ML vs. Lisp - Programming Languages

Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> writes:[color=blue][color=green]
>> the fantastic wealth benefits that go along with them.
>> The problem is, within society, there are individuals and groups of
>> individuals who take parasitical advantage of people's tribal
>> instincts toward solidarity and altruism within the tribe, especially
>> when they perceive a threat (real or not) from other tribes.[/color]
>
> This happens even within a tribe where everybody knows everybody else.
> I see a lot of reasons why a large society cannot be organized like a
> tribe, but this is not one of them.[/color]

Actually the "tribe model" of human sociology is a bit
oversimplified. It neglects the complexity of social interaction
between tribes even in "stone age" societies. Indeed I think most of
the ideas about "tribes" floating around come mostly from (a) bad
films (b) bad books and (c) colonialist propaganda. In reality tribes
are rather more complex than hordes of monkey.

Regards -- Markus

Markus E Leypold schrieb:[color=blue]
>
> Well, as I'm a postmodernist, this IS an interesting comparison: What
> is truth? In a world were everything is interpretation and "in reality"
> nothing exists as we percieve it (see Quantum mechanics).[/color]

Truth is a difficult concept, but don't use QM as a witness for that.
QM is entirely irrelevant for social and ethical discussions; the vast
majority of philosophical texts that I have read are based on a very
marginal understanding of what QM really is.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> E.g. I wonder
>>> wether you can say, people in the middle ages or earlier had "the
>>> right to live" since that seems universally not have been absolute:
>>> The death penalty for minor trifles was rather wide spread.[/color][/color][/color]

Sorry to pick up on that late, but that's simply not true. Death
sentences were actually quite rare (though certainly more common than in
today's U.S.).

More common punishments were a fine (though in goods instead of money,
money wasn't as widespread as today); public humiliation (very
important, in widespread use, quite effective since personal standing
gave you access to help from others or excluded you from it); corporal
punishment from beating to mutilation. Actually mutilation had two
aspects: punishment and marking the person (loss of personal standing).

Regards,
Jo

"Ingo Menger" <quetzalcotl@consultant.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Mar 9, 1:45 pm, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> "Ingo Menger" <quetzalc...@consultant.com> writes:[color=darkred]
>> > On Mar 8, 4:24 pm, Markus E Leypold
>> > <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> > If you mean "power to allocate", well, then allocation is, by
>> >> > definition, an act of exercizing property rights.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> No. Allocation is the act of exercizing right to
>> >> use.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This exactly *is* the essence of property right. Use it at your will.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> I notice that the "propertists" in this discussion seem to deny that
>> >> something like a software license even exists or can be put to any use
>> >> ...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Yes, this is so as far as it concerns me.
>> > Basically, the original CD (or whatever medium) is not destroyed by
>> > copying it. No harm is done to the owner of the CD as his property is
>> > physically unaltered.
>> > Contracts about software use are a different matter. It is not
>> > justified to copy something, when I have agreed not to do so as a
>> > condition of receiving the SW in the first place.[/color]
>>
>> So there are allocation+regulation mechanisms different from the
>> property concept?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Different, sure.[/color]

OK, fine. So you admit that there can be different mechs and that
assertion was all that this thread was about.
[color=blue]
> But based on it.[/color]

No. A right is different from ownership. It's the more general
concept. Property is a concept that grants you a whol bundle of rights
over something exclusively. It's the other way around: Property is
based on right.
[color=blue]
> Basically, you can offer a contract only about your things.[/color]

So in your view there are no other contracts but contracts about
(your/my) property?

Regards -- Markus

"Ingo Menger" <quetzalcotl@consultant.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Mar 9, 1:44 pm, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> "Ingo Menger" <quetzalc...@consultant.com> writes:[color=darkred]
>> > On Mar 8, 4:24 pm, Markus E Leypold
>> > <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> > If you mean "power to allocate", well, then allocation is, by
>> >> > definition, an act of exercizing property rights.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> No. Allocation is the act of exercizing right to
>> >> use.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This exactly *is* the essence of property right. Use it at your will.[/color]
>>
>> Sorry to contradict: Property grants you all sorts of right.[/color]
>
> As I said: use it at your will (as long as not interfering with
> somebody else's rights).
>[color=green]
>> A right
>> to use something in _one_ specific way doesn't make it your
>> property.[/color]
>
> Absolutely.
>[color=green]
>> Property is far more than allocating a right to do something
>> with a thing. It's allocating all rights.[/color]
>
> You confuse the right to use it and the right to allocate the right to[/color]

I never talked about the right to allocate rights (which is a bit
strange anyway). We were talking about resource allocation rights in
societies.
[color=blue]
> use it - the latter is the property right. (Most often one allocates
> the right to use one's own property to oneself exclusively, however.
> Another possibility is to sell the item, i.e. tranfer the property
> right to someone else in exchange for some other rights.)[/color]

According to you all "rights to use" flow from property rights. This
obciously is wrong as history has already shown often enought (e.g. the
commons).


Regards -- Markus

Markus E Leypold wrote:[color=blue]
> My question was directed to Chris Smith, who hasn't replied
> (yet?).[/color]

I appear to have missed your question, then. I don't know who Dan Lyons
is.

--
Chris Smith

Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> writes:
[color=blue]
> Markus E Leypold schrieb:[color=green]
>> Well, as I'm a postmodernist, this IS an interesting comparison: What
>> is truth? In a world were everything is interpretation and "in reality"
>> nothing exists as we percieve it (see Quantum mechanics).[/color]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Truth is a difficult concept, but don't use QM as a witness for that.[/color]

Truth is a concept based on the notion that there is some sort of
"material reality" out there. Whereas I'm not solipsist (perecieved
reality is a more complicated thing than just a decision between
"naive reality" and "pure hallucination"), I find that QM (I'm a
physicist, and I DO think I know quite a lot about the philsophical
implications of QM, and that is, about the parts the "naive natural
philosophers" get wrong regularly :-) -- that QM is quite a good
illustration how tenous the human concept of reality really is.

(There is also a quote by Demokrit which I can't find now -- it's
somewhere in my library, but would take some time to find -- which
tells the reader that, instead of all the things we see (sun, earth,
water) there is "nothing but atoms and the void". I always find that
somehow unsettling to imagine someone in a rather early, only mildly
technical, society to sit under this greek sun and look at a very
convincing reality (not at all air conditioned, if you know what I
mean) and then tell his listeners that this is all little undividable
dots and void in between).
[color=blue]
> QM is entirely irrelevant for social and ethical discussions; the vast[/color]

It is, though relevant if we discuss concepts of "truth", since modern
(i.e 19th / early 20th century) models of truth are locked to the idea
of a material reality, which unfortunately does not exist in a sense
we can understand.

If we drop truth from the discussion, but instead social interactions
as the result and controlled by implicit contracts and agreements
(instead if being oriented towards "right", "wrong" and finally "true"
in an absolute sense), then I completely agree: We can leave truth out
of this discussion :-).
[color=blue]
> majority of philosophical texts that I have read are based on a very
> marginal understanding of what QM really is.[/color]

It still throws a very bright light on some central topics of
philosophy. After all, philosophy is about "reality", often about
"truth": Both concepts are IMHO touched by QM. My critic with
contemporary (natural) philosophy is, that it often ignores those
implications and where it doesn't wants to recreate QM as a
deterministic / classic theory.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> E.g. I wonder
>>>> wether you can say, people in the middle ages or earlier had "the
>>>> right to live" since that seems universally not have been absolute:
>>>> The death penalty for minor trifles was rather wide spread.[/color][/color]
>
> Sorry to pick up on that late, but that's simply not true. Death
> sentences were actually quite rare (though certainly more common than
> in today's U.S.).[/color]

OK, ok. My bad :-). You'll find another example, but still the main
point stands: Whats the meaning of "the right to live" to the witch
who is being burned at the stake? To the citizens in the 30 year war
that are killed and plundered by armies out of control?

[color=blue]
> More common punishments were a fine (though in goods instead of
> money, money wasn't as widespread as today); public humiliation
> (very important, in widespread use, quite effective since personal
> standing gave you access to help from others or excluded you from
> it);[/color]

Make the same argument regarding bodily harm or dignity (a human right
these days).
[color=blue]
> corporal
> punishment from beating to mutilation. Actually mutilation had two
> aspects: punishment and marking the person (loss of personal standing).[/color]

Regards -- Markus

On Mar 9, 2:53 pm, Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> "Ingo Menger" <quetzalc...@consultant.com> writes:[color=green]
> > You confuse the right to use it and the right to allocate the right to[/color]
>
> I never talked about the right to allocate rights (which is a bit
> strange anyway).[/color]

Not at all. You rent a car, for instance and you get a (limited) right
to drive that car. The car owner, OTOH, or his agent, allocates this
"right to use" to you.
[color=blue]
> We were talking about resource allocation rights in
> societies.[/color]

Where else?
[color=blue]
> According to you all "rights to use" flow from property rights.[/color]

Nowadays, yes, where the vast mojority of goods or things that can be
made into goods is not unowned.
OTOH, free goods still exist. The definition of a free good implies
that the good cannot be used up under prevailing conditions. This
implies, that there is no conflict about the use of that good. So
everybody may use it.
And, of course there is also Locke's initial acquisition of property.
And so, your allegation does not hold. On the contrary.
[color=blue]
> This
> obciously is wrong as history has already shown often enought (e.g. the
> commons).[/color]

Straw man burned.

"Ingo Menger" <quetzalcotl@consultant.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Mar 9, 2:53 pm, Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> "Ingo Menger" <quetzalc...@consultant.com> writes:[color=darkred]
>> > You confuse the right to use it and the right to allocate the right to[/color]
>>
>> I never talked about the right to allocate rights (which is a bit
>> strange anyway).[/color]
>
> Not at all. You rent a car, for instance and you get a (limited) right
> to drive that car. The car owner, OTOH, or his agent, allocates this
> "right to use" to you.[/color]

He has the right to transer some right to me. I get that right and by
that token allocate a resource. But what is the right to allocate
right? If I had the right to force him to tranfer some rights to me?

Strange ...

Regards -- Markus

On Mar 9, 4:48 pm, Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVET...@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> writes:[color=green]
> > Markus E Leypold schrieb:[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> It is, though relevant if we discuss concepts of "truth",[/color]

But we don't. I used it as an example.

BTW, self-contradiction seems to be your hobby.
You write a long article about "modern concepts of truth" and how
vague truth is and what not, but you don't seem to notice that you
constantly use sentences like:

A is B.
forall Y:P
X does not exist.
P is about R.

And so on.
But, I understand, in a world without true and false, there is also no
self contradiction. Or is it? Obviously, this statment can only be
made form another world ...