Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

LeftLibertarian2 · LeftLibertarians Unbound!

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 259
  • Category: Libertarian
  • Founded: Mar 13, 2007
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 37526 - 37555 of 82561   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#37526 From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
Date: Sat Sep 4, 2010 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Historical fiction
jlolson666
Send Email Send Email
 
Charles:

"Well, I think the plausible response here is simply to say that novels and plays are not always like chess."

That would've been the obvious tack, but I kind of like the idea of working with Dan on the parts which may be analogous, and trying to accept his premises insofar as possible.

We obviously are more free to imbue chess pieces with various powers and characteristics than we are with people (which in itself underscores my claim that we are aesthetically limited by human nature in creating human/sentient fictional characters), but would it be true to say that we can give chess pieces any characteristics we desire without paying an aesthetic price?

It seems clear that the answer is "NO."  Some piece-attributes would not lead to as felicitous a game - I'm fairly sure that Dan (and Charles - even JR - would agree).  Why would that be?  I think the - equally clear - answer is that, as Charles pointed out with his various arguments for why chess is uniquely popular, is that chess, as with all art and games, is to some degree circumscribed by human nature.   What I'm saying is that what appeals to us about chess - its complexity, logic, and creative scope - flows from how our minds work.  Is there a right and wrong when it comes to piece-movement?  Not in any absolutely specific sense, but in a general sense, I think there is.   The way chess pieces maneuver pleases us in ways that other combinations of motions/powers would not. 

I think where the analogy between chess and fiction may hold is between fictional characters and chess pieces.  Just as certain attributes in chess lead to felicitous interactions on a variety of levels, so do certain attributes in fictional characters.  But Dan's aesthetic theory doesn't allow us to evaluate either the aesthetic "rightness" of chess piece attributes or the "rightness" of fictional characters' behaviors, attitudes, and so on.

The idea of being able to evaluate the appeal of chess without considering the nature of the pieces composing it seems absurd - impossible, really; but no more impossibly absurd than the idea of evaluating fiction without being allowed to consider the nature of the people which provide its motive force.

JO





On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:49 PM, xipetotec56 <groups.to.read@...> wrote:
 



--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:

> I'll try to come up with a longer reply -- one that does justice to all your
> points below -- but I think an analogy might prove helpful here. Think of
> fiction like chess. What is chess? It's a game, right? I don't think that's
> controversial. Now, imagine judging a chess game. At a minimum, were I watching
> two people playing, I'd expect them to follow the rules of chess. But let's say
> someone came along and questioned whether a particular rule -- say, how the
> knight is supposed to move -- had or lacked an "overarching fealty to reality."
> How would that sound to you? Wouldn't it sound like someone didn't understand
> that this is just how chess is played -- the accepted rules -- and that's that.
> There is no judging whether the way a knight moves in [conventional] chess is
> more or less true. It's simply the convention. Someone surely invented this move
> at one point, but I don't think one would seriously question its "overarching
> fealty to reality" or seriously think about it that way.
>
> To me, fiction is like chess or like making up a game. The author is analogous
> to the inventor of a game.

Dan,

Well, I think the plausible response here is simply to say that novels and plays are not always like chess.

Of course, there are cases in which authors play within genre as within a formalized, conventional system, which is more or less hermetically sealed from considerations about the real world. Sometimes this is because the work is genre-bound in relatively simple ways (a potboiler, say); sometimes because it is self-consciously playing within an acknowledged conventional form, for good or ill, partly in the interest of meta-commentary. (This is common in literature written by people who have read structuralist or poststructuralist literary theory; also in books made up for Borges short stories.) Some critics -- structuralists in particular -- are fond of reading all literature as if it is supposed to work this way; but I think they're just wrong about that. Some works are best evaluated on those kind of terms; others are not; most are mixed bags.

The category of "games" is, notoriously, a pretty wide-ranging one. There are games like chess in which (1) the goals are *internal to* the game -- that is, the rules of chess themselves define what counts as "winning" or "losing," rather than some external set of criteria (such as pleasure or practical success); and (2) the criteria that are internal to the game are determined entirely be a formalized set of conventions, which can be specified without reference to anything the pieces "represent." I agree with you that aesthetic judgment of literature shares feature (1) with the evaluation of good or bad moves in chess -- the criteria that you are using to evaluate are criteria that are *internal* to the practice of aesthetic judgment, not external criteria. But I don't think that feature (1) entails feature (2) -- and I reject that aesthetic judgment has feature (2). This is not even the case in all games -- setting aside the question of how far appreciation or criticism is analogous to enjoying games. Kendall Walton has a very good discussion of the different ways games can be played in _Mimesis as Make-Believe_ (a book that you might like a lot, if you're not already familiar with it); as he points out, there are many kinds of play which take up features of the actual world *into* the fictional world of the game.

Suppose you had a chessboard with a big hill rising up through d4 and e4 that prevents you from putting pieces there -- if you tried to balance them on top, they would just fall over and slide into another square. Now, if you couldn't move a piece into d4 or e4, that would certainly affect what would count as good moves and what would count as bad moves for the purposes of that game. But given how chess is played, you have a right to complain that the problem is that you have a defective board -- chess is played on a flat board where any piece can occupy any position that it can legally move to. But now consider a game of capture-the-flag or paintball where you have a ridge that keeps you from standing in a particular location. In capture-the-flag, you don't have a right to complain about the physical realities imposed by the terrain on the playing field. Dealing with those physical realities is part of the point of the game; it's part of the representational system of the game that real-world facts -- if it's just rained and the hill is muddy, or if it is fall and the hill is covered with fallen leaves and twigs that will make a noise, or, or, or... -- *are imported into* the make-believe world of the game, and so these real-world features all *matter* to the evaluation of moves as good or bad. In ways that such physical realities aren't supposed to matter to a game of chess.

I would argue that it is often the same with novels or plays. Part of what matters in understanding them is understanding how far they do or do not take up features of the real world into their fictional worlds, and how this may affect the criteria that are relevant for judging the literary "moves" that they make as good moves or bad ones. (In fact, that's not all that they take up from worlds outside of the work. In addition to taking up features of the *actual* world, they also take up features of *other stories* -- by means of quotation, allusion, genre, satire, et cetera.)


> Also, I don't think one should come to judging art esthetically from the
> standpoint of closely defining something and then seeing if the work fits the
> definition -- except for the broadest definitions. I don't want to go too deeply
> into this now, but I was thinking of, say, there being a novel that you believe
> is, say, a Western, but it lacks some features you believe belong to Westerns.
> Well, then maybe it's not a Western -- at least, by your definition. But is that
> an esthetic judgment? And would that make it a bad novel or even a bad Western?

I agree that works of literary art should be judged on their own terms -- not simply as exemplars of a predefined genre. But think of a work which makes use of some features of a genre, and ignores or stomps on others -- mystery novels in which nothing is solved or the detective's solution is wrong, Westerns that take place in Siberia or outer space, Westerns in which gunfights turn out to be useless and largely irrelevant, social novels in which the striking producers turn out to be hyperliterate CEOs, engineers and philosophers, etc. Now, it is one thing (and quite correct) to say that it shouldn't be judged bad because it deviates from the conventional goals or mechanics of the genre. But is the fact that it *has* a certain relationship to that genre aesthetically irrelevant? If so, why? Isn't it often important to see that it *is* related to the genre in such-and-such a way, and that it *deliberately* differs from, or plays with, established conventions thus-and-so? Would you be able to, say, get all of what's aesthetically significant about _Memento_ if you were to think only about what's there in the film, without taking into account some facts about how detective stories (and stories in general) usually work? Or if you were to go about reading _Don Quixote_ without any knowledge of, or any reference to, the genre of heroic romances? In cases like these, isn't it a *part of what the work itself contains*, that it has certain references to, and relationships with, other things that you are expected to know about, which exist outside the covers of the work?

-C



#37527 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 2:35 am
Subject: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/

That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of
nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.

What's that supposed to prove?

Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.

#37528 From: Dan Ust <dan_ust@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 3:14 am
Subject: Re: this means?
dan_ust
Send Email Send Email
 
And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no wars, and all's well.

Regards,

Dan

On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:

 

http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/

That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.

What's that supposed to prove?

Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.


#37529 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 3:43 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:


>And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no
wars, and all's well.


         Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]

         So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks
like we are screwed then....




J.




>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/137\
79/the-milgram-experiment/
>>
>>That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch
of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>
>>What's that supposed to prove?
>>
>>Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>
>
>

#37530 From: Scott Bieser <scott@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 4:38 am
Subject: Re: this means?
sbieser
Send Email Send Email
 
It's a scientific fact that MOST people will obey an authority figure
when that figure is in close proximity and being insistent. The Milgram
experiment caused quite a stir when it was first conducted, and the
results have been replicated in similar experiments.

For fuck's sake, man, why do you think governments are so prevalent? Why
do you think millions upon millions of not only Americans, but Europeans
and Asians as well, meekly submit to intrusive searches at airports and
other places?

What the Milgram Experiment did not show was to what extent this
tendency to obey authority is inherent in our nature and to what extent
it is trained into us when we're children.

Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.




On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no
wars, and all's well.
>
>
>         Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>
>         So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks
like we are screwed then....
>
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779\
/the-milgram-experiment/
>>>
>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a
bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>
>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>
>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
-- Scott Bieser
Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
http://www.bigheadpress.com
Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI

#37531 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 5:24 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 10:38 PM 9/4/2010 -0600, Scott wrote:

>It's a scientific fact that MOST people will obey an authority figure
>when that figure is in close proximity and being insistent.


         And what kind of 'science' are we dealing with here? Certainly not
mechanics...

         Deterministic psychology maybe? Or?


> The Milgram
>experiment caused quite a stir when it was first conducted, and the
>results have been replicated in similar experiments.
>
>For fuck's sake, man, why do you think governments are so prevalent?


         I don't know. But that question doesn't answer my question - what does
the experiment prove?


         It's a fact that governments are prevalent - mostly I think, because if
you don't obey them they kill you.

         Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail.
Resist arrest and they will kill you.


>Why
>do you think millions upon millions of not only Americans, but Europeans
>and Asians as well, meekly submit to intrusive searches at airports and
>other places?


         Conditioning?



>What the Milgram Experiment did not show was to what extent this
>tendency to obey authority is inherent in our nature and to what extent
>it is trained into us when we're children.


         Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?


         (And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from
showing off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)




J.





>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>
>
>
>
>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no
wars, and all's well.
>>
>>
>>         Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>
>>         So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks
like we are screwed then....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779\
/the-milgram-experiment/
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a
bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>
>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>
>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>-- Scott Bieser
>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>http://www.bigheadpress.com
>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

#37532 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 5:34 am
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 


On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

At 10:38 PM 9/4/2010 -0600, Scott wrote:

>It's a scientific fact that MOST people will obey an authority figure
>when that figure is in close proximity and being insistent.

And what kind of 'science' are we dealing with here? Certainly not mechanics...

Deterministic psychology maybe? Or?


> The Milgram
>experiment caused quite a stir when it was first conducted, and the
>results have been replicated in similar experiments.
>
>For fuck's sake, man, why do you think governments are so prevalent?

I don't know. But that question doesn't answer my question - what does the experiment prove?

It's a fact that governments are prevalent - mostly I think, because if you don't obey them they kill you.
Well, that explains something, but I don't see how it explains why governments are prevalent.  With no other information, that sounds like a reason for people to team up to oppose them.  We also know that a government cannot really maintain itself if the entire population opposes it.  It's no fun governing a nation of corpses.  Certainly no stable state has a majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it.  Why is that? 

Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist arrest and they will kill you.
Not a particularly interesting experiment. 


>Why
>do you think millions upon millions of not only Americans, but Europeans
>and Asians as well, meekly submit to intrusive searches at airports and
>other places?

Conditioning?

>What the Milgram Experiment did not show was to what extent this
>tendency to obey authority is inherent in our nature and to what extent
>it is trained into us when we're children.

Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?
I don't think you should investigate this question.  Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it. 

(And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from showing off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)


J.

>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>
>
>
>
>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no wars, and all's well.
>>
>>
>> Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>
>> So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like we are screwed then....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>
>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>
>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>-- Scott Bieser
>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>http://www.bigheadpress.com
>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



#37533 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 5:43 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 01:34 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>It's a fact that governments are prevalent - mostly I think, because if you
don't obey them they kill you.
>
>Well, that explains something, but I don't see how it explains why governments
are prevalent.


         Why not? Seems like pretty reasonably explanation to me.


> With no other information, that sounds like a reason for people to team up to
oppose them.

         Why? It's a fact that individuals don't really have a chance against
organized criminals.


> We also know that a government cannot really maintain itself if the entire
population opposes it.

         Yes, so?


>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses.  Certainly no stable state has a
majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it.  Why is that?
>
>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist
arrest and they will kill you.
>
>Not a particularly interesting experiment.


         So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the
subjects, for instance...)



>Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?
>
>I don't think you should investigate this question.


         And what am I doing?

>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too
carefully about it.


         Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?


J.


>(And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from showing
off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)
>
>
>J.
>
>>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no
wars, and all's well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>>
>>> So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like
we are screwed then....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...><mailto:juan.g71%40gmail.com>juan.g71@...>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
<<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/1377\
9/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a
bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>>
>>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>-- Scott Bieser
>>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>><http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadpress.com
>>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>>at
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www.\
amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

#37534 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 5:50 am
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 


On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

At 01:34 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>It's a fact that governments are prevalent - mostly I think, because if you don't obey them they kill you.
>
>Well, that explains something, but I don't see how it explains why governments are prevalent.

Why not? Seems like pretty reasonably explanation to me.


> With no other information, that sounds like a reason for people to team up to oppose them.

Why? It's a fact that individuals don't really have a chance against organized criminals.
Hence the 'teaming up' - i.e. getting organized.   


> We also know that a government cannot really maintain itself if the entire population opposes it.

Yes, so?
Yes, so?  So - your explanation is a non-explanation.  Your explanation is resting on 'the government has so much force that no one can resist it.  Then you acknowledge openly that if a significant portion of the population opposed it, this wouldn't be true.  This leaves open the question you started with - why doesn't a significant portion of the population oppose it?  You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that. 


>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>
>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist arrest and they will kill you.
>
>Not a particularly interesting experiment.

So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the subjects, for instance...)
And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what?  What does this have to do with the results of the experiment, or their interpretation?  You think Milgram was a liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.  You do realize that his experiment would be completely impossible if he told them at the beginning what he was doing, right?  Now, your proposed experiment tests nothing in particular, since we all know the results.  It has no control, it's statistically meaningless, what is the point of it? 


>Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?
>
>I don't think you should investigate this question.

And what am I doing?
Loudly offering an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it. 

>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it.

Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?
Very little.  That's why when I read Jeff's piece, I didn't respond by loudly offering an opinion about it before pausing to think. 

J.

>(And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from showing off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)
>
>
>J.
>
>>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no wars, and all's well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>>
>>> So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like we are screwed then....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...><mailto:juan.g71%40gmail.com>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/

>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>>
>>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>-- Scott Bieser
>>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>><http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadpress.com

>>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>>at <http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



#37535 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 6:10 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 01:50 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:


>Yes, so?  So - your explanation is a non-explanation.

         You mean just like the milgram 'experiment'?

>Your explanation is resting on 'the government has so much force that no one
can resist it.
>  Then you acknowledge openly that if a significant portion of the population
opposed it, this wouldn't be true.

         Yeah, I'm openly admitting a truism. Why shouldn't I?


>This leaves open the question you started with - why doesn't a significant
portion of the population oppose it?

         The question I started with is "what does the milgram experiment
prove?".


>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.


         My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting
organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.

         You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but
that's a different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first
explanation.



>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a
majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>
>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist
arrest and they will kill you.
>>
>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>
>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the
subjects, for instance...)
>
>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what?  What does this have to do with the
results of the experiment, or their interpretation?  You think Milgram was a
liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.


         I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it
is a fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.



>You do realize that his experiment would be completely impossible if he told
them at the beginning what he was doing, right?  Now, your proposed experiment
tests nothing in particular, since we all know the results.  It has no control,
it's statistically meaningless, what is the point of it?


         Again, what kind of experiment (and science) are we dealing with? Is
this hard science? Or political manipulation?




>>Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?
>>
>>I don't think you should investigate this question.
>
>And what am I doing?
>
>Loudly offering an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it.


         Again HA HA HA. And exactly what kind of useful information have you
provided so far?




>>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too
carefully about it.
>
>Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?
>
>Very little.  That's why when I read Jeff's piece, I didn't respond by loudly
offering an opinion about it before pausing to think.


         Ha ha ha.

         Would you be so kind as to point out what useful information does that
fine article provide? I'm all ears.


         What.does.the.experiment.prove?

         To WHAT SCIENCE does the experiment belong? (that looks like a fairly
easy question...)


J.





>J.
>
>>(And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from
showing off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)
>>
>>
>>J.
>>
>>>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are
no wars, and all's well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>>>
>>>> So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like
we are screwed then....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...><mailto:juan.g71%40gmail.com><mailto:juan.g71%40gmai\
l.com>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
<<<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/137\
79/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>h\
ttp://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a
bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>-- Scott Bieser
>>>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>>>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>>><<http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadp\
ress.com
>
>>>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>>>at
<<http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www\
.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www.amazon.com/\
The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

#37536 From: Dan Ust <dan_ust@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 10:24 am
Subject: Re: this means?
dan_ust
Send Email Send Email
 
It's a fact that most do -- or there'd be no states, no? (Note that I did not write "scientific fact." Why?)

Why they do is a problem for advocates of a libertarian society.

Regards,

Dan

On Sep 4, 2010, at 23:43, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:

 

At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no wars, and all's well.

Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]

So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like we are screwed then....

J.

>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/
>>
>>That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>
>>What's that supposed to prove?
>>
>>Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>
>
>


#37537 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 06:24 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:


>It's a fact that most do -- or there'd be no states, no?

No. That is one of the reasons, not the only one.


>(Note that I did not write "scientific fact." Why?)


I don't know - I can't read your mind =]


>Why they do is a problem for advocates of a libertarian society.


Why do you think they do?


J.



>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>On Sep 4, 2010, at 23:43, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no
wars, and all's well.
>>
>>Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>
>>So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like we
are screwed then....
>>
>>J.
>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Dan
>>>
>>>On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...><mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/\
13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment\
/
>>>>
>>>>That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a
bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>
>>>>What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>
>>>>Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

#37538 From: Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
kropotkin72745
Send Email Send Email
 
On 9/4/10, Scott Bieser <scott@...> wrote:
> It's a scientific fact that MOST people will obey an authority figure
>  when that figure is in close proximity and being insistent. The Milgram
>  experiment caused quite a stir when it was first conducted, and the
>  results have been replicated in similar experiments.

There were some mitigating factors, though, IIRC.  The subjects were
separated from each other, so that each subject was isolated in the
face of one-to-one pressure from the authority figure.  And in quite a
few cases, subjects hemmed and hawed and expressed some hesitancy
before the authority figure finally convinced them by promising to
take full responsibility.  So the authority figure had to be quite
insistent, even when subjects were isolated in the face of authority.
If there had been a group dynamic, their doubts might have been
mutually reinforcing and made them more difficult to control.

--
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution:  A Low-Overhead Manifesto
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html

#37539 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 


On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

At 01:50 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>Yes, so? So - your explanation is a non-explanation.

You mean just like the milgram 'experiment'?
Experiments are not explanations.  You were explaining why, if the conclusion Jeff offered is not true, states continue to exist.  You answered, essentially, because they kill people who say they shouldn't.  But I then pointed out, as you acknowledged, that this is only true because the subjects support them. So, why do subjects support them?  Jeff has offered a conclusion from the Milgram experiments that seems to explain it.  You've offered...angry emails.


>Your explanation is resting on 'the government has so much force that no one can resist it.
> Then you acknowledge openly that if a significant portion of the population opposed it, this wouldn't be true.

Yeah, I'm openly admitting a truism. Why shouldn't I?


>This leaves open the question you started with - why doesn't a significant portion of the population oppose it?

The question I started with is "what does the milgram experiment prove?".
Very well, I meant the question you were supposed to be answering here. 


>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.

My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.

You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but that's a different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first explanation.
Why don't people get organized?  As far as affecting the validity, I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force (it also tells us nothing about how it got started).   

>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>
>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist arrest and they will kill you.
>>
>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>
>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the subjects, for instance...)
>
>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what? What does this have to do with the results of the experiment, or their interpretation? You think Milgram was a liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.


I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it is a fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.
Ok...still entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results. 

>You do realize that his experiment would be completely impossible if he told them at the beginning what he was doing, right? Now, your proposed experiment tests nothing in particular, since we all know the results. It has no control, it's statistically meaningless, what is the point of it?

Again, what kind of experiment (and science) are we dealing with? Is this hard science? Or political manipulation?
Sure looks like a psychological experiment to me. 

>>Right. So again, what is the 'experiment' supposed to prove?
>>
>>I don't think you should investigate this question.
>
>And what am I doing?
>
>Loudly offering an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it.

Again HA HA HA. And exactly what kind of useful information have you provided so far?
None in particular.  I simply have the ability to recognize silly arguments and point them out. 

>>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it.
>
>Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?
>
>Very little. That's why when I read Jeff's piece, I didn't respond by loudly offering an opinion about it before pausing to think.

Ha ha ha.

Would you be so kind as to point out what useful information does that fine article provide? I'm all ears.

What.does.the.experiment.prove?

To WHAT SCIENCE does the experiment belong? (that looks like a fairly easy question...)

J.


>J.
>
>>(And what was the point of the learned Riggenbach's article, apart from showing off his pretentious, third rate, literary style?)
>>
>>
>>J.
>>
>>>Maybe we _are_ screwed. Or maybe I'm too stubborn to care.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/4/2010 9:43 PM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>>> At 11:14 PM 9/4/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And in that world where you live, no one obeys any government, there are no wars, and all's well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems like you didn't address anything of what I said =]
>>>>
>>>> So it's a 'scientific fact' that people blindly obey authority? Looks like we are screwed then....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 4, 2010, at 22:35, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...><mailto:juan.g71%40gmail.com><mailto:juan.g71%40gmail.com>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <<<http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/>http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's that supposed to prove?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>-- Scott Bieser
>>>Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
>>>View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
>>><<http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadpress.com>http://www.bigheadpress.com

>
>>>Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
>>>at <<http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI>http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



#37540 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Sun Sep 5, 2010 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 05:21 PM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Juan Garofalo
<<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
>At 01:50 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>Yes, so? So - your explanation is a non-explanation.
>You mean just like the milgram 'experiment'?
>
>Experiments are not explanations.  You were explaining why, if the conclusion
Jeff offered is not true, states continue to exist.


         What conclusion did JR offer? (apart from parroting la boetie?)



>You answered, essentially, because they kill people who say they shouldn't. 
But I then pointed out, as you acknowledged, that this is only true because the
subjects support them. So, why do subjects support them?  Jeff has offered a
conclusion from the Milgram experiments that seems to explain it.  You've
offered...angry emails.


         I've already clarified what I said. It's not only 'angry' emails.





>>Your explanation is resting on 'the government has so much force that no one
can resist it.
>> Then you acknowledge openly that if a significant portion of the population
opposed it, this wouldn't be true.
>Yeah, I'm openly admitting a truism. Why shouldn't I?
>
>>This leaves open the question you started with - why doesn't a significant
portion of the population oppose it?
>The question I started with is "what does the milgram experiment prove?".
>
>Very well, I meant the question you were supposed to be answering here.


         What about my original question? No answer is forthcoming?



>>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.
>My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting
organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.
>You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but that's a
different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first explanation.
>
>Why don't people get organized?


         For various reasons, I imagine (but that's not what I was discussing)



>As far as affecting the validity, I think that what I've shown, and you've
agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force (it
also tells us nothing about how it got started).


         Wrong. It is a fact that government exists because they use force and
threaten would-be dissenters. So its existence is indeed guaranteed by force.

         I don't think that what I wrote was so badly written that you couldn't
understand it.

         "I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot
guarantee the government's existence by force "

         Yes 'we' can (haha), IF people are not organized. Which is the case.
Again, I don't see how that's controversial.

         Also, I imagine you've noticed that people do not follow orders IF they
can get away with it. People commit 'crimes' (say drinking if they are under 21)
all the time. Why is it that they don't obey authority...sometimes?

         Do you think that people would submit to the countless absurd
regulations that the government forces upon them if those regulations were
voluntary?

         And people would 'voluntary' pay taxes too I guess?


>
>>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a
majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>>
>>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist
arrest and they will kill you.
>>>
>>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>>
>>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the
subjects, for instance...)
>>
>>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what? What does this have to do with the
results of the experiment, or their interpretation? You think Milgram was a
liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>
>I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it is a
fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.
>
>Ok...still entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.


         You forgot to add "in my opinion". Why and how the 'experiment' was
conducted is relevant.



>None in particular.  I simply have the ability to recognize silly arguments and
point them out.


         Maybe you should start by looking at your own non-arguments...



>>>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too
carefully about it.
>>
>>Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?
>>
>>Very little. That's why when I read Jeff's piece, I didn't respond by loudly
offering an opinion about it before pausing to think.
>Ha ha ha.
>Would you be so kind as to point out what useful information does that fine
article provide? I'm all ears.
>What.does.the.experiment.prove?
>To WHAT SCIENCE does the experiment belong? (that looks like a fairly easy
question...)
>J.

#37541 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:55 am
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 


On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

At 05:21 PM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:



>On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
>
>At 01:50 AM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:
>>Yes, so? So - your explanation is a non-explanation.
>You mean just like the milgram 'experiment'?
>
>Experiments are not explanations. You were explaining why, if the conclusion Jeff offered is not true, states continue to exist.

What conclusion did JR offer? (apart from parroting la boetie?)
Seemingly, that we can explain the persistence of the state, not because people like to be controlled and subdued, but because people are unwilling to swerve from the orders of perceived authority - and that the organization you speak of doesn't happen precisely because they'll turn against each other when a perceived authority so orders.  So, the problem of the state is one of perception.


>You answered, essentially, because they kill people who say they shouldn't. But I then pointed out, as you acknowledged, that this is only true because the subjects support them. So, why do subjects support them? Jeff has offered a conclusion from the Milgram experiments that seems to explain it. You've offered...angry emails.

I've already clarified what I said. It's not only 'angry' emails.
Yes, and I still don't think your clarification holds water.  But you're right, now you're having a discussion.  That was my goal, and I've accomplished it.  

>>Your explanation is resting on 'the government has so much force that no one can resist it.
>> Then you acknowledge openly that if a significant portion of the population opposed it, this wouldn't be true.
>Yeah, I'm openly admitting a truism. Why shouldn't I?
>
>>This leaves open the question you started with - why doesn't a significant portion of the population oppose it?
>The question I started with is "what does the milgram experiment prove?".
>
>Very well, I meant the question you were supposed to be answering here.

What about my original question? No answer is forthcoming?
Not from me, I'm not an expert on Milgram.  It seems to me not to 'prove' anything, but to strongly suggest, as the Stamford Prison Experiment did (I think that one suggested it more strongly) the importance of the myth of legitimacy, and how easy it us, using such a myth, to get men to do horrific things.

>>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.
>My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.
>You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but that's a different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first explanation.
>
>Why don't people get organized?

For various reasons, I imagine (but that's not what I was discussing)
It's something you'd need to explain for anyone to accept your claims. 


>As far as affecting the validity, I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force (it also tells us nothing about how it got started).

Wrong. It is a fact that government exists because they use force and threaten would-be dissenters. So its existence is indeed guaranteed by force.
Really?  Then the state is a logic necessity by its very definition?  Then what the hell are we doing being anarchists? 

I don't think that what I wrote was so badly written that you couldn't understand it.
Well, either I understand it and disagree (but that is impossible) or I'm stupid, then.  I'd bet on the latter. 

"I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force "

Yes 'we' can (haha), IF people are not organized. Which is the case. Again, I don't see how that's controversial.
You posit that the state is perceived as bad by all these people, and they know they cannot resist it unless they organize, and so, even though they want to, they don't.  But they could organize, and you've refused to say why they don't.  I'm sorry, I don't accept such an explanation with that missing piece.   

Also, I imagine you've noticed that people do not follow orders IF they can get away with it. People commit 'crimes' (say drinking if they are under 21) all the time. Why is it that they don't obey authority...sometimes?
The experiment was specifically about obeying orders from authorities to harm others, not to refrain from drinking or the like.  That goes specifically to explaining why they don't get organized above. 

Do you think that people would submit to the countless absurd regulations that the government forces upon them if those regulations were voluntary?
No, but the government doesn't operate that way, it's presented as a package deal, and clearly they accept the package, at least many do.  Have you ever had a conversation with a non-anarchist?  That should be easy for you, since you regard just about every anarchist as not a 'real' anarchist anyway.   

And people would 'voluntary' pay taxes too I guess?
No, people would never do something so ungrammatical.  Ok, that's not fair, but I'm leaving it in anyway.  No, without any context, no one likes paying taxes. But, again, there is a context.  Come spend a day at work with me and count how many times my coworkers assert that 'taxes are the price we pay for civilization and I say it's damn worth it.'


>
>>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>>
>>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist arrest and they will kill you.
>>>
>>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>>
>>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the subjects, for instance...)
>>
>>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what? What does this have to do with the results of the experiment, or their interpretation? You think Milgram was a liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>
>I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it is a fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.
>
>Ok...still entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.

You forgot to add "in my opinion". Why and how the 'experiment' was conducted is relevant.
The dishonesty you reference has nothing to do with why the experiment was conducted.  Yes, certainly the methodology is relevant to the results, yet the specific dishonesty you're talking about is actually a necessary feature of an experiment of this type.  Can you think of a methodology in which the subjects are told precisely what is being studied which wouldn't make the data sought impossible to attain?  It seems to me that you could even still have consent in an experiment like this by writing up a consent form with enough slippery qualifiers, although that's beside the point too.  What has the fact that he lied to the subjects about what was being studied to do with the results?

>None in particular. I simply have the ability to recognize silly arguments and point them out.

Maybe you should start by looking at your own non-arguments...


>>>Instead, you should loudly offer an uninformed opinion without thinking too carefully about it.
>>
>>Ha ha. Now let's hear what you know about the subject?
>>
>>Very little. That's why when I read Jeff's piece, I didn't respond by loudly offering an opinion about it before pausing to think.
>Ha ha ha.
>Would you be so kind as to point out what useful information does that fine article provide? I'm all ears.
>What.does.the.experiment.prove?
>To WHAT SCIENCE does the experiment belong? (that looks like a fairly easy question...)
>J.



#37542 From: Anthony Gregory <anthony.gregory@...>
Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 1:01 am
Subject: Re: Latest Column
anthony1791
Send Email Send Email
 
Excellent column!!

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Jesse Walker <jwalkernot@...> wrote:
 

On Angelo Codevilla's book *The Ruling Class*:

reason.com/archives/2010/09/02/the-ruling-class



#37543 From: Marja Erwin <merwin@...>
Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 3:29 am
Subject: Re: this means?
marja376
Send Email Send Email
 
The Milgram experiment was also relatively well-defined and open to
modification. So until it was widely-known, it was possible to tweak the
experiment to see how people responded to figures claiming different kinds of
authority, how they responded with the instructions coming from someone in the
same room or to instructions over a loudspeaker, how the presence other people -
in on the setup and instructed either to cooperate or to refuse - would affect
the results, etc.

#37544 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 08:55 PM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>What conclusion did JR offer? (apart from parroting la boetie?)
>
>Seemingly, that we can explain the persistence of the state, not because people
like to be controlled and subdued, but because people are unwilling to swerve
from the orders of perceived authority - and that the organization you speak of
doesn't happen precisely because they'll turn against each other when a
perceived authority so orders.  So, the problem of the state is one of
perception.


         That's not exactly what I took from the article, although since the
article is not clearly written maybe that's what JR meant (but who knows).



>>You answered, essentially, because they kill people who say they shouldn't.
But I then pointed out, as you acknowledged, that this is only true because the
subjects support them. So, why do subjects support them? Jeff has offered a
conclusion from the Milgram experiments that seems to explain it. You've
offered...angry emails.
>I've already clarified what I said. It's not only 'angry' emails.
>
>Yes, and I still don't think your clarification holds water.  But you're right,
now you're having a discussion.  That was my goal, and I've accomplished it.


         My clarification was to point out the obvious. You can ignore simple
facts and come up with a more complex (and unfounded) explanation if you want.
Though I fail to see what's the use of doing that.


         IF the state didn't use violence it would cease to exist in a couple of
months.

         It's true that the state could be overthrown if enough people wanted to
overthrow it. But so far they have not overthrown it. So another obvious
'interpretation' of the facts is that they think that the costs outweight the
benefits (and you don't need to invoke pseudo-science from stanford)

         Oh and this

         "The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience
of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did
not grant their obedience by their own consent. "

         is of course rubbish. There's no consent when the cops are pointing a
gun at you.



>What about my original question? No answer is forthcoming?
>
>Not from me, I'm not an expert on Milgram.  It seems to me not to 'prove'
anything, but to strongly suggest, as the Stamford Prison Experiment did (I
think that one suggested it more strongly) the importance of the myth of
legitimacy, and how easy it us, using such a myth, to get men to do horrific
things.


         What the experiment illustrates IMO is that a half nutcase guy at
stanford can manipulate a bunch of students (not necessarily completly sane
either) and apparently get them to torture other people. Drawing general
conclusions from that, is, 'in my opinion', unwarranted.



>>>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.
>>My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting
organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.
>>You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but that's
a different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first explanation.
>>
>>Why don't people get organized?
>For various reasons, I imagine (but that's not what I was discussing)
>
>It's something you'd need to explain for anyone to accept your claims.


         I don't see why. Even if my explanation is not complete, it's still
sounder than the alternative explanation - 'volunary' servitude.





>>As far as affecting the validity, I think that what I've shown, and you've
agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force (it
also tells us nothing about how it got started).
>Wrong. It is a fact that government exists because they use force and threaten
would-be dissenters. So its existence is indeed guaranteed by force.
>
>Really?  Then the state is a logic necessity by its very definition?  Then what
the hell are we doing being anarchists?

         How on earth does it follow that the state is a logical necessity? At
any rate what is a necessity is the use of force for the gov't to exist.

         "What the hell are we doing being anarchists? "

         That is my line, IF we assume that people 'naturally' obey authority
(which seems to be milgram's premise, but NOT mine)



>I don't think that what I wrote was so badly written that you couldn't
understand it.
>
>Well, either I understand it and disagree (but that is impossible) or I'm
stupid, then.  I'd bet on the latter.


         You can disagree  all you want =P

         Wait. Maybe you think that Riggenbach's explanation must be right
because Riggenbach is an 'authority' when it comes to libertarianism?



>"I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot
guarantee the government's existence by force "
>Yes 'we' can (haha), IF people are not organized. Which is the case. Again, I
don't see how that's controversial.
>
>You posit that the state is perceived as bad by all these people, and they know
they cannot resist it unless they organize, and so, even though they want to,
they don't.  But they could organize, and you've refused to say why they don't. 
I'm sorry, I don't accept such an explanation with that missing piece.


         You are assuming some things I didn't explicitly said.

         Not all people perceive the state as bad. Obviously the millions of
state employees and other people who get benefits from the state don't think the
state is altogether bad. And even these people will ignore the state's authority
*when it suits them* (and if they can get away with it).

         There are other people who probably don't care one way or the other.
There are yet another people who do want to limit state power but they are too
few (and not well organized =P )

         At any rate this

         p1) people could overthrow the state
         p2) people don't overthrow the state

         conclusion : "people  choose voluntary servitude" is a big non-sequitur.



>Also, I imagine you've noticed that people do not follow orders IF they can get
away with it. People commit 'crimes' (say drinking if they are under 21) all the
time. Why is it that they don't obey authority...sometimes?
>
>The experiment was specifically about obeying orders from authorities to harm
others, not to refrain from drinking or the like.  That goes specifically to
explaining why they don't get organized above.


         I don't see how. Well, you can argue that IF people blindly obey
authority and IF the authorities tell them to not restist, then they won't
resist. I guess that's logically correct. But it's not necessarily what's really
going on in society.



>Do you think that people would submit to the countless absurd regulations that
the government forces upon them if those regulations were voluntary?
>
>No, but the government doesn't operate that way, it's presented as a package
deal, and clearly they accept the package, at least many do.


         I'd say that clearly they don't accept the package deal. If people truly
believed that the state is all knowing and all caring, they would voluntary obey
all its dictates(the package) (but they actually don't.)

         Or did I misunderstand what you mean by package deal?


> Have you ever had a conversation with a non-anarchist?  That should be easy
for you, since you regard just about every anarchist as not a 'real' anarchist
anyway.

         Of course I've had more than one conversation with people whose
political theory is a mess. And I know that regardless of their confused talk
they do not pay taxes voluntarily.

>
>And people would 'voluntary' pay taxes too I guess?
>
>No, people would never do something so ungrammatical.  Ok, that's not fair, but
I'm leaving it in anyway.

         lol


>No, without any context, no one likes paying taxes. But, again, there is a
context.

         Yes, and the context helps my case even more. Not only people are
directly forced to pay taxes, there are quite a few more mechanisms that force
them indirectly to pay taxes or obey the gov't in general.


>Come spend a day at work with me and count how many times my coworkers assert
that 'taxes are the price we pay for civilization and I say it's damn worth it.'

         I'm sure that people who have an axe to grind would say that. But that
doesn't mean they really believe it...



>>
>>>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a
majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist
arrest and they will kill you.
>>>>
>>>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>>>
>>>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the
subjects, for instance...)
>>>
>>>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what? What does this have to do with the
results of the experiment, or their interpretation? You think Milgram was a
liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>>
>>I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it is a
fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.
>>
>>Ok...still entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>You forgot to add "in my opinion". Why and how the 'experiment' was conducted
is relevant.
>
>The dishonesty you reference has nothing to do with why the experiment was
conducted.  Yes, certainly the methodology is relevant to the results, yet the
specific dishonesty you're talking about is actually a necessary feature of an
experiment of this type.  Can you think of a methodology in which the subjects
are told precisely what is being studied which wouldn't make the data sought
impossible to attain?


         Probably not. In which case that kind of experiment can't be done by
honest people...


>It seems to me that you could even still have consent in an experiment like
this by writing up a consent form with enough slippery qualifiers, although
that's beside the point too.  What has the fact that he lied to the subjects
about what was being studied to do with the results?


         I admit there's no direct connection. But what I'm getting at is that
you can't make 'experiments' based on fraud. Milgram was manipulating people in
more than one way. HE was a manipulator. That was not an instance of
'value-free' 'science'.





J.

#37545 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 


On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

At 08:55 PM 9/5/2010 -0400, you wrote:

>What conclusion did JR offer? (apart from parroting la boetie?)
>
>Seemingly, that we can explain the persistence of the state, not because people like to be controlled and subdued, but because people are unwilling to swerve from the orders of perceived authority - and that the organization you speak of doesn't happen precisely because they'll turn against each other when a perceived authority so orders. So, the problem of the state is one of perception.

That's not exactly what I took from the article, although since the article is not clearly written maybe that's what JR meant (but who knows).


>>You answered, essentially, because they kill people who say they shouldn't. But I then pointed out, as you acknowledged, that this is only true because the subjects support them. So, why do subjects support them? Jeff has offered a conclusion from the Milgram experiments that seems to explain it. You've offered...angry emails.
>I've already clarified what I said. It's not only 'angry' emails.
>
>Yes, and I still don't think your clarification holds water. But you're right, now you're having a discussion. That was my goal, and I've accomplished it.

My clarification was to point out the obvious. You can ignore simple facts and come up with a more complex (and unfounded) explanation if you want. Though I fail to see what's the use of doing that.

IF the state didn't use violence it would cease to exist in a couple of months.
Oh?  Let's look at the numbers.  Choose taxes if you want.  How many tax returns are filed?  How many people need to have the IRS come to their door and forcibly collect taxes, vs. how many just pay the money?  How many would stop paying if the IRS put away their guns?  Do you have a guess, or a certain answer?

It's true that the state could be overthrown if enough people wanted to overthrow it. But so far they have not overthrown it. So another obvious 'interpretation' of the facts is that they think that the costs outweight the benefits (and you don't need to invoke pseudo-science from stanford)
That's not an interpretation, an economist would regard it as a restatement of the situation.  An interpretation is an answer to - why do they think that?   

Oh and this

"The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent. "

is of course rubbish. There's no consent when the cops are pointing a gun at you.
Ok, let's try it out.  The cops are pointing a gun at this guy to get his obedience.  Why are they doing that?  Because the tyrant told them to, and the tyrant is but one person, right?   Why did the cops listen?  Is it because someone else is threatening them, or is it because they consented?  As Roderick pointed out, Dick Cheney does, in fact, shoot people, but no one obeys the laws because they expect Dick Cheney to shoot them if they don't.  They expect the police to shoot them.  Why do the police do their jobs?  Do they expect Dick Cheney to shoot them?  No, he only shoots lawyers, then makes them apologize to him for it.  The men with the guns themselves have to consent - which is what the experiment is actually about.  What about the other gun owners, passerbys, and so forth?  Why don't they intervene in our scenario?  Maybe it's because they think the police will shoot them - but they think that because they know there's only a few of them thinking to intervene.  The rest of the people aren't thinking to intervene because they consent.


>What about my original question? No answer is forthcoming?
>
>Not from me, I'm not an expert on Milgram. It seems to me not to 'prove' anything, but to strongly suggest, as the Stamford Prison Experiment did (I think that one suggested it more strongly) the importance of the myth of legitimacy, and how easy it us, using such a myth, to get men to do horrific things.

What the experiment illustrates IMO is that a half nutcase guy at stanford can manipulate a bunch of students (not necessarily completly sane either) and apparently get them to torture other people. Drawing general conclusions from that, is, 'in my opinion', unwarranted.
So the special characteristic here is supposed to be their studenthood?  Have you ever heard of that little situation in Germany, and heard about how many non-students went along with that one? 


>>>You can't say "because its powerful" because we just went through that.
>>My explanation is still pretty good. *Given* that people are not getting organized(because of X, Y, Z), government existence is guaranteed by *force*.
>>You can legitimately ask why is it that people don't get organized but that's a different matter. It doesn't affect the validity of my first explanation.
>>
>>Why don't people get organized?
>For various reasons, I imagine (but that's not what I was discussing)
>
>It's something you'd need to explain for anyone to accept your claims.

I don't see why. Even if my explanation is not complete, it's still sounder than the alternative explanation - 'volunary' servitude.
If soundness can coexist with circularity. 

>>As far as affecting the validity, I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force (it also tells us nothing about how it got started).
>Wrong. It is a fact that government exists because they use force and threaten would-be dissenters. So its existence is indeed guaranteed by force.
>
>Really? Then the state is a logic necessity by its very definition? Then what the hell are we doing being anarchists?

How on earth does it follow that the state is a logical necessity? At any rate what is a necessity is the use of force for the gov't to exist.
"Its existence is indeed guaranteed by force."  

"What the hell are we doing being anarchists? "

That is my line, IF we assume that people 'naturally' obey authority (which seems to be milgram's premise, but NOT mine)
People naturally walk around naked and piss where they damn well please.  Yet they do better. 


>I don't think that what I wrote was so badly written that you couldn't understand it.
>
>Well, either I understand it and disagree (but that is impossible) or I'm stupid, then. I'd bet on the latter.

You can disagree all you want =P

Wait. Maybe you think that Riggenbach's explanation must be right because Riggenbach is an 'authority' when it comes to libertarianism?
I don't even know that it is right.  We all know that the only authority on libertarianism is you. 


>"I think that what I've shown, and you've agreed to, is that you cannot guarantee the government's existence by force "
>Yes 'we' can (haha), IF people are not organized. Which is the case. Again, I don't see how that's controversial.
>
>You posit that the state is perceived as bad by all these people, and they know they cannot resist it unless they organize, and so, even though they want to, they don't. But they could organize, and you've refused to say why they don't. I'm sorry, I don't accept such an explanation with that missing piece.

You are assuming some things I didn't explicitly said.
As I said before, I'd never do something so ungrammatical. 

Not all people perceive the state as bad. Obviously the millions of state employees and other people who get benefits from the state don't think the state is altogether bad. And even these people will ignore the state's authority *when it suits them* (and if they can get away with it).
Yes... 

There are other people who probably don't care one way or the other. There are yet another people who do want to limit state power but they are too few (and not well organized =P )
Yes. 

At any rate this

p1) people could overthrow the state
p2) people don't overthrow the state

conclusion : "people choose voluntary servitude" is a big non-sequitur.
How about this - if they could but don't, then they chose not to. 


>Also, I imagine you've noticed that people do not follow orders IF they can get away with it. People commit 'crimes' (say drinking if they are under 21) all the time. Why is it that they don't obey authority...sometimes?
>
>The experiment was specifically about obeying orders from authorities to harm others, not to refrain from drinking or the like. That goes specifically to explaining why they don't get organized above.

I don't see how. Well, you can argue that IF people blindly obey authority and IF the authorities tell them to not restist, then they won't resist. I guess that's logically correct. But it's not necessarily what's really going on in society.
If they behave as the experiment suggests they do, then they'll obey orders to harm others. 

>Do you think that people would submit to the countless absurd regulations that the government forces upon them if those regulations were voluntary?
>
>No, but the government doesn't operate that way, it's presented as a package deal, and clearly they accept the package, at least many do.

I'd say that clearly they don't accept the package deal. If people truly believed that the state is all knowing and all caring, they would voluntary obey all its dictates(the package) (but they actually don't.)
Does the state claim to be all knowing and all caring?  Hint:  no.   

Or did I misunderstand what you mean by package deal?
By package deal, I meant simply they aren't asked "do you think this regulation is a good idea? how about this one?"  Instead, they are asked "state or no state."  They prefer the state, even if they are annoyed with some of the regulations. 


> Have you ever had a conversation with a non-anarchist? That should be easy for you, since you regard just about every anarchist as not a 'real' anarchist anyway.

Of course I've had more than one conversation with people whose political theory is a mess. And I know that regardless of their confused talk they do not pay taxes voluntarily.
So regardless of what they say, the IRS has to come to them and forcibly collect their taxes?   


>
>And people would 'voluntary' pay taxes too I guess?
>
>No, people would never do something so ungrammatical. Ok, that's not fair, but I'm leaving it in anyway.

lol
Thank you, I try. 



>No, without any context, no one likes paying taxes. But, again, there is a context.

Yes, and the context helps my case even more. Not only people are directly forced to pay taxes, there are quite a few more mechanisms that force them indirectly to pay taxes or obey the gov't in general.
The context is their belief that the taxes somehow provide things that the market couldn't provide. 

>Come spend a day at work with me and count how many times my coworkers assert that 'taxes are the price we pay for civilization and I say it's damn worth it.'

I'm sure that people who have an axe to grind would say that. But that doesn't mean they really believe it...
Yes, everyone is always lying about their own beliefs.  No one knows that they actually believe, but you know what everyone else actually believes. 


>>
>>>>It's no fun governing a nation of corpses. Certainly no stable state has a majority, or even a sizable minority, that dislikes it. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>Here's another experiment. Make fun of a cop and you'll end in jail. Resist arrest and they will kill you.
>>>>
>>>>Not a particularly interesting experiment.
>>>
>>>So? It is still more honest that milgram's experiment (no lying to the subjects, for instance...)
>>>
>>>And 'honesty' is a criteria for...what? What does this have to do with the results of the experiment, or their interpretation? You think Milgram was a liar...ok, entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>>
>>I don't 'think' he was a liar. He WAS a liar. It is not my 'opinion' it is a fact - the experiment involved lying to the subjects.
>>
>>Ok...still entirely irrelevant for the sake of examining the results.
>You forgot to add "in my opinion". Why and how the 'experiment' was conducted is relevant.
>
>The dishonesty you reference has nothing to do with why the experiment was conducted. Yes, certainly the methodology is relevant to the results, yet the specific dishonesty you're talking about is actually a necessary feature of an experiment of this type. Can you think of a methodology in which the subjects are told precisely what is being studied which wouldn't make the data sought impossible to attain?


Probably not. In which case that kind of experiment can't be done by honest people...
Then isn't it wonderful that honest people don't have to do it?  They can just take the data provided by a dishonest experimenter. 

>It seems to me that you could even still have consent in an experiment like this by writing up a consent form with enough slippery qualifiers, although that's beside the point too. What has the fact that he lied to the subjects about what was being studied to do with the results?

I admit there's no direct connection. But what I'm getting at is that you can't make 'experiments' based on fraud. Milgram was manipulating people in more than one way. HE was a manipulator. That was not an instance of 'value-free' 'science'.
So you're claiming, what exactly?  That he misrepresented the results? Do you have any evidence of this, other than a capitalized ad hominem? 

J.



#37546 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 12:05 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How
do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by
nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or
body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in
his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he
does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that
law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the
assistance and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any
kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the
first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural,
God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and
consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no
contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear,
  hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like
himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do
this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their
subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of
his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of
confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."



See? Fraud, or *force* - or both.

#37547 From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 12:12 am
Subject: Re: this means?
libertarian70
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes, of course.  The only argument is between primary force and primarily fraud.

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
 

"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear,
hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."

See? Fraud, or *force* - or both.



#37548 From: "Mark" <gawwwrrsh@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 3:58 am
Subject: F*** Facebook, Consider *Diaspora*
gawwwrrsh
Send Email Send Email
 
Here is some information I think needs to be disseminated widely those of you
who are interested in privacy and so forth. There is a new social network called
Diaspora that is open-sourced, decentralized, non-corporate, personally
controlled, and do-it-all that is comming out real soon (15th of this month I
think). I would encourage everyone to seriously consider joining this new
network and abandon the corporately owned and controlled network Facebook and
tell all your friends about Diaspora.
<http://www.joindiaspora.com/index.html>
Mark


<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/>
Facebook's Gone Rogue; It's Time for an Open Alternative

* By Ryan Singel * May 7, 2010 * 6:58 pm * Categories: Social Media

Facebook has gone rogue, drunk on founder Mark Zuckerberg's dreams
of world domination. It's time the rest of the web ecosystem
recognizes this and works to replace it with something open and
distributed.
Facebook used to be a place to share photos and thoughts with friends
and family and maybe play a few stupid games that let you pretend you
were a mafia don or a homesteader. It became a very useful way to
connect with your friends, long-lost friends and family members. Even if
you didn't really want to keep up with them.
Soon everybody — including your uncle Louie and that guy you hated
from your last job — had a profile.
And Facebook realized it owned the network.
Then Facebook decided to turn "your" profile page into your
identity online — figuring, rightly, that there's money and
power in being the place where people define themselves. But to do that,
the folks at Facebook had to make sure that the information you give it
was public.
So in December, with the help of newly hired Beltway privacy experts, it
reneged on its privacy promises and made much of your profile
information public by default. That includes the city that you live in,
your name, your photo, the names of your friends and the causes
you've signed onto.
This spring Facebook took that even further. All the items you list as
things you like must become public and linked to public profile pages.
If you don't want them linked and made public, then you don't
get them — though Facebook nicely hangs onto them in its database in
order to let advertisers target you.
This includes your music preferences, employment information, reading
preferences, schools, etc. All the things that make up your profile.
They all must be public — and linked to public pages for each of
those bits of info — or you don't get them at all. That's
hardly a choice, and the whole system is maddeningly complex
<http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/facebook-is-dying-social-is-not/> .
Simultaneously, the company began shipping your profile information off
pre-emptively to Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft — so that if you show
up there while already logged into Facebook, the sites can
"personalize" your experience when you show up. You can try to
opt out after the fact, but you'll need a master's in Facebook
bureaucracy to stop it permanently.
Care to write a status update to your friends? Facebook sets the default
for those messages to be published to the entire internet through direct
funnels to the net's top search engines. You can use a dropdown
field to restrict your publishing, but it's seemingly too hard for
Facebook to actually remember that's what you do. (Google Buzz, for
all the criticism it has taken, remembers your setting from your last
post and uses that as the new default.)
Now, say you you write a public update, saying, "My boss had a crazy
great idea for a new product!" Now, you might not know it, but there
is a Facebook page for "My Crazy Boss" and because your post had
all the right words, your post now shows up on that page. Include the
words "FBI" or "CIA," and you show up on the FBI or CIA
page.
Then there's the new Facebook "Like" button littering the
internet. It's a great idea, in theory — but it's completely
tied to your Facebook account, and you have no control over how it is
used. (No, you can't like something and not have it be totally
public.)
Then there's Facebook's campaign against outside services. There
was the Web 2.0 suicide machine that let you delete your profile by
giving it your password. Facebook shut it down.
Another company has an application that will collect all your updates
from services around the web into a central portal — including from
Facebook — after you give the site your password to log in to
Facebook. Facebook is suing the company and alleging it is breaking
criminal law by not complying with its terms of service.
No wonder 14 privacy groups filed a unfair-trade complaint
<http://epic.org/2010/05/new-facebook-privacy-complaint.html> with the
FTC against Facebook on Wednesday.
Mathew Ingram at GigaOm wrote a post entitled "The Relationship
Between Facebook and Privacy: It's Really Complicated
<http://gigaom.com/2010/05/06/the-relationship-between-facebook-and-priv\
acy-its-really-complicated/> ."
No, that's just wrong. The relationship is simple: Facebook thinks
that your notions of privacy — meaning your ability to control
information about yourself — are just plain old-fashioned. Head
honcho Zuckerberg told a live audience in January that Facebook is
simply responding to changes in privacy mores
<http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_\
of_privacy_is_ov.php> , not changing them — a convenient, but
frankly untrue, statement.
In Facebook's view, everything (save perhaps your e-mail address)
should be public. Funny too about that e-mail address, for Facebook
would prefer you to use its e-mail–like system that censors the
messages sent between users
<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/facebooks-e-mail-censorship-is-l\
egally-dubious-experts-say/> .
Ingram goes onto say, "And perhaps Facebook doesn't make it as
clear as it could what is involved, or how to fine-tune its privacy
controls — but at the same time, some of the onus for doing these
things has to fall to users."
What? How can it fall to users when most of the choices don't'
actually exist? I'd like to make my friend list private. Cannot.
I'd like to have my profile visible only to my friends, not my boss.
Cannot.
I'd like to support an anti-abortion group without my mother or the
world knowing. Cannot.
Setting up a decent system for controlling your privacy on a web service
shouldn't be hard. And if multiple blogs are writing posts
explaining how to use your privacy system, you can take that as a sign
you aren't treating your users with respect, It means you are
coercing them into choices they don't want using design principles.
That's creepy.
Facebook could start with a very simple page of choices: I'm a
private person, I like sharing some things, I like living my life in
public. Each of those would have different settings for the myriad of
choices, and all of those users could then later dive into the control
panel to tweak their choices. That would be respectful design – but
Facebook isn't about respect — it's about re-configuring the
world's notion of what's public and private.
So what that you might be a teenager and don't get that
college-admissions offices will use your e-mail address to find possibly
embarrassing information about you. Just because Facebook got to be the
world's platform for identity by promising you privacy and then
later ripping it out from under you, that's your problem. At least,
according to the bevy of privacy hired guns the company brought in at
high salaries to provide cover for its shenanigans.
Clearly Facebook has taught us some lessons. We want easier ways to
share photos, links and short updates with friends, family, co-workers
and even, sometimes, the world.
But that doesn't mean the company has earned the right to own and
define our identities.
It's time for the best of the tech community to find a way to let
people control what and how they'd like to share. Facebook's
basic functions can be turned into protocols, and a whole set of
interoperating software and services can flourish.
Think of being able to buy your own domain name and use simple software
such as Posterous to build a profile page in the style of your liking.
You'd get to control what unknown people get to see, while the
people you befriend see a different, more intimate page. They could be
using a free service that's ad-supported, which could be offered by
Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, a bevy of startups or web-hosting services
like Dreamhost.
"Like" buttons around the web could be configured to do exactly
what you want them to — add them to a protected profile or get added
to a wish list on your site or broadcast by your micro-blogging service
of choice. You'd be able to control your presentation of self —
and as in the real world, compartmentalize your life.
People who just don't want to leave Facebook could play along as
well — so long as Facebook doesn't continue creepy data
practices like turning your info over to third parties, just because one
of your contacts takes the "Which Gilligan Island character are
you?" quiz? (Yes, that currently happens)
Now, it might not be likely that a loose confederation of software
companies and engineers can turn Facebook's core services into
shared protocols, nor would it be easy for that loose coupling of
various online services to compete with Facebook, given that it has 500
million users. Many of them may be fine having Facebook redefine their
cultural norms, or just be too busy or lazy to leave.
But in the internet I'd like to live in, we'd have that option,
instead of being left with the choice of letting Facebook use us, or
being left out of the conversation altogether.
Photo: Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg gives the keynote at
SXSW conference in Austin, Texas, 2009.
Jim Merithew/Wired.com

#37549 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 6:37 am
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
#37550 From: jeo1@...
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 5:22 pm
Subject: this means?
libertarianl...
Send Email Send Email
 
I wonder if the statist "Michael" in the comments section is the same Michael who used to comment here.


Sep 4, 2010 09:35:44 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>

http://blog.mises.org/13779/the-milgram-experiment/
>
> That sounds like a scam. This guy milgram was a nutcase who collected a bunch
>of nutcases who would murder people when ordered to, by a 'scientist'.
>
> What's that supposed to prove?
>
> Riggenbach's article is of course badly written.
>
>


#37551 From: jeo1@...
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 5:24 pm
Subject: this means?
libertarianl...
Send Email Send Email
 
Good quote.  Is this from Discourse on Voluntary Servitude?  Attribution please, thanks.


Sep 6, 2010 07:05:42 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation"
>to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each
>gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call
>no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness
>in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he
>does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law,
>to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance
>and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice
>--- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is
>it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and
>to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other
>men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he
>has no sentiments but fear,
> hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like
>himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this,
>and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject;
>and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties
>and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment,
>and death?
>
> Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."
>
> See? Fraud, or *force* - or both.
>
>

#37552 From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: this means?
three_d60
Send Email Send Email
 
At 12:24 PM 9/7/2010 -0500, you wrote:


>Good quote.  Is this from Discourse on Voluntary Servitude?  Attribution
please, thanks.

         Oh sorry, that's from Spooner - No Treason.

         http://jim.com/treason.htm







>Sep 6, 2010 07:05:42 PM,
<mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>>"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation"
>>>to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory ---
each
>>>gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to
call
>>>no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own
happiness
>>>in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as
he
>>>does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that
law,
>>>to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the
assistance
>>>and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of
injustice
>>>--- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How
is
>>>it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights,
and
>>>to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with
other
>>>men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of
whom he
>>>has no sentiments but fear,
>>> hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like
>>>himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do
this,
>>>and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their
subject;
>>>and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his
duties
>>>and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation,
imprisonment,
>>>and death?
>>>
>>> Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."
>>>
>>> See? Fraud, or *force* - or both.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

#37553 From: Jesse Walker <jwalkernot@...>
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 7:23 pm
Subject: Timbuctoo Autonomous Zone
jwalkernot
Send Email Send Email
 
#37554 From: jeo1@...
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2010 7:52 pm
Subject: this means?
libertarianl...
Send Email Send Email
 
Thanks.  Excellent quote.
 
Jim


Sep 7, 2010 02:17:07 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
At 12:24 PM 9/7/2010 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Good quote. Is this from Discourse on Voluntary Servitude? Attribution
>please, thanks.
>
> Oh sorry, that's from Spooner - No Treason.
>
> http://jim.com/treason.htm
>
> >Sep 6, 2010 07:05:42 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >>"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a
>nation"
> >>>to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory
>--- each
> >>>gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of
>nature to call
> >>>no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to
>seek his own happiness
> >>>in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property,
>so long as he
> >>>does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized
>also, by that law,
> >>>to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go
>to the assistance
> >>>and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering
>any kind of injustice
> >>>--- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first
>place? How is
> >>>it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given
>rights, and
> >>>to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into
>a mass with other
> >>>men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards
>many of whom he
> >>>has no sentiments but fear,
> >>> hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control
>of men like
> >>>himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command
>him to do this,
> >>>and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and
>he their subject;
> >>>and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards
>of his duties
> >>>and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of
>confiscation, imprisonment,
> >>>and death?
> >>>
> >>> Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."
> >>>
> >>> See? Fraud, or *force* - or both.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

#37555 From: Jesse Walker <jwalkernot@...>
Date: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:06 pm
Subject: Stewart Brand Interview
jwalkernot
Send Email Send Email
 
Brian Doherty of Reason interviews Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/10/the-visionary/singlepage

Messages 37526 - 37555 of 82561   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help