ML vs. Lisp - Programming Languages

Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
[color=blue]
> Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Your attidute towards property is where we disagree (and I
>> won't go into a longer discussion of that): You seem to think property
>> was there first, a give natural law/right and then came society. I
>> think, society and its laws are pretty malleable and the various(!)
>> concepts of properties are just sets of rules (give by humans beings)
>> that control the allocation of resources, but they are just this: A
>> useful mechanism, not more.
>>
>> If you think it through, you'll see that property-as-a-natural-right
>> is inconsistent. The usual reason given that somebody ought to be
>> entitled to own things, is, that he had success in getting them (he
>> _earned_ them, because he was better in some respect). Apart from the
>> fact that I don't relish the idea of society as a Darwinist gambling
>> game, I don't see, how in a framework of rational ethics, it could be
>> concluded from that that the others should respect his property
>> rights: After all, if they can take his property from him, _they_ were
>> "better", so they "win". So, law, society etc. introduce some kind of
>> artificial restriction how things can change owner: Not by theft,
>> murder or fraud, but by dealing, speculation, even with insider
>> knowledge.
>>
>> The concept of lawful property is pretty much an artificial
>> construct. Society guarantees that people keep to certain rules,
>> respect property and the owners of property but since it is society
>> that actually guarantees the continous validity of property, the
>> owner of property isn't a shark among minor fish: He only has his
>> property because it is granted to him by society as something of his
>> to keep, a gratification for work he has done.[/color]
>
> In other words, the sole principle is, you only get to keep what the
> mob lets you keep. That's a great society you've got going there,
> buddy.[/color]

Well,

1. I'm not your buddy.

2. "you only get to keep what the mob lets you keep" correctly
describes the states of things in all societies. It is the
collective adherence to agreed law by the others (by whom ever)
that lets YOU keep your stuff. That is simply a fact, because if
the majority in a country would spit upon the law (even a strong
minority) it would simply be impossible to keep up law and order
and finally, property rights.

Why does that annoy you?

Regards -- Markus

>>>>> "TL" == Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:

TL> Markus E Leypold
TL> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
TL> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The concept of lawful property is pretty much an artificial
>> construct. Society guarantees that people keep to certain rules,
>> respect property and the owners of property but since it is
>> society that actually guarantees the continous validity of
>> property, the owner of property isn't a shark among minor fish:
>> He only has his property because it is granted to him by society
>> as something of his to keep, a gratification for work he has
>> done.[/color][/color]

TL> In other words, the sole principle is, you only get to keep what
TL> the mob lets you keep. That's a great society you've got going
TL> there, buddy.

That's a reasonable interpretation if you equate society = mob,
and (democratic rule) = (mob rule). This is not too uncommon,
most people who use this line of reasoning are not willing
to hold up another model as superior. Are you?

I guess Markus' description also holds for communist societies,
and perhaps you can describe that as "mob rule" as well? (:
His description also holds for dictatorships, I think.

The distinguishing property of different societies is how we
go about the legislative process. Some protection of property
rights may be in the constitution, but even that is merely
law, which can be changed. The only difference is how many
obstacles we've invented for the law makers. (In Sweden, there
is a committee which can advice law makers that proposed
legistation is in violation of the constitution, but this
doesn't formally stop the Riksdag from approving the law,
as has been demonstrated now and again.)

There are several examples of how this description is applied
in practice in democratic societies. A common example is when
roads are built, and private property needs to be appropriated
to make room for the road. Municipalities in Sweden will offer
what they believe is fair market value for the land, but if
the owner doesn't want to sell, it will go to litigation. In
practice, the Municipality nearly always wins(*), and the owner
may have to settle for a lower price than initially offered.

(*) I've heard of cases where the verdict has gone the other
way, but this is highly unusual.

Some types of property are even illegal to possess in many
countries. In Sweden, you may not own a TV without paying
a monthly fee to finance Public Television, regardless of
whether or not you actually use your TV.

I happen to live in a house that is classified as "Kulturminne"
(which means that it's of historic significance). This severely
limits what I am allowed to do with it. It's debatable whether
I'd be allowed to put a satellite dish on the roof. The
landlord (I rent it) may also be directed by the Municipality
to refurbish his own house, if they feel that he is not
caring for it properly.

BR,
Ulf W
--
Ulf Wiger, Senior Specialist,
/ / / Architecture & Design of Carrier-Class Software
/ / / Team Leader, Software Characteristics
/ / / Ericsson AB, IMS Gateways

On Mar 6, 5:02 am, Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> "thant" <a...@standarddeviance.com> writes:[color=green]
> > On Mar 6, 1:26 am, Markus E Leypold
> > <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[/color]
>[color=green]
> > [...][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Typical neocons drivel. [...][/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > The neocons are anti-Stalinist, not anti-communist.[/color]
>
> The also denigrate the idea of welfare, taxes, redistribution of
> wealth etc as obviously absurd as you did.[/color]

I know these exchanges are wildly unproductive, but the neocons are
something I've put some effort into trying to understand.

The neocons as a group have their roots in the far left. (That's why
they're called *neo* conservatives.) They haven't rejected their
socialist roots so much as abandoned them for grander, more imperial
ambitions. You're confusing the neocons with the big-government
backlash political movement they hijacked under the Reagan
administration. As a group they are now basically uninterested in
domestic social welfare policy. All they really care about is the
accumulation and centralization of political power. They don't care at
all that domestic spending under Bush the Younger has grown wildly as
long as it bought Democratic support for their wars.

[color=blue]
> Natural law is another concept altogether and a problematic one
> because the natural state of things (right of the stronger) wouldn't
> be a good reference for ethics as we understand it[/color]

I suppose I should have specified that I'm using the term in the sense
that John Locke used it, not in the sense that you seem to attribute
to it.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > It rejects the notion that any specific individual should be granted
> > privileges regarding property because they somehow speak for
> > 'society.'[/color]
>
> I do not see how that ("specific individual") relates to your Marx
> quote you snipped from your reply. "To each according to their needs"
> ("Jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen") doesn't say something about
> specific individuals and nothing about "speaking for society".[/color]

Who gets to decide who needs what? Marx brushes all this off because
in Marxist theory, communism is a state of society in which the wants
of the individual have become indistinguishable from the common
interest. The individual has disloved into the collective. Reality
just doesn't work that way. In reality, it is the State that claims to
speak for society, and it's the State that uses this claim as an
excuse to impose a territorial monopoly on the institutuionalized use
of coercion.

As for the government's role in providing for the less fortunate, it's
a con job. Always has been. The politicians will raise minimum wages
as if they were compassionate heros. But confront them with the fact
that it's the government's fault that wages have eroded in the first
place, and you're talking to a brick wall.

[url]http://www.mises.org/story/1909[/url]

-thant

On Mar 6, 4:29 am, Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> wrote:[color=blue]
> thant schrieb:[/color]


[...]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Technically he said something like "from each according to their
> > ability to each according to their need." It's attractive to those
> > who put themselves in the "need" category, but it also tells anybody
> > who is genuinely in practice in the "ability" category that it is not
> > theirs to decide where the products of their efforts goes.[/color]
>
> I think that's exaggerating the idea so far that it becomes bogus.[/color]

Not based on my understanding of economic conditions in the Soviet
Union before it finally collapsed.
[color=blue]
>
> I do uphold that the strong should support the weak, so that when the
> situation is reversed, the formerly weak can aid the formerly strong. I
> also uphold that those who are weak in many respects should get more
> help than those who are just marginally weak.[/color]

I do to. But it's up to the individual to decide how best to allocate
their resources toward goals they value (such as a better society).
[color=blue]
> In summary, I think that saying "RMS is a software communist", even if
> there is a certain truth to it, isn't necessarily a reason to reject his
> ideas.[/color]

I reject his motivation, but respect his means.
[color=blue]
> Economic theories do all kinds of generalizations and
> approximations, and in the case of software, they are even worse than in
> general; applying economic theory to the software market is hence going
> to give even less useful results than in general.[/color]

The two best books on the economics of software that I've read are
"The Cathedral and the Bazzar," by Eric Raymond, and "Software as
Capital," by Howard Baetjer Jr. These books are as different from each
other as one can possibly imagine, but together they are profoundly
insightful.

-thant

"thant" <adm@standarddeviance.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Mar 6, 5:02 am, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> "thant" <a...@standarddeviance.com> writes:[color=darkred]
>> > On Mar 6, 1:26 am, Markus E Leypold
>> > <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > [...][/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> Typical neocons drivel. [...][/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > The neocons are anti-Stalinist, not anti-communist.[/color]
>>
>> The also denigrate the idea of welfare, taxes, redistribution of
>> wealth etc as obviously absurd as you did.[/color]
>
> I know these exchanges are wildly unproductive, but the neocons are
> something I've put some effort into trying to understand.[/color]

It is perhaps here, that I need to prune trees of topics. That subtree to me
looks especially unmanagable.
[color=blue]
> The neocons as a group have their roots in the far left. (That's why
> they're called *neo* conservatives.) They haven't rejected their[/color]

Neo isn't quite Greek for "left" ...

Actually we're approaching very slippery ground here, since I what is
called left/right in the US has probably no exact correspondence to
what is called left or right in Germany or other European
countries. I've always harboured the suspicion that it is there where
are lot of misunderstandings about european vs. american politics lie.

So as interesting as I consider american politics, I'm inclined to
just read what you're writing and not to comment it, even if you can
assume that I probably don't agree with it. I've had some experience
with the inside view of party politics, how they see themselves and
the picture they (often honestly without the explicit intention to
decieve) try to project to the outside.

I'm deeply mistrustful about ANY "****ysis", either by layman or by
"think tanks" which tries to suggest a big picture. Most attempts end
up as spin, wether that was intented or not.

And since this are probably even more murky waters than the theory
vs. practice discussion, I'm not going into them.

<snipped rest of essay on the neocons movement>

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Natural law is another concept altogether and a problematic one
>> because the natural state of things (right of the stronger) wouldn't
>> be a good reference for ethics as we understand it[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I suppose I should have specified that I'm using the term in the sense
> that John Locke used it, not in the sense that you seem to attribute
> to it.[/color]

I'll have to read up Lockes definition, but as I said: There is no
anchor any more (be it nature as for the enlightenment movement, be it
God as for the more traditional theories of state) against which a
natural law concept can be grounded in a post modern society. The
conpet will have to go and to be replaced like something like a
consensus between equals, a social contract by which the rules were
agreed.

This is very democratic, indeed. :-).

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > It rejects the notion that any specific individual should be granted
>> > privileges regarding property because they somehow speak for
>> > 'society.'[/color]
>>
>> I do not see how that ("specific individual") relates to your Marx
>> quote you snipped from your reply. "To each according to their needs"
>> ("Jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen") doesn't say something about
>> specific individuals and nothing about "speaking for society".[/color]
>
> Who gets to decide who needs what? Marx brushes all this off because[/color]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly. He doesn't draw your implications: A bit unfair to blame Marx
for a conclusion -- possibly wrong -- you have drawn how the
distribution mechanism should work.

Especially since you critized that "To each according to their needs"
is _absurd, not that you don't see way/algorithm to allocate the
resources according to this maxim.

[color=blue]
> in Marxist theory, communism is a state of society in which the wants
> of the individual have become indistinguishable from the common
> interest. The individual has disloved into the collective. Reality[/color]

I'm almost sure you're now mixing up Marxism-Leninism with what Marx
(alone) wrote. There is also Trotzkism and Anarchism. It is difficult
to delineate the territories here, but I'd be cautious to lump
everything broadly under "Marxism". People have actually spent a life
time studying history, practice and theory or a political movement
that has for more than a century stamped national and global politics.

If you don't differentiate like that, capitalism, feudalism and
serfdom would also merge to quite the same thing: Which they aren't
and which even Marx (e.g.) doesn't pretend that they are.

What I want to say: It's important to understand nuances. If you
don't, you end up fighting wind mills.

Actually that is where I'd like to make the point that "sw communism"
is not the right label for RMS's stance: "Communism" is a specific
historical movement. Comparing apples with oranges is not totally
wrong (they are both fruit) but ultimately misleading and hinders
undertstanding.
[color=blue]
> just doesn't work that way. In reality, it is the State that claims to
> speak for society, and it's the State that uses this claim as an
> excuse to impose a territorial monopoly on the institutuionalized use
> of coercion.[/color]

One would mean, that in a democracy the state is actually representing
and executing the will of the people. Do you think that "democracy
doesn't work" ans thus doesn't represent the will of the people or do
you suggest democracy is bad, because (...).
[color=blue]
> As for the government's role in providing for the less fortunate, it's
> a con job. Always has been. The politicians will raise minimum wages
> as if they were compassionate heros. But confront them with the fact
> that it's the government's fault that wages have eroded in the first[/color]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really? That would surprise me: Have you ever seen an employer paying
more than he absolutely needs to pay? And don't you think that the
labour market is actually _a market_ so that unemployment (oversupply of
workers) will lead to dropping wages until they can _just barely_
survive in the present?

I could elaborate on that, but I fear it would actually lead too
far. So be warned: Even if you're answering, I'll probably not reply
(but don't let that keep you from correcting my perceptions).
[color=blue]
> place, and you're talking to a brick wall.[/color]

Regards -- Markus

"thant" <adm@standarddeviance.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Mar 6, 4:29 am, Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> wrote:[color=green]
>> thant schrieb:[/color]
>
>
> [...]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Technically he said something like "from each according to their
>> > ability to each according to their need." It's attractive to those
>> > who put themselves in the "need" category, but it also tells anybody
>> > who is genuinely in practice in the "ability" category that it is not
>> > theirs to decide where the products of their efforts goes.[/color]
>>
>> I think that's exaggerating the idea so far that it becomes bogus.[/color]
>
> Not based on my understanding of economic conditions in the Soviet
> Union before it finally collapsed.[/color]

There is, my friend, a long way from Marx to the "economic conditions
in the Soviet Union before it finally collapsed". The connection to
Marx "To each according to their needs" is quite tenous. I suggest a
good history book.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I do uphold that the strong should support the weak, so that when the
>> situation is reversed, the formerly weak can aid the formerly strong. I
>> also uphold that those who are weak in many respects should get more
>> help than those who are just marginally weak.[/color]
>
> I do to. But it's up to the individual to decide how best to allocate
> their resources toward goals they value (such as a better society).[/color]

No. Since the strong got their resource only by the grace of society,
and seldom discharge their responsibilities voluntarily. What you
preach is basically social Darwinism and we don't want that in alawful
society.

Regards -- Markus

"MarkHaniford@gmail.com" <MarkHaniford@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Yeah, Than and I are conspiring together. Why am I not surprised that
> you would think that. Cult members usually think that everybody is
> out to get them.[/color]

thant has at least made the effort to support his arguments with reasoning.
your own arguments have consisted primarily of name calling. you might
take a moment to ponder why nobody takes you seriously.

----
Garry Hodgson, Senior Software Geek, AT&T CSO

do for others with no desire of return.
we should all plant some trees
we will never sit under.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:07:07 +0100, Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>And if you do live in the good old US of A, and enjoy all the
>democratic right there (what is left of them, that is) you might
>notice, that (if I follow your reasoning) it has been founded by all
>thos nut cases that didn't see the things as other people did and
>therefore migrated from Europe (or Asia).[/color]

What "democratic right" is that? Last time I checked, the USA was a
republic. Perhaps you meant "republican rights".

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes:[color=blue]
> What "democratic right" is that? Last time I checked, the USA was a
> republic. Perhaps you meant "republican rights".[/color]

Indeed:

Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that the Administration had
tried unsuccessfully to convince the courts that only Republicans
could be members of the federal government on the basis of Article
IV, section 4, the so-called Republican Government Clause, which
states that "The United States shall guarantee to every state in
this union, a republican form of government." "As I've said to the
courts over and over," Ashcroft explained, " what part of the word
"republican" don't you understand?"

([url]http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/03/bush-endorses-new-constitutional.html[/url])