

At 11:47 AM -0700 8/24/97, Adam Back wrote:
>There seems to be an observable difference in business acumen between
>races .. of course this could easily be explained by their society and
>customs.

Francis Fukuyama, in his book "Trust" argues that culture is the
determining factor here.  I highly recommend the book.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

On Sat, Aug 23, 1997 at 10:43:19AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
[...]
> > In practice it seems to 
> > be the case, however, that intelligence and "evolutionary competence" 
> > are negatively correlated.  
> - DEA agents
[...]
> There are lots of things around which will kill you slowly, or offer
> you a measurable though small chance of dying young, but this usually
> doesn't affect that persons chances of reproducing.  Examples might be
> smoking, heavy drinking, overeating, etc.

There is little evolutionary pressure on anti-survival problems that
arrive in later life.

> 
> > I think this goes a little deeper, in fact.  The kind of
> > intelligence that leads to high technical achievement is not even
> > necessarily a kind of intelligence that favors survival under
> > difficult situations.  If society dissolves it is my belief that
> > computer geeks, like us, are not the ones that will be most likely
> > to survive....
> 
> So start collecting guns and doing target practice.  Intelligence
> includes ability to adapt and forsee likely future events.

In all honesty, I do not consider building up a massive private
arsenal a la Tim May as evidence of evolutionary intelligence -- quite
the contrary.

On the other hand, knowing how to shoot, and handle guns, *is* a
useful skill. 

[...]

> The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of
> view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative
> evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way.

Are you falling into the teleological trap? And if that's so, then you
and I are inferior to our forefathers, and your judgement is therefore
suspect :-)

[...]

> The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart
> socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll
> never manage it.
> 
> "The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
> funded negative evolutionary pressures.

In general, I would say that you are describing a remarkably
simplistic view of evolution.  Off the top, two things I think you are
missing:

    - first, you make the common mistake of assuming that evolution 
    has a purpose somehow aligned with your moral view of things

    - second, more specifically, you assume that evolution favors the 
    development of highly successful individuals.  This clearly does 
    not follow -- herd behavior, for example, is a *successful* 
    evolutionary strategy.  In human terms, "never underestimate the 
    power of stupid people working in large groups".

BTW -- halfway through "Snow Crash" -- *very* entertaining, though 
hardly a society I would want to live in.  Also, if you can find 
either "Half Past Human", or "The Godwhale", by TJ Bass (I think), 
you will find a very thought provoking alternative human future.  
These books will probably be hard to find, however.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> > "The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
> > funded negative evolutionary pressures.
> 
> In general, I would say that you are describing a remarkably
> simplistic view of evolution.  Off the top, two things I think you are
> missing:
> 
>     - first, you make the common mistake of assuming that evolution 
>     has a purpose somehow aligned with your moral view of things

No.  Evolution is blind.  Evolution is just a word to describe the
fact that genes which result in an increased likelihood of death prior
to breeding tend to not to be passed on.

I was arguing that I think current evolutionary pressures tend to work
against the criteria for increasing intelligence.  This claim is
complicated by the fact that intelligence is hard to measure.  Lets
say we choose IQ tests for the sake of argument.  Then I'm not even
sure how secure the claim that ability to pass IQ test has a large
hereditary correlation, So I don't know whether children of parents
who both had IQ measured at > 200 necessarily have children with
higher IQ than where one parent was > 200 and the other < 200.

There are also difficulties in isolating inherited factors from
environmental factors.

Modern medicine tends I think to work against the criteria of
producing healthy specimens.  (People who would have died as children
due to hereditary defects, living on to have children thanks to
medicine.  Also people who can't breed, having medical assistance to
have children.  Caesarian sections for females with too narrow hips to
easily give birth.  Lots of other examples).

Similarly difficult to influence medical evolutionary pressures --
what're you going to do?  Give our breeding permits based on
government decided criteria?

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 22, 1997 at 12:40:29AM +0000, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > > > But the ability of a herd to take a vote, real or alleged, will not be
> > > > sufficient to collect tribute from those who don't want to make the
> > > > contribution freely.
> > 
> > > Note another characteristic of cult thinking -- total separation of
> > > the illuminati from the "herd" -- the idea that the "chosen" are
> > > irrevocably different from those other unfortunate creatures that
> > > accidentally share the same physical form. 
> > 
> > the idea is that the "competent" (not "chosen") are irrevocably different 
> > from those other "incompetent and parasitical" (and not "unfortunate") 
> > creatures that accidentally share the same physical form.

> And how is it that one knows that one is "competent"?

A law to collect "tribute" money will be supported by people who 
want to leech "competent" value producers of thier property. 
A collection of such incompetent parasites is a "herd" 
in the current context. On the other hand a collection of 
good value producer who dont want to live of other people and 
dont approve of a law that enforces such a behaviour is the "competent". 

Though, to identify competent from incompetent, is quite besides 
the point. Collection of any tribute money at a point of a gun, 
is a bad thing and is ethically wrong. I want call it
"cult" thinking. Its a simple _objective_ law that
ensures freedom of choice. And one has to identify it and 
learn to respect it. 

best,
Vipul

one has to identify and act accordingly if want to live 
peacefully. 
- -- 

Vipul Ved Prakash                 | - Electronic Security & Crypto 
vipul@pobox.com 	          | - Web Objects 
91 11 2233328                     | - PERL Development 
198 Madhuban IP Extension         | - Linux & Open Systems 
Delhi, INDIA 110 092              | - Networked Virtual Spaces

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i

iQCVAwUBM/+SDffccPDXGRjVAQFOmQP8DE/g4BhZeyh7mqagW9oDpmUC6WFuw28F
LWBMgL35Qwx87YPtchagmf1cpKj/lvf+11NFcgvk7NJuTXHlu3wagnCnhBdOAYfv
UNs/V+lKsE4MlTc3yGlLESxhAei/B0ZllvgZlyPeijjmb9l4XsuBnyoSKjaE1PO/
DUi0swt64w4=
=x0wK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----