From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Aug 31 08:50:10 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA32207; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:49:17 -0700 Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:49:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3B8FB28D.91052D20@bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:51:41 -0400 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: US Ground Troups Going to Jordan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5rlCk3.0.5t7.z7xZx"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1504 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: U.S. Iraq attack to involve ground troops White House plans multi-pronged offensive against Hussein © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com An imminent U.S. attack against Iraq will not be limited to air strikes and missile barrages but involve ground forces, according to sources quoted by the DEBKA-Net-Weekly intelligence service. U.S. Marines who trained in desert warfare last month were flown to the region this week, according to the report. The Marines were trained in air landings of men, armor and artillery and in combined ground and air operations. They were told in no uncertain terms they could be called upon to move against Iraqi army forces in eastern Jordan and western Iraq. Signs in Riyadh, Kuwait, Jerusalem and Cairo point to an imminent U.S. operation. U.S. and Israeli spy satellites and planes flying over central and western Iraq last week found Scud B-1 and Scud-C missile launchers deployed at two Iraqi air bases, H-3 in the west and al-Baghdadi in the center of the country, the intelligence service reports. According to the photos, Iraq has also moved to these bases - where Iraqi armored brigades have been deployed since July - batteries of upgraded SA-6 anti-aircraft missiles of the type used to shoot down a U.S. drone this week. These improved surface-to-air missiles can hit targets flying above 23,000 feet. U.S. and Israeli reconnaissance data also revealed an increase over the past 10 days in the number of Iraqi military personnel stationed near Syrian armored headquarters in northern Syria since the end of July. Nonetheless, Washington has yet to make a final decision, and the operation could be postponed for several days, Debka reports. In the past 24 hours, Israel has passed to the United States fresh intelligence information regarding the visit to Damascus last week by Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan. Ramadan, who turned up suddenly for urgent talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Syrian military chiefs, conveyed a personal appeal from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to order a Hezbollah attack on Israel the moment the U.S. strikes at Iraq. Assad agreed to Saddam's request. Saddam counts on Israel being pinned down by the Hezbollah and, therefore, too busy to join the fray against Iraq. Ramadan told his Syrian hosts that Iraq, if attacked by America, would not hesitate to launch missile strikes against Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, as well as U.S. military targets in the Middle East, Red Sea and Persian Gulf. The Israelis also handed on intelligence information that the talks Palestinian foreign affairs executive Nabil Shaath held in Damascus this week centered on Syrian-Palestinian-Hezbollah collaboration in anticipation of a U.S. offensive against Iraq. Arafat's visit to the Syrian capital did not come up at all, despite reports to the contrary. Nabil Shaath, a businessman who never touches military issues, was deliberately picked by Arafat to go to Damascus to disguise his real mission. On another front, military sources report that the Egyptian Second Army exercise beginning at the Suez Canal port of Ismailia Tuesday also changed its character in the light of a possible U.S. strike against Iraq. Originally planned as a joint maneuver for the Second and Third armies, to take place in the first week of September on the west bank of the Suez canal, its first objective was to subject Israel to Egyptian political and military heat in its war with the Palestinians. Those plans changed as a consequence of last week's visit to Cairo by Gen. Tommy Franks, chief of the U.S. Central Command, to furnish the Egyptian government with information on the up and coming U.S. military operation against Iraq. So it was the Second Army, whose electronic warfare systems are more sophisticated than the Third Army's, which began maneuvers this week in the Ismailia area, along with the Egyptian air force. Those systems and intense Egyptian air activity were useful for masking U.S. air and sea transport of the aircraft and equipment required for the anti-Iraq operation. U.S. military flights passed through Egyptian air bases and U.S. air bases in the Sinai, particularly Sharm el-Sheikh. In addition to the Second Army's role in these diversionary tactics, the Third Army was put on the alert for unusual military activity in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. The highly mobile and capable Third Army has three parachute battalions and the means - some of them American - to drop them over various points in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, at no more than three to four hours' notice. Pointers to a U.S. military operation were also heard, according to military sources, in Jerusalem and in the telephone conversations U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in the second half of the week. Powell asked them, on behalf of President Bush, to be considerate of U.S. military activity against Iraq and display the utmost restraint in the face of Palestinian terrorist activities. That is why Sharon informed Powell of Israel's consent to withdraw its troops from Palestinian Beit Jala, notwithstanding continued Palestinian gunfire from the village against Jerusalem. Military sources say, in the light of evidence on the ground, that the next U.S. anti-Baghdad operation will differ from previous U.S. strikes. Previously, bombs, missiles and cruise missiles were deployed against Iraqi strategic targets. This time, along with planes and missiles, the brunt of the operation will be carried by U.S. Special Forces landing in eastern Jordan, western Iraq and maybe even northern Syria. They will first wipe out the Iraqi military forces stationed in Jordan and Syria, then advance and destroy the Iraqi armored forces, missiles and planes deployed in the H-3 and al-Baghdadi air bases. After that, U.S. Special Forces troops will go on to attack military targets in central Iraq and possibly, Iraqi bases around Baghdad, too. From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 4 07:28:27 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA06482; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:25:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:25:02 -0800 Message-ID: <3C0CEA79.E3283499@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:23:37 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VortexB , Nurhan Subject: Self defending right Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cgxAc2.0.Db1.DhE3y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1505 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi All, Bush said Israel has right to defend itself. Yes, everybody has right to defend themselves. If one intruder invade your house, your property and attack you, kill your family members, you have right to defend yourself and your property. Palestinian land West Bank is invaded and under occupation for 20 years or more. Invaders have NO RIGHT to qualify the people they occupy their land as terrorist. Terrorism is a concept valid in peace time. Innocence is also questionable in war time. In WW2, cities are bombed, even mass destruction weapons are used. That was wrong, unjustifiable unless there is no other choice. War itself is indeed unjustifiable unless there is no other choice. War is not a thing to proud of to do and to declare. Innocent people are killed in wars by armies. One can not say these armies are terrorists automatically. The reason is important and also the method and target. Otherwise releasing bombs over japan cities could be nothing than terrorism. Everybody should think precisely before labeling some party as terrorist. It should be also taken account that money is also considered as weapon, and it is indeed. So one dont need to kill people with bullets and bombs, but with economic practices. Use or control money to kill or damage opponents should be understand as act of war. If there is no declared war and the practice is directly effective on people this should be considered as terrorism, I think. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 7 19:18:51 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id TAA14378; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:14:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:14:43 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C0CEA79.E3283499@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:13:32 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Self defending right Resent-Message-ID: <"DmtWi2.0.bW3.YMO4y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1506 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ***{Now this post is a surprise! I was bounced off of the regular vortex group many months ago, and have received nothing since. And now I get this post from Hamdi. Very odd! Could it be that this is the first post to vortexb-l in all that period of time, and that for some reason I have only been blocked from vortex-l and not from vortexb-l? To test that theory, I'm going to reply to Hamdi, and see what happens. :-) -MJ}*** >Hi All, > >Bush said Israel has right to defend itself. ***{Yup: and he also said that "the Great Satan" has the right to defend itself. :-) -MJ}*** >Yes, everybody has right to defend themselves. If one intruder invade your >house, your property and attack you, kill your family members, you have >right to defend yourself and your property. Palestinian land West Bank is >invaded and under occupation for 20 years or more. Invaders have NO RIGHT >to qualify the people they occupy their land as terrorist. ***{The Israelis are *not* invaders. Here are the facts: (1) Palestine was a desert with a virtually zero population density until the advent of the Zionist movement, which began in the mid 19th century with the publication of a number of books advocating Jewish settlements, and actual Jewish emigrants began arriving in the 1880's to what they described as an "unpopulated wasteland." (2) As successive waves of Jewish emigrants arrived, struggled, and finally succeeded in growing crops, forming settlements, and creating a marketplace where before there had been none, impoverished Moslems began to immigrate into the region, seeking jobs and, in some cases establishing farms and businesses of their own. Bottom line: the Jews tamed the desert which the Moslems called "Palestine" and made it a worthwhile place to live, after which the waves of Moslem settlement began; hence if one group or the other is to be termed "invaders," it would have to be the Moslems, not the Jews. -Mitchell Jones}*** >Terrorism is a concept valid in peace time. Innocence is also questionable >in war time. In WW2, cities are bombed, even mass destruction weapons are >used. That was wrong, unjustifiable unless there is no other choice. War >itself is indeed unjustifiable unless there is no other choice. War is not >a thing to proud of to do and to declare. Innocent people are killed in >wars by armies. One can not say these armies are terrorists automatically. >The reason is important and also the method and target. Otherwise >releasing bombs over japan cities could be nothing than terrorism. >Everybody should think precisely before labeling some party as terrorist. ***{Terrorists declared war on the Great Satan, and now the Great Satan is kicking terrorist butt. Likewise, terrorists have declared war on Israel, and the day is fast approaching when the little Israeli pit bull will be chewing terrorist butt as well. All that will be required for that to happen is either (a) the Great Satan removes his leash, or (b) the little Israeli pit bull becomes so agitated that it breaks the leash. Either outcome, in my view, will be well and good. -MJ}*** >It should be also taken account that money is also considered as weapon, >and it is indeed. So one dont need to kill people with bullets and bombs, >but with economic practices. Use or control money to kill or damage >opponents should be understand as act of war. If there is no declared war >and the practice is directly effective on people this should be considered >as terrorism, I think. ***{Reasonable acts of retaliation are exempt from moral condemnation, even if they result in collateral damage. The reason: the initiation of force brings about a conflict of interest between the victims and those non-victims who are likely to receive the collateral damage, and, when a conflict of interest is created, it is every man for himself, with the moral responsibility resting squarely on the shoulders of the agent-the terrorists, in this case-which brought the conflict of interest into existence. -MJ}*** >Regards, > >hamdi ucar ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 8 06:44:06 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA21150; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 06:43:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 06:43:13 -0800 Message-ID: <3C125FF4.307C@bellsouth.net> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:46:12 -0800 From: Terry Blanton Organization: . X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-BLS20 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Self defending right References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"v6awj2.0.PA5.1SY4y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1507 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > ***{Now this post is a surprise! I was bounced off of the regular vortex > group many months ago, and have received nothing since. And now I get this > post from Hamdi. Very odd! Could it be that this is the first post to > vortexb-l in all that period of time, and that for some reason I have only > been blocked from vortex-l and not from vortexb-l? To test that theory, I'm > going to reply to Hamdi, and see what happens. :-) -MJ}*** I doubt seriously that you were blocked. I get bounced from vortex-l about once a year and simply resubscribe. Regards, Terry From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 8 07:46:48 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA12741; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 07:45:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 07:45:56 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Self defending right Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 22:49:49 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3C125FF4.307C@bellsouth.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"Q4n5j1.0.t63.pMZ4y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1508 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Me too. This list has been dormant for a while. Anyone else still out there ? I still have a few questions if anyone cares to answer... > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Blanton [mailto:commengr@bellsouth.net] > Sent: 2001 December 09 Sunday 01:46 > To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Self defending right > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > ***{Now this post is a surprise! I was bounced off of the regular vortex > > group many months ago, and have received nothing since. And now I get this > > post from Hamdi. Very odd! Could it be that this is the first post to > > vortexb-l in all that period of time, and that for some reason I have only > > been blocked from vortex-l and not from vortexb-l? To test that theory, I'm > > going to reply to Hamdi, and see what happens. :-) -MJ}*** > > I doubt seriously that you were blocked. I get bounced from vortex-l > about once a year and simply resubscribe. > > Regards, > > Terry > > From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 8 08:50:35 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id IAA03479; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:49:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:49:38 -0800 Message-ID: <3C124458.477EF80@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 18:48:24 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Self defending right References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MiZzc2.0.Is.YIa4y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1509 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell, Thank you for enlighten me. I dont know what is "the great Satan" specifically. Could you more explicit? Mitchell Jones wrote: > > ***{Now this post is a surprise! I was bounced off of the regular vortex > group many months ago, and have received nothing since. And now I get this > post from Hamdi. Very odd! Could it be that this is the first post to > vortexb-l in all that period of time, and that for some reason I have only > been blocked from vortex-l and not from vortexb-l? To test that theory, I'm > going to reply to Hamdi, and see what happens. :-) -MJ}*** > > >Hi All, > > > >Bush said Israel has right to defend itself. > > ***{Yup: and he also said that "the Great Satan" has the right to defend > itself. :-) -MJ}*** > From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 8 14:26:33 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id OAA25794; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:25:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:25:20 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C124458.477EF80@verisoft.com.tr> References: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 16:13:51 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Self defending right Resent-Message-ID: <"_V_qj.0.tI6.FDf4y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1510 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Mitchell, > >Thank you for enlighten me. > >I dont know what is "the great Satan" specifically. Could you more explicit? ***{Islamic fundamentalists frequently refer to the United States as "the Great Satan," so I decided to try to be amusing by adopting their terminology. Sorry for the confusion. --MJ}*** >Mitchell Jones wrote: >> >> ***{Now this post is a surprise! I was bounced off of the regular vortex >> group many months ago, and have received nothing since. And now I get this >> post from Hamdi. Very odd! Could it be that this is the first post to >> vortexb-l in all that period of time, and that for some reason I have only >> been blocked from vortex-l and not from vortexb-l? To test that theory, I'm >> going to reply to Hamdi, and see what happens. :-) -MJ}*** >> >> >Hi All, >> > >> >Bush said Israel has right to defend itself. >> >> ***{Yup: and he also said that "the Great Satan" has the right to defend >> itself. :-) -MJ}*** ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 17 12:55:12 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id MAA17940; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:53:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:53:23 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011217155303.00abf9a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:53:14 -0500 To: vortexB-L@eskimo.com From: Jed Rothwell Subject: The Osama Sweepstakes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"BD32g3.0.EN4._ib7y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1511 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: See: http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2059711 From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 22 18:10:51 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA16456; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:08:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:08:03 -0800 Message-ID: <3C253A51.B9812C63@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 03:58:41 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VortexB Subject: Foundation Of Justice Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EP3gH3.0.-04.3oJ9y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1512 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In wild life there is no justice in human sense I observed so far. But still there are justifications. Wild life is based on economy, evolution require predators and preys, consumption of one life save another, so relation between predators and preys is justifiable, as long as the evolution goes on. Maybe the main difference between wild life and civilized life is the justice. Justice is not just for keep order in communities, and "order" should not be foundation of justice. Order can be kept without justice, by power and by other mechanisms as kept on nature and in wild life. So, what should be the foundation of justice? From my point point of view, life, protecting life, freedom and fundemental rights should be foundations of justice. Justice should cover rights of every living beings have some consciousness, less or more. But I observe, there are quite different considerations. In ancient times, mostly traditions are the foundation of justice. The top authority, has right to provide the justice. Islam says God is the foundation of justice. Belief system determine the rights and rules. Actually this not exactly correct. The holy book says humans (believers) SHOULD constitute their own rules cleverly under the guidelines its philosophy and ethics. Anyway, justice is belong to God. Maybe some other religions say similar things. Actually this is quite natural. Human mind require a reference for its existence, to determine is its place in the middle of other creatures. Justice is not easy to constitute while everything is relative. Maybe I am wrong to think the justice should be an absolute concept, also the freedom and ethics. It is would be too bad if there would be no way or a reason to constitute them universally. In communism, equality is foundation of justice. Justice is established as long as individuals kept under equal conditions, and equalized. In U.S., the benefit is considered as foundation of justice, now. Rights are arranged for the benefit of the system, for the profit. Money is the protector of rights. Everything is measured by money even life. If something have no money-like value, it is totally worthless. I think this NOT the consequence of the liberalist system, conceptually. I dont know much about liberalist system, but I think there is nothing wrong to offer challenges to people to improve themselves and be rewarded. If one work for benefit of the system, it can benefit from this work. But justice should be kept separated from the challange/reward system I think. The system should NOT restrict rights or criminalize an individual appearing what he/she does not in benefit of the system. What strikes me is mind of individuals appears to accept this logic (embedding benefit in justice). I observe that people favor benefit versus rights and freedom, to favor freedom and rights be assigned to power and to money but not to them naturally. This maybe because America is NOT rose historically on respecting rights and freedom, but on abuse of rights, slavery, extermination of natives and exploitation, and this is practiced up to recent times. (I am not suing any nations for past practices, history of human kind is full of shame for every nations and communities, hardly to find exceptions.) Justice should be free of benefit notion. First, benefit is subjective by its nature. One thing is in benefit of one may not be in benefit of other. Second, it is not straight forward to determine a thing is in benefit or not. It is proved may times, things appeared in benefit, were actually not and vice verse. The main reason I interested on justice in U.S. specifically is U.S. considers their laws applicable universally and practice it. Maybe most interesting subject is the state of science in the scope of benefit and freedom. If discovering truth of nature is evaluated in benefit criteria, science could not be advanced, because it is more benefitable for systems in general to "adapt" truths to themselves rather than adapt themselves to truths. So truths would be categorized as benefitable and non benefitable. This lead to conditional science. This is very unfortunate and I believe it is experienced for a long time. This is the reason of major discoveries in physics are being ignored or suppressed. Maybe the main reason of success of quantum theory to dominate the 20. century is defining truth as a statistical concept so it convince us that we never need to know the truth. :) hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 23 20:47:41 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA11769; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:45:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:45:31 -0800 Message-ID: <3C26B139.C5630377@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 06:38:17 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VortexB Subject: Mike Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1C0d_1.0.pt2.hBh9y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1513 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike, Mails that I sent to your mailbox was bounced. Please give me an alternate way. hamdix From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 23 21:22:49 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA20888; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:20:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:20:02 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C253A51.B9812C63@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 23:17:18 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Resent-Message-ID: <"kBs1s.0.E65.2ih9y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1514 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hamdi Ucar wrote: >In wild life there is no justice in human sense I observed so far. But >still there are justifications. > >Wild life is based on economy, evolution require predators and preys, >consumption of one life save another, so relation between predators and >preys is justifiable, as long as the evolution goes on. > >Maybe the main difference between wild life and civilized life is the >justice. Justice is not just for keep order in communities, and "order" >should not be foundation of justice. Order can be kept without justice, by >power and by other mechanisms as kept on nature and in wild life. > >So, what should be the foundation of justice? ***{Hamdi, I think the root of the concept of justice lies in the idea that disputes over property can be settled on the basis of reason, in the same way that disputes about facts can be settled on the basis of reason. In other words, the notion of "reasoned justice" is, in a very real way, redundant. Justice, in other words, requires that disputes over property be turned over to a neutral, reasoning arbiter--someone who has no biases that cause him to support one side or the other, and who is willing to look objectively at the evidence and evaluate it fairly. Such an arbiter will proceed in the same way that a scientist is supposed to proceed. His courtroom will be focused on the search for truth in the same sense that a scientific laboratory is supposed to be. Of course, in order for disputes about property to be settled on the basis of reason, it must be possible to find, in the real world, principles of jurisprudence that permit objective decision making. Without them, subjectivity necessarily reigns. Reasoned justice, for example, cannot be based on any sort of man-made law, because "law" is anything a sovereign or a legislature says it is--which means, more often than not, that it is ridiculous nonsense. Then what principle can form the basis of reasoned justice--i.e., of justice itself? The answer: the principle of prior claims--the notion that, in a dispute over property, the provable prior claim is the best claim. And what is a "provable prior claim"? It is the claim which, based on factual evidence, has the earliest basis. If, for example, you have lived in your home for 20 years, and a stranger invades it and kicks you out, you will be able to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that your claim antedates his. Result: the burden of proof will be upon him to demonstrate, via a title transfer signed by you, by credible eyewitnesses, etc., that the title which was yours for a 20 year period is now his by voluntary transfer. If he can't do it, then it is you, not he, who has the provable prior claim, and the decision of a reasoning arbiter will be in your favor. That, in briefest essence, is how reasoned justice works, and with a sufficient amount of thought the principles underlying that example should become clear to you. --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] >hamdi ucar ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 24 11:17:51 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA13245; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:16:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:16:34 -0800 Message-ID: <3C277D59.1F74F162@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:09:13 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VortexB Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sQf-i2.0.uE3.Iyt9y"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1515 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell, Thank you for your input. As you explained, I am seeking a base for reasoning to determine rights, to determine what is justifiable and not, in a civilized world. Reasoning that you provide is binding any kind of right to "ownership". Ownership in turn, to be valid need some extra assumptions in order to determine rights of living beings. I can extend ownership to "right to use" and "exclusivity". It also require am exchange of ownership mechanism to be used. You give kind of inheritance mechanism for this. But this is not sufficient to distribute ownership. How a man acquire possession of things from his born to its later ages? Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As "rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed be transferred? These require further principles which can not be extracted from concept of ownership. Exclusivity is also a problem as we naturally use shared resources in earth like O2. O2 is product of living beings capable to photosynthesis. Also the water. May the water one needs and rain are produced from others "properties". Who will own rights of the rain? So, further principles are needed to determine rights over shared resources which are not property. Even I restrict the concept of ownership to "property" in the meaning of land, it is not clear how it extend the ownership an exclusivity of the land in downward direction to the center to earth and into the sky. In other imprortant issue is use and consumption of other living beings by us. All these beings have genetic designs in their DNA. These designs are very complex and still can not be made by human capabilities. These designs are required for their existence therefor we profit on them. Who have the ownership of these designs? Not in a religious context., these beings owns and share their genetic designs with others in the mechanism of evolution. All these species had challenged with nature to carry their design to future, that is their existence. These designs are their most valuable possessions. Human existence require existence of other species, from bacteria, grass, tress,crops and animals we consume. We profit from them not because we possess them (even we farm them, we do not possess their genetic designs), but we need them for to live. I think why justice and rights should be based on necessities and "justifiable" criteria rather than ownership. And most strong argument for justification is life. May you recall I had previously referenced this genetic design ownership argument to integrate rights of other species than humans on our legal system. This is an important arguments because we have already laws and logic to protect designs like copyrights and patents. Even some biogenetic research firms have patents of genetic material like mouses that are used on experimenting human diseases on them. So it would not be hard technically include natural designs and gene pools on our copyright protecting system. As mike stated, many communities and nations have very limited notion of ownership. They have not exclusivity over resources and rights and justice is not based on possession. From these facts I can deduce the ownership is not foundation of rights and justice but ownership is a product of rights according a specific agreement over communities. > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > > >In wild life there is no justice in human sense I observed so far. But > > >still there are justifications. > > > > > >Wild life is based on economy, evolution require predators and preys, > > >consumption of one life save another, so relation between predators and > > >preys is justifiable, as long as the evolution goes on. > > > > > >Maybe the main difference between wild life and civilized life is the > > >justice. Justice is not just for keep order in communities, and "order" > > >should not be foundation of justice. Order can be kept without justice, by > > >power and by other mechanisms as kept on nature and in wild life. > > > > > >So, what should be the foundation of justice? > > > > ***{Hamdi, I think the root of the concept of justice lies in the idea that > > disputes over property can be settled on the basis of reason, in the same > > way that disputes about facts can be settled on the basis of reason. In > > other words, the notion of "reasoned justice" is, in a very real way, > > redundant. > > > > Justice, in other words, requires that disputes over property be turned > > over to a neutral, reasoning arbiter--someone who has no biases that cause > > him to support one side or the other, and who is willing to look > > objectively at the evidence and evaluate it fairly. Such an arbiter will > > proceed in the same way that a scientist is supposed to proceed. His > > courtroom will be focused on the search for truth in the same sense that a > > scientific laboratory is supposed to be. > > > > Of course, in order for disputes about property to be settled on the basis > > of reason, it must be possible to find, in the real world, principles of > > jurisprudence that permit objective decision making. Without them, > > subjectivity necessarily reigns. Reasoned justice, for example, cannot be > > based on any sort of man-made law, because "law" is anything a sovereign or > > a legislature says it is--which means, more often than not, that it is > > ridiculous nonsense. > > > > Then what principle can form the basis of reasoned justice--i.e., of > > justice itself? The answer: the principle of prior claims--the notion that, > > in a dispute over property, the provable prior claim is the best claim. > > > > And what is a "provable prior claim"? It is the claim which, based on > > factual evidence, has the earliest basis. > > > > If, for example, you have lived in your home for 20 years, and a stranger > > invades it and kicks you out, you will be able to prove, by a preponderance > > of evidence, that your claim antedates his. Result: the burden of proof > > will be upon him to demonstrate, via a title transfer signed by you, by > > credible eyewitnesses, etc., that the title which was yours for a 20 year > > period is now his by voluntary transfer. If he can't do it, then it is you, > > not he, who has the provable prior claim, and the decision of a reasoning > > arbiter will be in your favor. > > > > That, in briefest essence, is how reasoned justice works, and with a > > sufficient amount of thought the principles underlying that example should > > become clear to you. > > > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 24 22:35:54 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA15552; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:34:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:34:54 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: Foundation Of Justice: Property Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 13:39:01 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C277D59.1F74F162@verisoft.com.tr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"Efy3J.0.xo3.Eu1Ay"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1516 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: VortexB lives on ... amazing! To Hamdi and Mitchell, A thought for your millstones: =========Property--------- Property is an attribute of an economy - however it is acquired, it is a result of effort. The effort of a being to produce or acquire 'property' is an expense of time and/or energy of the being, and, conversely, any product of effort is property, in some form or another. It might be a trade of previously acquired property for a newer, more desireable property. 'Property' is an extension of the being. Any interference against the property is interference against the being who owns the property. ====Justice-------- Justice, historicly is an effort of retribution and punishment, mere self-gratification of ego and spirit. Justice (as practiced) is a moniker for destroying 'criminals', preferably with great circus entertainment value, rather than to restore economy or otherwise reverse 'injustice' to victims. I prefer that Justice be redefined as follows: Justice - the restoration and/or preservation of economic balance among beings/parties. Justice then becomes purely a means for 'righting wrongs', wrongs being in a any way you cre to perceive them as efforts by one party to either diminish or steal property of another party, be that property physical or an attribute. Not equality, as some people make more effort than others, resulting in their greater ownership of property. Perhaps someone else can describe this better. I will address community property separately. happy holidays... > -----Original Message----- > From: hamdi ucar [mailto:hamdix@verisoft.com.tr] > Sent: 2001 December 25 Tuesday 02:09 > To: VortexB > Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice > > > > Mitchell, > > Thank you for your input. As you explained, I am seeking a base for reasoning to determine rights, to determine what > is justifiable and not, in a civilized world. Reasoning that you provide is binding any kind of right to "ownership". > Ownership in turn, to be valid need some extra assumptions in order to determine rights of living beings. I can > extend ownership to "right to use" and "exclusivity". It also require am exchange of ownership mechanism to be used. > You give kind of inheritance mechanism for this. But this is not sufficient to distribute ownership. How a man > acquire possession of things from his born to its later ages? Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As > "rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed > be transferred? These require further principles which can not be extracted from concept of ownership. >*< > As mike stated, many communities and nations have very limited notion of ownership. They have not exclusivity over > resources and rights and justice is not based on possession. From these facts I can deduce the ownership is not > foundation of rights and justice but ownership is a product of rights according a specific agreement over communities. > > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > > > Hamdi Ucar wrote: > > > > > > >In wild life there is no justice in human sense I observed so far. But > > > >still there are justifications. > > > > > > > >Wild life is based on economy, evolution require predators and preys, > > > >consumption of one life save another, so relation between predators and > > > >preys is justifiable, as long as the evolution goes on. > > > > > > > >Maybe the main difference between wild life and civilized life is the > > > >justice. Justice is not just for keep order in communities, and "order" > > > >should not be foundation of justice. Order can be kept without justice, by > > > >power and by other mechanisms as kept on nature and in wild life. > > > > > > > >So, what should be the foundation of justice? > > > > > > ***{Hamdi, I think the root of the concept of justice lies in the idea that > > > disputes over property can be settled on the basis of reason, in the same > > > way that disputes about facts can be settled on the basis of reason. In > > > other words, the notion of "reasoned justice" is, in a very real way, > > > redundant. > > > > > > Justice, in other words, requires that disputes over property be turned > > > over to a neutral, reasoning arbiter--someone who has no biases that cause > > > him to support one side or the other, and who is willing to look > > > objectively at the evidence and evaluate it fairly. Such an arbiter will > > > proceed in the same way that a scientist is supposed to proceed. His > > > courtroom will be focused on the search for truth in the same sense that a > > > scientific laboratory is supposed to be. > > > > > > Of course, in order for disputes about property to be settled on the basis > > > of reason, it must be possible to find, in the real world, principles of > > > jurisprudence that permit objective decision making. Without them, > > > subjectivity necessarily reigns. Reasoned justice, for example, cannot be > > > based on any sort of man-made law, because "law" is anything a sovereign or > > > a legislature says it is--which means, more often than not, that it is > > > ridiculous nonsense. > > > >*< > > > > > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > > hamdi ucar > > From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 24 22:37:59 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id WAA15571; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:34:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:34:56 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: Foundation Of Justice: Community property Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 13:39:03 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3C277D59.1F74F162@verisoft.com.tr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: <"WkumY1.0.Ep3.Fu1Ay"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1517 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings again, Hamdi and Mitchell, Community property, such as 'rain' and air might not be what you think they are. Rain falls on everyone, right ? Air is a 'right', right ? Not really. Consider what happens to the lazy bum who habitually steals and consistently makes a nuisance of himself to others aboard some distant space station. Allergic to work, devout communist that he is, he would, in short order find his 'right' to atmospheric pressure suspended for a term long enough to ensure his activities permanently cease. Ideally, his 'possessions' would then be redistributed to those he had previously short-changed. Does your 'right' to air mean that you have the 'right' to steal the oxygen from it, to pollute it with CO, CO2, etc. and make it difficult for others to breathe ? Rain should fall where it will, and air should follow the wind. Whatever you do to it while in your 'domain' is then a chargeable cost you owe the community, however you wish to measure it. Why should the community be compensated ? Because the resources you use are then no longer available to the rest of the community, be they downwind, downriver, or whatever. The community is a framework that defines the boundaries of property. It is not some 'higher authority' that needs to be worshipped, as communists do, nor does it have pre-emptive say, as most governments prescribe. It is simply the collection of individuals that share a common resource such as an atmosphere, or river drainage. ............... As to DNA and other 'designs' I regard 'design protection' - and anything else regarding intellectual property - as being at least unenforcable and moreso a complete waste of time and community resources. On this side of the planet are good examples of what a waste of time it is. Consider a Galactic Empire with millions of little bespectacled green-skinned accountant-types zooming through zillions of cubic light-years trying to enforce intellectual protection on DNA - what if it's your DNA ? - do you then need to be terminated because some holo-hero on the other side of the galaxy designed a DNA- baby for his wife and got court-protection that it would never be duplicated - years before you were born? Absurdities are born at relativistic velocities... If you design it -!- build, or sell it, or form partnership with someone who can. Don't waste taxpayer dollars trying to enforce the unenforceable. =====afterthought------ The 'Greenies' are fond of reciting that the Earth surface is 75% water covered - a prime component of our environmental balancesheet. I would rather point out that the Universe we know about is primarily a radiation-poisoned near-vacuum, and that any environmental balancesheet begins there, not from a basis of abundant air and water. ----followon: Our inheritance is primarily that our ancestors had the good sense to settle on this planet, ensuring we had abundant air, water, etc. We should regard this as an inheritance, and not squander it. cheers Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: hamdi ucar [mailto:hamdix@verisoft.com.tr] > Sent: 2001 December 25 Tuesday 02:09 > To: VortexB > Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice > > > > Mitchell, > . . . > > Exclusivity is also a problem as we naturally use shared resources in earth like O2. O2 is product of living beings > capable to photosynthesis. Also the water. May the water one needs and rain are produced from others "properties". > Who will own rights of the rain? > > So, further principles are needed to determine rights over shared resources which are not property. Even I restrict > the concept of ownership to "property" in the meaning of land, it is not clear how it extend the ownership an > exclusivity of the land in downward direction to the center to earth and into the sky. > > In other imprortant issue is use and consumption of other living beings by us. All these beings have genetic designs > in their DNA. These designs are very complex and still can not be made by human capabilities. These designs are > required for their existence therefor we profit on them. Who have the ownership of these designs? Not in a religious > context., these beings owns and share their genetic designs with others in the mechanism of evolution. All these > species had challenged with nature to carry their design to future, that is their existence. These designs are their > most valuable possessions. Human existence require existence of other species, from bacteria, grass, tress,crops and > animals we consume. We profit from them not because we possess them (even we farm them, we do not possess their > genetic designs), but we need them for to live. I think why justice and rights should be based on necessities and > "justifiable" criteria rather than ownership. And most strong argument f! > or justification is life. > > May you recall I had previously referenced this genetic design ownership argument to integrate rights of other > species than humans on our legal system. This is an important arguments because we have already laws and logic to > protect designs like copyrights and patents. Even some biogenetic research firms have patents of genetic material > like mouses that are used on experimenting human diseases on them. So it would not be hard technically include > natural designs and gene pools on our copyright protecting system. > > As mike stated, many communities and nations have very limited notion of ownership. They have not exclusivity over > resources and rights and justice is not based on possession. From these facts I can deduce the ownership is not > foundation of rights and justice but ownership is a product of rights according a specific agreement over communities. > > > > Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > >*< > > > > > > ***{Hamdi, I think the root of the concept of justice lies in the idea that > > > disputes over property can be settled on the basis of reason, in the same > > > way that disputes about facts can be settled on the basis of reason. In > > > other words, the notion of "reasoned justice" is, in a very real way, > > > redundant. > > > > > > Justice, in other words, requires that disputes over property be turned > > > over to a neutral, reasoning arbiter--someone who has no biases that cause > > > him to support one side or the other, and who is willing to look > > > objectively at the evidence and evaluate it fairly. Such an arbiter will > > > proceed in the same way that a scientist is supposed to proceed. His > > > courtroom will be focused on the search for truth in the same sense that a > > > scientific laboratory is supposed to be. > > > > > > Of course, in order for disputes about property to be settled on the basis > > > of reason, it must be possible to find, in the real world, principles of > > > jurisprudence that permit objective decision making. Without them, > > > subjectivity necessarily reigns. Reasoned justice, for example, cannot be > > > based on any sort of man-made law, because "law" is anything a sovereign or > > > a legislature says it is--which means, more often than not, that it is > > > ridiculous nonsense. > > > Amen to that -> > > > > > > --Mitchell Jones}*** > > > > > hamdi ucar > > From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 25 05:48:53 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA09732; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:48:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 05:48:08 -0800 Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3C2882CE.2041BA76@centurytel.net> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 13:44:46 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice: Property References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xp" Resent-Message-ID: <"iwF103.0.wN2.OE8Ay"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1518 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: xplorer wrote: Justice, historicly is an effort of retribution ... Hi All, In this day of anti-terrorist measures, it is worthwhile to keep some things in mind. The essence of the wisdom of the Age of Pericles is clearing presented by Thucydides in the speech of the Athenian ambassador to the Melians: "Our opinion of the gods and our knowledge of men lead us to conclude that it is a necessary and general law of nature that men must rule wherever they can ... The strong will do what they have the power to do, and the weak will accept what they have to." In antithesis to this theory of empire, the foundation of American justice is our commitment to resist arbitrary and oppressive government at any cost. When we forget this, the corrupt fascists among us and the fanatic mullahs of whatever dogma will have won. The flip side of the current situation is well presented in "The Handmaid's Tale." Jack Smith From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 27 15:22:27 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA08310; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:21:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:21:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3C2BAAE8.72898E1F@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:12:40 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9Oj6b3.0.n12.vpwAy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1519 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, There is just a case on this issue.(from my point of view) See http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49313,00.html "Why Worm Writers Stay Free". The article clearly qualify authors of virus and worm programs as criminal. Indeed government often arrest and charge them if they can identify them. So, you may probably think they are criminal also. Please note that many hackers write these program but they NOT distribute (send to victims by emails or inject into servers), instead they publish their source code in Vx zines. Government and public opinion makes AUTHOR of specific programs criminal. But what is the argument? This exactly like publishing a document about fire starting, publishing a hazardous chemical formula, etc. Argument that put them in criminal status is I think the benefit argument. All these documents are not in first hand for benefit of community or for the system. I think this argument is wrong. I tried to explain why justice can not founded on benefit or usefulness. For the same reason, cryptographic communication is banned in certain countries. Because personal cryptographic communication have no economic benefit. So freedoms can be discarded if no economical benefit. Is my mind is flawed or minds of the millions of people all around the world? :) Regards, hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 27 21:13:40 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id VAA19548; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:12:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:12:04 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Foundation Of Justice Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:16:08 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3C2BAAE8.72898E1F@verisoft.com.tr> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <"9wWZM1.0.Ln4.ay_Ay"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1520 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hackers are hackers Criminals are Criminals Not necessarily the same. Hacking is an activity. Crime is an activity that, by definition, involves violation of some law, be it correct or otherwise. Hacking doesn't necessarily mean violating a law. Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator (public perception) has not got the intelligence to perceive the difference. Hence the nutty legal system arising in 'true democracies'. [If you really love democracy, go live with apes and let them vote, too.] I would rather leave than try to change the system here. So I shall. bye for now. > -----Original Message----- > From: hamdi ucar [mailto:hamdix@verisoft.com.tr] > Sent: 2001 December 28 Friday 06:13 > To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice > > > Hi, > > There is just a case on this issue.(from my point of view) See http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49313,00.html > "Why Worm Writers Stay Free". The article clearly qualify authors of virus and worm programs as criminal. Indeed > government often arrest and charge them if they can identify them. > > So, you may probably think they are criminal also. Please note that many hackers write these program but they NOT > distribute (send to victims by emails or inject into servers), instead they publish their source code in Vx zines. > Government and public opinion makes AUTHOR of specific programs criminal. But what is the argument? This exactly like > publishing a document about fire starting, publishing a hazardous chemical formula, etc. > > Argument that put them in criminal status is I think the benefit argument. All these documents are not in first hand > for benefit of community or for the system. I think this argument is wrong. I tried to explain why justice can not > founded on benefit or usefulness. > > For the same reason, cryptographic communication is banned in certain countries. Because personal cryptographic > communication have no economic benefit. So freedoms can be discarded if no economical benefit. > > Is my mind is flawed or minds of the millions of people all around the world? :) > > Regards, > > hamdi ucar > > From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 28 01:48:51 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id BAA31080; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:45:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:45:09 -0800 Message-ID: <3C2C3D77.9E3F944D@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:37:59 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VortexB Subject: message to Mike - others please ignore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kLdUa3.0.Zb7.by3By"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1521 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike, my SMTP server can not send message to you. Here is the diagnostic. I will try to send my off-list mail by alternate ways. Could be a forward from 3'rd person. Regards, hamdi ucar --------------Diagnostic ---------- This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server. The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why each recipient was rejected. Recipient: Reason: Service unavailable; [212.156.4.3] blocked using inputs.orbz.org, reason: Open relay. Please see http://orbz.org/?212.156.4.3 Please reply to if you feel this message to be in error. Reporting-MTA: dns; venus1.ttnet.net.tr Received-From-MTA:dns; verisoft.com.tr (195.174.6.61) Arrival-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:29:00 +0300 Remote-Recipient: rfc822; Diagnostic-Code: smtp;551 SMTP-Deliver:BadRecipient Action: failed Status: 5.1.6 Remote-MTA: DNS;imgate1.snip.net Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:29:09 +0300 ----------------------- From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 28 11:56:15 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id LAA00376; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:55:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 11:55:40 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c18ff2$a9dd6140$6e45ccd1@asus> From: "Mike Carrell" To: References: <3C2BAAE8.72898E1F@verisoft.com.tr> Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:04:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Resent-Message-ID: <"tntbp2.0.j5.yuCBy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1522 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hamdi said: > Hi, > > There is just a case on this issue.(from my point of view) See http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49313,00.html > "Why Worm Writers Stay Free". The article clearly qualify authors of virus and worm programs as criminal. Indeed government often arrest and charge them if they can identify them. Which governments? In the US, writing and even publishing worm and virus programs can be defended as "free speech" with Constitutional protections. In the US possession of a gun is protected by the Constitution. Killing is not. > > So, you may probably think they are criminal also. Please note that many hackers write these program but they NOT distribute (send to victims by emails or inject into servers), instead they publish their source code in Vx zines. Government and public opinion makes AUTHOR of specific programs criminal. But what is the argument? This exactly like publishing a document about fire starting, publishing a hazardous chemical formula, etc. In what countries? Free speech again. > > Argument that put them in criminal status is I think the benefit argument. All these documents are not in first hand for benefit of community or for the system. I think this argument is wrong. I tried to explain why justice can not founded on benefit or usefulness. > > For the same reason, cryptographic communication is banned in certain countries. Because personal cryptographic communication have no economic benefit. So freedoms can be discarded if no economical benefit. > > Is my mind is flawed or minds of the millions of people all around the world? :) You are using "economic benefit" as the criterion and it is a wrong criterion. "Benefit" is closer to a criterion, but the better understanding of it is "Survival" in the broadest sense. Survival is often defined as survival of self (Number 1), but that leads to wrong answers. You are also using "Justice" as the goal, when "Optimum Survival" leads to better policies. What is good for the duck hunter is not good for the duck. A better way of understanding is to think of survival as a matter of concentric circles: 1) Self 2) Family 3) Groups 4) Mankind 5) Other Life Forms 6) Physical Universe 7) Thought, Spirit 8) God, infinity. Now one can ask what leads to optimum survival? I'm indebted to L. Ron Hubbard for the above formulation. There is a Buddhist doctrine of "Interdependence of All Created Things" which points in a similar direction. The pseudo-independent hacker may flaunt his cleverness by publishing a virus or invading a computer. "He" may do no harm, but he is enabling someone less clever and more nasty to inflict harm on others, families, groups, and mankind to some degree. So is the gun manufacturer; he is making it easier for A to kill B. A person posing and flaunting his independence is in fact dependant on others for the computers he uses, the clothes he wears, the food he eats, etc. and etc. If he wishes to be independent, let him start *walking* now into the wilderness until he has to compete on a equal basis with other animals for food and shelter. It isn't Justice that one should seek, but Ethics, as optimum survival for all aspects of life as listed above. It is better to heal the fanatic than to kill him, but fanatics have caused immense destruction. This doesn't give easy answers. My point is that ****economic**** benefit is too narrow a vision. It happens that economics and money are metrics which are often used and misused to measure benefit. A better measure is "The Valuable Final Product" of any activity. I must again acknowledge Hubbard for this formulation, but its equivalent can be found in other formulations, such as Motorola's senior directive. The Valuable Final Product might be hours of enjoyment of music or acres of pleasant playgrounds -- these have nothing essentially to do with money. In the case of Motorola, the directive is to completely satisfy the customer, which might be the next stage of a production process as well as the final consumer. This leads to *exchange* as the lifeblood of "benefit". There has to be a balance of giving and receiving for health on any level of the list above. An extreme example is Hawking, who occupies the Newton chair at Cambridge University and is kept alive by constant medical support which includes specialized communication equipment. His VFP is teaching and his insights into the nature of the physical world. Essentially, society nurtures his mind. I find it interesting the some people attack the salaries of corporate CEOs but not the fees paid to entertainers and star athletes, who can earn more than the President of the US. It is an interesting exercise to understand the survival 'benefit' of the entertainers. it is there, but it is not obvious. Technology amplifies the potential for benefit and harm by any individual. I want to use my computer without threat of disruption by someone I never heard of and who never heard of me. There is a potential for anarchy. The anarchist may think that he would survive better if there were fewer rules, but he needs order and prediction as much as anyone else. Societies want to survive, too. And they have a right to protect themselves. And, yes, societies can become tyrannical and oppressive and the alternatives are to move or revolt. There are fewer places to move to now, so there is the implicit need to revolt, and revolution requires stealth, breeding the ":freedom fighter" or "terrorist", depending on whose side you are on. These are not optimum solutions to the problem of survival. Perhaps the one of the oldest formulas is still the best: The Golden Rule. Mike Carrell From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 28 13:29:26 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id NAA08846; Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:28:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:28:02 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011228161145.02e9da70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: jedrothwell@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 16:28:24 -0500 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com, From: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice In-Reply-To: <003501c18ff2$a9dd6140$6e45ccd1@asus> References: <3C2BAAE8.72898E1F@verisoft.com.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: <"1qJcR1.0.9A2.YFEBy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1523 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: >Which governments? In the US, writing and even publishing worm and virus >programs can be defended as "free speech" with Constitutional protections. No, it can't. It is a violation of the Computer Abuse Act of 1984, which has not been found unconstitutional. The U.S. has never allow fully unbridled free speech. No nation ever has, or ever will. Here are some forms of prohibited speech: Fraud False advertising Libel Perjury Publishing military and industrial secrets Threat of bodily harm Deliberate false alarms (shouting fire in crowded theater) Impersonating authorities (counterfeiting and the like) Impersonating individuals (identity theft) Pornography (some types) No civil right is absolute. Even the extremists agree. The ACLU does not object to that list of restrictions, and I assume the NRA does not mind laws that prevent individuals from owning nuclear and "daisy cutter" bombs. (There are hundreds of people like Bill Gates who have enough money to make a bomb or purchase one from Russia.) - Jed From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 29 04:46:55 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA13496; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 04:41:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 04:41:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3C2DB868.485CE1C1@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 14:34:48 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2BAAE8.72898E1F@verisoft.com.tr> <003501c18ff2$a9dd6140$6e45ccd1@asus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kKLMR.0.lI3.AeRBy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1524 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Carrell wrote: > > Hamdi said: > > > Hi, > > > > There is just a case on this issue.(from my point of view) See > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49313,00.html > > "Why Worm Writers Stay Free". The article clearly qualify authors of virus > and worm programs as criminal. Indeed government often arrest and charge > them if they can identify them. > > Which governments? In the US, writing and even publishing worm and virus > programs can be defended as "free speech" with Constitutional protections. > In the US possession of a gun is protected by the Constitution. Killing is > not. It was once a time (referencing Jed). More important than laws banning such form free speech of scientific research, (I think writing worm and viruses is an important part of computer science) opinion of people are. I am asking what should be criteria when a person judge an act and decide it should be a right that act or a crime. This decision reflect the foundation of justice in the mind of individual. If majority of people in a community agree on these foundations (not on decisions), a law would be established. So laws would not be simply wishes of majority in arbitrary manner, but would have a foundation. For example destruction of wild life, more specially to decide whether wolves allowed to exist or be killed is issue of justice. Should wolves be stripped of their right to exist because the harm livestock? I think answer depend on foundation of justice. If justice is based on benefit, and proved wolves have no benefit at all to people or to community, wolves needs be killed, even their races. If justice is based on basic rights and survival, wolves would be protected. Benefit criteria would not distinguish a earth worm (BTW earth worms carried from Europe about 100 years ago are slowly destroying forests in north of U.S. and it is impposible to stop them.) from a wolves, other nations next to frontiers or a extraterrestrial civilization. Criteria is simple: Are they useful, benefitable . For who? For a person, for a community, for humanity or for all species around, and in the universe. Enlarging the scope does not cure the problem of subjectivity, because benefit criteria is based on projection, needs assumptions to decide something is benefitable or not. This is subjective again. For example we (should) do science not because science is benefitable, but we have right to know truths. If science is based on benefit, as I said earlier, there would be good and bad sciences, even discovering a poison formula or developing an algorithm for better virus writing be considered as science, they will be classified ad bad science and people doing such researches would be discredited or banned. As I said above logic of people in determining rights is important. Actually communities dont need solid laws to punish people when the judge them guilty. Law enforcement and other legal processes are quite effective. For example Kevin Mitnick is held in prison for five years without a trial. Or company policies over employees are quite effective. > You are using "economic benefit" as the criterion and it is a wrong > criterion. "Benefit" is closer to a criterion, but the better understanding > of it is "Survival" in the broadest sense. Survival is often defined as > survival of self (Number 1), but that leads to wrong answers. Yes, "survival" should be the criterion. It is important to distinguish survival, benefit and economic benefit. I hope i explained the the effect "general benefit" criteria above. For the rest of your comments and about "circles" I will write a separate posting. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 31 17:16:31 2001 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id RAA18112; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:15:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:15:13 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C277D59.1F74F162@verisoft.com.tr> References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:13:42 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Resent-Message-ID: <"J_njI1.0.xQ4.XsGCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1525 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Mitchell, > >Thank you for your input. As you explained, I am seeking a base for >reasoning to determine rights, to determine what is justifiable and not, >in a civilized world. Reasoning that you provide is binding any kind of >right to "ownership". Ownership in turn, to be valid need some extra >assumptions in order to determine rights of living beings. ***{If you accept the goal of settling disputes about property on the basis of reason--i.e., if that is your premise--then the system of private ownership and of the inviolability of ownership rights, capitalism, inexorably follows. The reason: the principle of prior claims is the only way that a reasoning, neutral arbiter can settle disputes. Attempts to invoke any other principle lead inevitably to subjectivity and/or bias, and/or to a proliferation of disputes, which contradicts the goal of the entire enterprise. --MJ}*** I can extend ownership to "right to use" and "exclusivity". It also require an exchange of ownership mechanism to be used. You give kind of inheritance mechanism for this. But this is not sufficient to distribute ownership. How a man acquire possession of things from his born to its later ages? ***{By means of the principle of prior claims. (This is all covered in detail in my book, *The Dogs of Capitalism*, but I can only give a thumbnail sketch here.) The basic idea is that, by the principle of prior claims, the possessor of the earliest provable claim to a piece of property is the owner, until such time as he voluntarily transfers those rights to someone else. By this principle, first use confers ownership. Since the person who creates a value is first user, he is the owner of the value which he created, and, since the mind of a child, by acts of will, causes the body of the child to take various actions in furtherance of its well being--swallowing food, defecating, avoiding danger, etc.--the mind or person that is the child becomes, with the passage of time, responsible for a greater and greater portion of the value of that body, and, thus, the owner of it. Thus despite the fact that, initially, the blob of embryonic protoplasm is clearly the exclusive property of the mother, from whose body its nutrition is initially taken, with the passage of time an inextricable comingling of values takes place, as more and more of the material of the body comes to be due to the contributions of the child, and less and less being due to the contributions of the parents. By such a process, the child acquires ownership of his body, and then, by using his body to create external values--e.g., building a fence, writing a symphony, working on a production line, etc.--he acquires property of the more usual sort. --MJ}*** Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As "rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed be transferred? These require further principles which can not be extracted from concept of ownership. ***{Transfer of ownership is implicit in the idea of ownership--i.e., in the idea that the owner can do with his property as he wishes, so long as he respects the rights of other owners to do likewise. --MJ}*** >Exclusivity is also a problem as we naturally use shared resources in >earth like O2. O2 is product of living beings capable to photosynthesis. >Also the water. May the water one needs and rain are produced from others >"properties". Who will own rights of the rain? ***{By the principle of prior claims, first use confers ownership. Thus if an explorer discovers a new, uninhabited continent, dams a river, and installs hydroelectric generators, he acquires ownership of the water rights in the watershed above his dam. Similarly, by the principle of prior claims, if someone builds a radio station and begins transmitting on a frequency not previously used by anyone else, at some specified level of power, he acquires ownership of the rights that are required to do that, and, thus, effective ownership of that frequency in the area where transmissions at his power level can be received. Likewise, if a fisherman discovers rich fishing grounds in a new, uncharted area of the ocean, and begins to conduct commercial fishing operations there, he acquires fishing rights in that area. And so on. Bottom line: determining who holds the prior claim to the disputed rights is central to all cases where a reasoned decision is to be made. --MJ}*** >So, further principles are needed to determine rights over shared >resources which are not property. ***{No, if the goal is to settle disputes about property on the basis of reason, the principle of prior claims is the only tool you need, and, indeed, it is the only hard fact capable of being used to settle property disputes by objective, scientific means. --MJ}*** Even I restrict the concept of ownership to "property" in the meaning of land, it is not clear how it extend the ownership an exclusivity of the land in downward direction to the center to earth and into the sky. ***{As noted above, by the principle of prior claims, first use confers ownership of the previously unclaimed values that the use requires. Thus first use of a patch of land to, say, grow cotton, confers rights to the continued use the surface for such purposes, and limits but does not preclude the actions of any subsequent person who, for example, decides to tunnel beneath the property and build an underground apartment complex. How does the prior use of the surface to grow cotton limit the actions of others to tunnel beneath the property? Simple: it prevents them from doing anything that will substantially impede the growing of cotton (or other crops) on the surface. Those tunneling beneath the property, for example, cannot cause the surface to collapse, without being liable for damages. Bottom line: the principle of prior claims does *not* "extend the ownership and exclusivity of the land in a downward direction to the center of the earth and into the sky." It does, however, encumber the rights of later claimants, by requiring that they not interfere with the rights of prior claimants. --Mitchell Jones}*** >In other imprortant issue is use and consumption of other living beings by >us. All these beings have genetic designs in their DNA. These designs are >very complex and still can not be made by human capabilities. These >designs are required for their existence therefor we profit on them. Who >have the ownership of these designs? Not in a religious context., these >beings owns and share their genetic designs with others in the mechanism >of evolution. All these species had challenged with nature to carry their >design to future, that is their existence. These designs are their most >valuable possessions. Human existence require existence of other species, >from bacteria, grass, tress,crops and animals we consume. We profit from >them not because we possess them (even we farm them, we do not possess >their genetic designs), but we need them for to live. I think why justice >and rights should be based on necessities and "justifiable" criteria >rather than ownership. And most strong argument for justification is life. ***{I'm not sure what you are saying in the above, but if I were to guess, I would suppose that you are talking about "animal rights." If so, my response is that no creature can claim ownership of anything, if it does not respect the ownership rights of others. This applies regardless of whether the creature in question violates the ownership rights of others because he is intellectually incapable of comprehending where his rights end and others' rights begin, or because he simply does not choose to respect the rights of others. Either way, the creature in question assigns to himself the status of property, and is to be done with as his rightful owners, as determined by the principle of prior claims, decide. And, as usual, the actions of those owners are limited only by the necessity to respect the ownership rights of others. By virtue of this principle, it is OK to kill, injure, or confine an animal or a human in defense of persons or property, either in the heat of the moment or subsequent to a judicial procedure in which guilt has been ascertained on the basis of consideration of evidence. --MJ}*** >May you recall I had previously referenced this genetic design ownership >argument to integrate rights of other species than humans on our legal >system. This is an important arguments because we have already laws and >logic to protect designs like copyrights and patents. Even some biogenetic >research firms have patents of genetic material like mouses that are used >on experimenting human diseases on them. So it would not be hard >technically include natural designs and gene pools on our copyright >protecting system. ***{"Mouses"--i.e., mice--do not respect the ownership rights of humans, and, thus, they have no ownership rights themselves. Result: we can do with them as we will, subject only to the limitation that we do not violate any bona fide ownership rights when we do so. --MJ}*** >As mike stated ***{I have seen nothing from him on vortexb-l, which is the only vortex group from which I still receive messages. --MJ}*** , many communities and nations have very limited notion of ownership. They have not exclusivity over resources and rights and justice is not based on possession. From these facts I can deduce the ownership is not foundation of rights and justice but ownership is a product of rights according a specific agreement over communities. ***{If, as I believe, the principle of prior claims provides the *only* basis for settling disputes about property on the basis of reason, then the decisions of arbiters in nations which do not recognize that principle are unjust, and your assumption to the contrary is just that: an assumption. Here, therefore, is my question for you: by what criteria might an arbiter decide to override a provable prior claim, if he is committed to settling disputes on the basis of reason? --Mitchell Jones}*** [snip] >hamdi ucar ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jan 1 04:32:46 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA00548; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:31:47 -0800 Message-ID: <3C31AA62.2AD38BC9@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:24:02 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tc0ec.0.U8.pmQCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1526 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones wrote: > > > > > >In other imprortant issue is use and consumption of other living beings by > >us. All these beings have genetic designs in their DNA. These designs are > >very complex and still can not be made by human capabilities. These > >designs are required for their existence therefor we profit on them. Who > >have the ownership of these designs? Not in a religious context., these > >beings owns and share their genetic designs with others in the mechanism > >of evolution. All these species had challenged with nature to carry their > >design to future, that is their existence. These designs are their most > >valuable possessions. Human existence require existence of other species, > >from bacteria, grass, tress,crops and animals we consume. We profit from > >them not because we possess them (even we farm them, we do not possess > >their genetic designs), but we need them for to live. I think why justice > >and rights should be based on necessities and "justifiable" criteria > >rather than ownership. And most strong argument for justification is life. > > ***{I'm not sure what you are saying in the above, but if I were to guess, > I would suppose that you are talking about "animal rights." If so, my > response is that no creature can claim ownership of anything, if it does > not respect the ownership rights of others. This applies regardless of > whether the creature in question violates the ownership rights of others > because he is intellectually incapable of comprehending where his rights > end and others' rights begin, or because he simply does not choose to > respect the rights of others. Either way, the creature in question assigns > to himself the status of property, and is to be done with as his rightful > owners, as determined by the principle of prior claims, decide. And, as > usual, the actions of those owners are limited only by the necessity to > respect the ownership rights of others. By virtue of this principle, it is > OK to kill, injure, or confine an animal or a human in defense of persons > or property, either in the heat of the moment or subsequent to a judicial > procedure in which guilt has been ascertained on the basis of consideration > of evidence. --MJ}*** I said: Who have the ownership of these design of DNA of every species? I tried to explain that these DNA designs are considered as intellectual property by the laws (in the case if an engineer makes a modification on a original DNA) This would automatically credit the original DNA design that its rights are naturally owned by the species that it DEVELOPED. This is not about animal rights. Any species primitive or advanced, are AWARE of the worth of this ownership, actually is the most precious property of the species. It is the aim of their existence. My question is valid because I think: 1) DNA or genetic design is considered intellectual property by laws. 2) They are carried by the beings that designed by this information. 3) Genetic design of species are developed the the species themselves by evolution. These are not arbitrary bunch of data, but developed in very painfully manner in the step of evolution. 4) Main reason of existence of species can be understand as to protect and further develop their genetic design. Further examination of behavior of species support the species are in consciousness of this possession. 5) Every species have a logic. These are not arbitrary behaving entities, their logic are mainly for their survival. These logic is same as humans makes define their rights for their survival. 6) Humans needs to benefit from existence of other species for their survival. 7) Rights of o species in our civil system is totally different from right of the genetic design of the species. For example a grain, or a crop have no right and function in our civil system but its genetic design have. It would not be a good argument to not respect genetic design rights of a crop because crop does not recognize or respect rights of others. > >May you recall I had previously referenced this genetic design ownership > >argument to integrate rights of other species than humans on our legal > >system. This is an important arguments because we have already laws and > >logic to protect designs like copyrights and patents. Even some biogenetic > >research firms have patents of genetic material like mouses that are used > >on experimenting human diseases on them. So it would not be hard > >technically include natural designs and gene pools on our copyright > >protecting system. > > ***{"Mouses"--i.e., mice--do not respect the ownership rights of humans, > and, thus, they have no ownership rights themselves. Result: we can do with > them as we will, subject only to the limitation that we do not violate any > bona fide ownership rights when we do so. --MJ}*** > The logic you use appears be basically incorrect. Humans, from historical perspective are not right respecting species. But as they civilized, they tried to constitute rules in order an authority (third party) could guard owned things of others. Scope of this mechanism is well determined. Authority will guard parties that only recognize the authority (by paying fees) Now you are defending an extended form of the above logic which exclude (rights and ownership of) other species by the argument that other species does not recognize this logic. This can only be understand as "discrimination". For example a community could decide not to recognize any rights of people born in saturdays, because people born is saturdays would not recognize this rule that strip their rights. Discrimination is the proof of that logic is not about respecting rights of others, but about a logic to NOT respect rights. Regards, hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jan 1 04:46:10 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id EAA03504; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:45:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 04:45:12 -0800 Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3C31AE8B.19959415@centurytel.net> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:41:47 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xm" Resent-Message-ID: <"BgJF73.0.hs.OzQCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1527 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mitchell wrote: ... Since the person who creates a value is first user, he is the owner of the value which he created, and, since the mind of a child, by acts of will, causes the body of the child to take various actions in furtherance of its well being--swallowing food, defecating, avoiding danger, etc.--the mind or person that is the child becomes, with the passage of time, responsible for a greater and greater portion of the value of that body, and, thus, the owner of it. Thus despite the fact that, initially, the blob of embryonic protoplasm is clearly the exclusive property of the mother ... By such a process, the child acquires ownership of his body, and then, by using his body to create external values--e.g., building a fence, writing a symphony, working on a production line, etc. --he acquires property of the more usual sort. hamdi wrote: Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As "rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed be transferred? These require further principles which can not be extracted from concept of ownership. Mitchell wrote: Transfer of ownership is implicit in the idea of ownership--i.e., in the idea that the owner can do with his property as he wishes, so long as he respects the rights of other owners to do likewise. Hi Mitchell, Do you think anyone is entitled to sell himself into slavery? Jack Smith From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jan 1 05:18:00 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id FAA11981; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 05:17:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 05:17:26 -0800 Message-ID: <3C31B550.CAEE96E6@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:10:40 +0200 From: hamdi ucar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> <3C31AE8B.19959415@centurytel.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gR91u1.0.4x2.cRRCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1528 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: "Taylor J. Smith" wrote: > > > hamdi wrote: > > Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As > "rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer > of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed > be transferred? These require further principles which > can not be extracted from concept of ownership. > > Mitchell wrote: > > Transfer of ownership is implicit in the idea of > ownership--i.e., in the idea that the owner can do with > his property as he wishes, so long as he respects the > rights of other owners to do likewise. > > Hi Mitchell, > > Do you think anyone is entitled to sell himself into > slavery? > Yes! Men. :) > Jack Smith hamdi ucar From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jan 1 09:48:41 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA07466; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:45:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:45:45 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3C277D59.1F74F162@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:44:20 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice: Community property Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3MwT1.0.bq1.9NVCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1529 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Greetings again, Hamdi and Mitchell, > >Community property, such as 'rain' and air > might not be what you think they are. > >Rain falls on everyone, right ? >Air is a 'right', right ? >Not really. > >Consider what happens to the lazy bum who habitually steals > and consistently makes a nuisance of himself to others > aboard some distant space station. >Allergic to work, devout communist that he is, > he would, in short order find his 'right' to atmospheric > pressure suspended for a term long enough to ensure his > activities permanently cease. Ideally, his 'possessions' would then > be redistributed to those he had previously short-changed. ***{It depends on the specifics of the situation. Assume, for example, that Spaceport Inc. constructed, owns, and operates the station, and that the "bum" came aboard as an employee who agreed to perform some task--e.g., computer programming--in return for some specific salary plus room and board. In that case, "room and board" obviously includes air to breathe, and, if he fails to do the job he contracted to do, and is fired, he can be ordered off of the station. If, however, the company elects to simply eject him into space, a neutral, reasoning arbiter would find them guilty of murder. The reason: standard conditions are assumed unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, and, obviously, if it had been explicitly stated in the contract that a bad performance evaluation would result in the employee being ejected into space, nobody in his right mind would have taken the job. --MJ}*** >Does your 'right' to air mean that you have the 'right' > to steal the oxygen from it, to pollute it with CO, CO2, etc. > and make it difficult for others to breathe ? ***{Again, it depends on the specifics. Suppose, for example, that you find a previously uninhabited island, hire 1000 workers with the understanding that if they become dissatisfied with the environmental conditions on the island, their only recourse is to move elsewhere, and with their assistance you build a large refinery and begin shipping in large amounts of crude oil and shipping out large amounts of refined products. In that case, because a thriving community has been established on the island, it is predictable that others will come to the island to work as auto mechanics, carpenters, electricians, grocers, etc., serving the various needs of the refinery and its personnel. Result: at some future date, those latecomers may decide that they don't like the breathing conditions on the island, and begin to demand that you, the refinery owner, spend millions to install pollution abatement equipment. If the question goes before a neutral, reasoning arbiter, how will he decide? The answer: you, the owner of the refinery, hold the prior claim to the land on which your plant is sited, to the inputs of atmospheric gases that are required to operate it, and to the discharges of effluents that are required as well. They, as late comers, cannot encumber those rights: you were there first. Your claim--the prior claim--encumbers their rights, rather than the other way around. That means you can continue to operate, after they are there, in the same way that you operated *before* they were there, and, in reason, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. If they don't like the situation, they can leave. --MJ}*** >Rain should fall where it will, and air should follow the wind. >Whatever you do to it while in your 'domain' is > then a chargeable cost you owe the community, > however you wish to measure it. ***{A "community" is just a group of individuals, and has no rights not possessed by the individuals that comprise it. (This is known as "the principle of individual rights.") If those individuals arrived after the refinery was in operation, their rights were encumbered by the rights of the refinery owners, and thus the rights of any "community" which they form are also similarly encumbered. --MJ}*** >Why should the community be compensated ? Because the resources > you use are then no longer available to the rest of the community, > be they downwind, downriver, or whatever. ***{They never were available, in the circumstance described above, because the refinery came first. It is only if the "community"--i.e., the individuals--came first, that their rights would encumber those of the refinery owners. That's why, if justice is to be done, the arbiter's first task is to determine who holds the prior claim. --MJ}*** >The community is a framework that defines the boundaries of property. ***{The boundaries of property can be determined in one way, and in one way only: by determining who holds the prior claim, in each of the instances where rights are in dispute. --MJ}*** >It is not some 'higher authority' that needs to be worshipped, > as communists do, nor does it have pre-emptive say, > as most governments prescribe. > It is simply the collection of individuals that > share a common resource such as an atmosphere, or river drainage. ***{It is erroneous to suppose that such things as air, water, the airwaves, fishing rights, water rights, etc., are "community property," or that they are in some sense intrinsically "unowned." An analysis based on the principle of prior claims will, in each case that is disputed, reveal the true owners, and the boundaries demarcating their ownership. --MJ}*** >............... >As to DNA and other 'designs' >I regard 'design protection' >- and anything else regarding intellectual property - > as being at least unenforcable and > moreso a complete waste of time and community resources. >On this side of the planet are good examples > of what a waste of time it is. >Consider a Galactic Empire > with millions of little bespectacled green-skinned accountant-types > zooming through zillions of cubic light-years trying to enforce > intellectual protection on DNA - what if it's your DNA ? > - do you then need to be terminated because some holo-hero > on the other side of the galaxy designed a DNA- baby for his wife > and got court-protection that it would never be duplicated > - years before you were born? > Absurdities are born at relativistic velocities... > >If you design it -!- build, or sell it, > or form partnership with someone who can. >Don't waste taxpayer dollars trying to enforce the unenforceable. ***{By the principle of prior claims, first use confers ownership. Result: each person acquires the ownership of his own DNA--i.e., the physical DNA material in his body--in the same way that he acquires ownership of his body. (See my earlier response to Hamdi on this topic.) As far as the right to *publish* DNA, that would fall to the first person to sequence it, in the same way that the right to publish a book falls to the author. Concerning the right to biologically reproduce a plant or an animal having a specific genetic makeup, that would fall to the owner of that plant or animal. In the case of sentient beings--e.g., humans--self-ownership confers the right to biologically reproduce (given the voluntary consent of the oppositely sexed partner, of course). --MJ}*** >=====afterthought------ >The 'Greenies' are fond of reciting that the Earth surface > is 75% water covered > - a prime component of our environmental balancesheet. > >I would rather point out that the Universe we know about > is primarily a radiation-poisoned near-vacuum, and that any environmental > balancesheet begins there, > not from a basis of abundant air and water. > >----followon: >Our inheritance is primarily that our ancestors had the good sense > to settle on this planet, ensuring we had abundant air, water, etc. >We should regard this as an inheritance, and not squander it. > >cheers >Paul ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Jan 1 10:33:30 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id KAA20272; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:22:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:22:47 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C31AE8B.19959415@centurytel.net> References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 12:19:52 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Resent-Message-ID: <"ZIPoG1.0.gy4.tvVCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1530 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell wrote: > >... Since the person who creates a value is first user, >he is the owner of the value which he created, and, >since the mind of a child, by acts of will, causes the >body of the child to take various actions in furtherance >of its well being--swallowing food, defecating, avoiding >danger, etc.--the mind or person that is the child becomes, >with the passage of time, responsible for a greater and >greater portion of the value of that body, and, thus, >the owner of it. Thus despite the fact that, initially, >the blob of embryonic protoplasm is clearly the exclusive >property of the mother ... > >By such a process, the child acquires ownership of his >body, and then, by using his body to create external >values--e.g., building a fence, writing a symphony, working >on a production line, etc. --he acquires property of the >more usual sort. > >hamdi wrote: > >Obviously some other transfer mechanism are needed. As >"rights" are bind to "possession" in your logic, transfer >of rights should be considered. Should all rights allowed >be transferred? These require further principles which >can not be extracted from concept of ownership. > >Mitchell wrote: > >Transfer of ownership is implicit in the idea of >ownership--i.e., in the idea that the owner can do with >his property as he wishes, so long as he respects the >rights of other owners to do likewise. > >Hi Mitchell, > >Do you think anyone is entitled to sell himself into >slavery? ***{If, in return for a payment, a person agrees to obey someone else's orders for the rest of his life, I have no problem with that--providing, of course, that if he at some point decides to no longer obey the other person's orders, the resulting dispute over property will go to a neutral arbiter. After all, a neutral arbiter will obviously treat such a dispute as a case of breach of contract--which means: he will merely order the "slave" to return a pro rated portion of the payment, depending on how long he complied with the contract. The implication: in a system where disputes are decided by neutral, reasoning arbiters, "slavery" is just a word. --MJ}*** >Jack Smith ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jan 2 07:19:07 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA23220; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:08:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:08:09 -0800 Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3C332188.17FF0356@centurytel.net> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:04:40 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xm" Resent-Message-ID: <"lacVY2.0.lg5.P9oCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1531 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jack wrote: Do you think anyone is entitled to sell himself into slavery? Mitchell wrote: If, in return for a payment, a person agrees to obey someone else's orders for the rest of his life, I have no problem with that --providing, of course, that if he at some point decides to no longer obey the other person's orders ... Hi Mitchell, I should have asked, "Do you think anyone is entitled to IRREVOCABLY sell himself into slavery?" Jack Smith From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Jan 2 15:33:59 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA02305; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:32:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:32:17 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C332188.17FF0356@centurytel.net> References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:30:00 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Resent-Message-ID: <"A8f6Y2.0.tZ.0YvCy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1532 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Jack wrote: > >Do you think anyone is entitled to sell himself into >slavery? > >Mitchell wrote: > >If, in return for a payment, a person agrees to obey someone else's >orders for the rest of his life, I have no problem with that >--providing, of course, that if he at some point decides to no >longer obey the other person's orders ... > >Hi Mitchell, > >I should have asked, "Do you think anyone is entitled to >IRREVOCABLY sell himself into slavery?" ***{Objectively, a criminal is a person who attempts the unilateral settlement of a dispute over property. Result: if a person breaches a contract, thereby giving rise to a dispute over property, and the other party to the dispute acts unilaterally to achieve the outcome he desires, he becomes a criminal. Result: if you sell yourself into slavery and, subsequently, decide to no longer abide by the contract, your "master" must take the resulting dispute before a neutral arbiter. If, instead, he attempts to settle it himself--e.g., by beating you with a bullwhip until you agree to resume obeying his orders--he becomes a criminal. Bottom line: my entire political position rests on one premise: that disputes over property ought to be taken before neutral arbiters, and that anyone who attempts to settle such a dispute by other means is a criminal. Within such a system, no contract can ever be irrevocable, because if one of the parties ceases to perform, a dispute arises that must be settled by arbitration, and the decision of the arbiter, once made, will replace, nullify, and supercede the contract. --Mitchell Jones}*** >Jack Smith ________________ Quote of the month: "The soldiers of militant Islam and Pan-Arabism do not hate the West because of Israel; they hate Israel because of the West. Zionism, to them, is an expression and representation of Western civilization." --Benjamin Netanyahu From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jan 3 06:48:35 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id GAA07441; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:45:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:45:27 -0800 Sender: jack@mail3.centurytel.net Message-ID: <3C346DBB.1F7431EF@centurytel.net> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 14:42:03 +0000 From: "Taylor J. Smith" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-Caldera (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i486) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="xm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="xm" Resent-Message-ID: <"sS_TA.0.Aq1.7w6Dy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1533 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jack wrote: Do you think anyone is entitled to IRREVOCABLY sell himself into slavery? Mitchell wrote: Bottom line: my entire political position rests on one premise: that disputes over property ought to be taken before neutral arbiters, and that anyone who attempts to settle such a dispute by other means is a criminal. Within such a system, NO CONTRACT CAN EVER BE IRREVOCABLE, because if one of the parties ceases to perform, a dispute arises that must be settled by arbitration, and the decision of the arbiter, once made, will replace, nullify, and supercede the contract. Hi Mitchell, Under American law, a contract can be irrevocable, whether it should be or not. In fact, given the human frailty of arbitrators and the power of owners, even the vilest contracts could be irrevocable, as a practical matter. I take the position that it is fundemental to justice that certain contracts must be prohibited, in particular those that alienate certain inalienable rights such a "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Attempts to impose such contracts on us by rackteers (the mob that ruled Russia known as Communists comes to mind) must be resisted by every possible means, even against the will of those who would sell themselves for a mess of pottage. I think that no human law or constitution, enforced by humans, is incorruptible; and so we must be eternally vigilent. Jack Smith From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Jan 3 07:43:30 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id HAA31382; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:40:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:40:26 -0800 From: "xplorer" To: Subject: RE: Foundation Of Justice Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 22:44:37 +0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3C346DBB.1F7431EF@centurytel.net> Resent-Message-ID: <"URp8q1.0.Cg7.gj7Dy"@mx1> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1534 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: That's well said: > -----Original Message----- > From: jack@mail3.centurytel.net [mailto:jack@mail3.centurytel.net]On > Behalf Of Taylor J. Smith > Sent: 2002 January 03 Thursday 21:42 > To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice > >*< > > I think that no human law or constitution, enforced by humans, > is incorruptible; and so we must be eternally vigilent. > > Jack Smith From vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Jan 4 09:33:00 2002 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id JAA23012; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:29:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:29:15 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: mjones@pop.jump.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3C346DBB.1F7431EF@centurytel.net> References: <3C2711D5.17157B05@verisoft.com.tr> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:22:41 -0600 To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Jones Subject: Re: Foundation Of Justice Resent-Message-ID: <"kpzib2.0.Rd5.fPUDy"@mx2> Resent-From: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortexb-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1535 X-Loop: vortexb-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortexb-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Jack wrote: > >Do you think anyone is entitled to >IRREVOCABLY sell himself into slavery? > >Mitchell wrote: > >Bottom line: my entire political position rests on one >premise: that disputes over property ought to be taken >before neutral arbiters, and that anyone who attempts >to settle such a dispute by other means is a criminal. >Within such a system, NO CONTRACT CAN EVER BE IRREVOCABLE, >because if one of the parties ceases to perform, a >dispute arises that must be settled by arbitration, and >the decision of the arbiter, once made, will replace, >nullify, and supercede the contract. > >Hi Mitchell, > >Under American law, a contract can be irrevocable, whether >it should be or not. ***{Where is the surprise? The entire purpose of man-made law is to preordain the outcome of juridical procedures, by ordering the decision makers to conform to criteria that, more often than not, have nothing to do with reason or fair play. To put the matter simply, it is not the contracts that are irrevocable, in such cases, but the dictates of man-made law. --MJ}*** In fact, given the human frailty of >arbitrators ***{The possibility human error exists under any system. Irrevocability of contract, however, exists as a practical matter only within systems in which man-made law prescribes criminal penalties for breach of contract. No such penalties have ever, in recorded history, been invoked as the standard solution to such disputes within the context of a purely private arbitration system. Even as far back as the so called "heroic age," as attested to by the various writings of Homer, private arbiters have handed down civil penalties--which means: they have required the payment of suitable monetary compensation--in response to breaches of contract. Indeed, private arbiters during those times, in cases where a death resulted from a "fair fight" (rather than, for example, the deliberate poisoning of food, bushwhacking, stabbing in the back, etc.) generally ordered the payment of compensation *or* the turning of the miscreant over to the relatives of the victim, as the penalty for homicide. The same was true of private arbitors during the time of the Roman Republic (who were known as "jurisconsults"), as well as by the English Common Law courts during the reign of Henry II and in the times immediately following his reign, when the proceedings were mostly unobstructed by the dictates of statutory law. Why has this been the case? The answer: because, in reason, breach of contract is not, in fact, a threat to the life or liberty of the aggrieved party, and any neutral third party who is sincerely attempting to find a reasonable solution to the dispute can see that. Result: the decisions of private arbiters, unconstrained by politics, will in virtually all cases be to order that reasonable monetary compensation be paid. When that is not, in fact, the outcome, it is because there was something about the particulars of the case which *was* a direct and unarguable threat to someone's life or liberty, or because political authorities, via man-made law, intervened to require a decision that was unreasonable and unfair. --MJ}*** and the power of owners ***{Owners may have the "power" to influence political authorities, either by means of bribes, personal relationships, blackmail, campaign contributions, the ability to influence the votes of employees, etc., but they have no power whatever to influence the deliberations of a private arbiter who has been selected by a neutral winnowing process, as defined below. The point: man-made law is the source of the bad effects that you are worrying about, rather than the cure for them. --MJ}*** , even the vilest contracts >could be irrevocable, as a practical matter. ***{Given the influence of a sovereign power on the juridical process, via man-made law, such outcomes are to be expected. My reference, however, was to a neutral arbiter, not to an "arbitrator" selected within the constraints of a man-made legal system--which means: I am talking about a person selected *by the disputants themselves*, according to a winnowing process designed to find the best possible approximation to a neutral, reasoning arbiter. To refresh your memory (I have described this procedure on vortex before), here is the way it works: (1) You publish a description of the dispute in a venue likely to come to the attention of would-be arbiters, asking for those who are willing to adjudicate the case to submit their names by some deadline, say after a month has passed. (2) You make a list of all the names submitted. (3) The parties to the dispute have a reasonable time period for doing research into the backgrounds of the persons whose names are on the list. (4) After the allotted time has elapsed, the disputants each strike one third of the names off the list, rounded to the nearest whole number. (5) Step (3) and then step (4) are repeated as many times as necessary to reduce the number of names on the list to one. (6) The single arbiter who remains at the end of the process is the person selected to adjudicate the case. By this procedure, any person with the slightest blemish on his reputation for fairness will be almost invariably eliminated from the list, by one party or the other, and as a result the only persons who will be able to earn a living as arbiters will be those who establish, and maintain, the highest standards of objectivity and fair play. It is my contention that decisions made according to such procedures offer, by far, the best hope of reasoned justice, and I see it as entirely non-coincidental that the Greek, Roman, and English civilizations all arose during times when disputes were for the most part settled in this way. --Mitchell Jones}*** >I take the position that it is fundemental to justice that >certain contracts must be prohibited ***{Prohibited by what? The apparent answer: by man-made law. The implication: you believe that government should be empowered to preordain the outcomes of disputes over property, despite the palpably obvious fact, demonstrated throughout human history, that it is precisely the interventions of the sovereign power, via kings or legislatures, into judicial procedures, which has supported the irrevocability of onerous "contractual" conditions in the first place. Well, I too am opposed to the various forms of slavery that are implicit in irrevocable contracts, but my solution is different. I see *man-made law*--which means: the power of governmental authorities to intervene in private arbitration--as the source of the problem, and I see a very simple solution: the submission of disputes over property to neutral arbiters ought to be a requirement of citizenship, and it ought to be openly acknowledged that those who attempt the unilateral settlement of disputes over property, including governments who attempt to force private arbiters to decide cases according to rules based on political expediency, are simply criminals. --Mitchell Jones}*** , in particular those that >alienate certain inalienable rights such a "life, liberty, and >the pursuit of happiness." ***{Such rights are based on reason and the principle of prior claims, and, historically, were *discovered* by neutral arbiters, during the times when their deliberations were unencumbered by the dictates of politics. It is their deliberations that are the *source* of our heritage of freedom, Jack. Without them, we would be nothing more than spear-toting savages hunkered over campfires, living short and miserable lives. The notion that political authorities, who are manifestly *not* neutral in their deliberations, ought to be empowered to set standards for those who gave us our heritage of freedom, is insufferable, ludicrous nonsense. All that is needed to promote justice is to ensure that disputes over property are adjudicated by neutral arbiters--which means: arbiters selected by means of a neutral winnowing process,who are *not* subject to the biasing influences of man-made law. --MJ}*** Attempts to impose such contracts >on us by rackteers (the mob that ruled Russia known as >Communists comes to mind) must be resisted by every possible >means, even against the will of those who would sell themselves >for a mess of pottage. > >I think that no human law or constitution, enforced by humans, >is incorruptible; and so we must be eternally vigilent. ***{The power of political authorities to make law lies at the root of all of these problems, and they will not be solved until that power is abolished. Any calls for political action or for vigilance which do not recognize that fact will be useless and pointless. Nobody ever solved a problem by denying that it existed. --M