Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 05:09:15 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #231 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 22 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: comment on Nietzsche's quote... Ethics Radio and property rights Space Digest V15 #222 Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 92 22:18:10 GMT From: Alexander Abian Subject: comment on Nietzsche's quote... Newsgroups: sci.space THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS, OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE A. ABIAN ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 92 20:49:06 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space In article bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes: If it's an either-or case, then yes, terraform Mars. But we aren't in that position. NOR WILL WE EVER BE. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You know this? I'm impressed. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 92 13:56:28 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Radio and property rights Newsgroups: sci.space In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: Please note redirected followup > How many radio astronomers do you know who can afford to sue CBS? None under the current system. With strong property rights it would not be just a civil matter, but one of criminal theft and trespass. The cost of suits is an artifice of byzantine legal structures that attempt to allocate a resource without actually setting down ownership and a clear definition of that ownership. When the law is ambiguous, the guy with the best lawyers wins. If you know of a way to construct an unambigious legal system than there are some mathematicians who would really like to talk to you. Irrespective of the flat assertion that law suits will somehow be cheaper and reulst in more consistently just outcome in a neoLibertarian society, how do you compensate that loss of use while to suit is in progress? How do you enforce your settlement? And, why do you expect the rest of the world to follow along??? ... > Even ignoring that, why do you assume that having a judge make such a > decision is better than having the FCC make it? The big guys *will* > ride roughshod over the little guys unless there are referees to blow > the whistle on them. If my frequency is my property, as clearly defined as the surveyor lines that define my backyard, then it is just as easy to define that a crime has occured in either case. Big guy or little guy, I need only show a title and prove trespass. What if the title is not recognised? And if frequency allocation is as efficient as land ownership radio astronomers might as well shut down now. An aside: there was a guy in England a couple years ago who defended himself against a local authority that was going to bulldoze his house. He refused to leave the property, and it was such a big deal that the BBC had a camera when the dozer and a bureaucrat came down. The property owner shot the bureaucrat, on camera. Most refreshing piece of news I've seen in years :-) The Lib International should give him a medal, if they could get it to him in prison... What was this about never initiating use of force? Or is this a convenient redefinition of "force"? * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * * steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * * Some people think they're really clever * * Smash your head against the wall Specials, 1979 * ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 92 20:46:05 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Space Digest V15 #222 Newsgroups: sci.space Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > Obviously, people with a desire to broadcast will work out a peaceful > compromise, rather than muscle each other, intensity-wise, and end > up not brodacsting, with a host of civil suits, since the peaceful way > is the prosperous one. >This is a false assumption. Read some history. I have read some history. The only time the above solution doesn't work is when the gov. prevents it from working. A good example is ground water and Nope, the first time this didn't work is when some big guy figured that there really wasn't anything stopping him from beating the little guy up and taking whatever he wanted. It only slowed down when the little guys realised that if they grouped together and laid down some rules this sort of behaviour could be moderated - this evolved into social structure and governments - I'm sorry neoLibertarians don't like the particular social compromise that they were born into, and I applaud their efforts to change it, but don't pretend that there is some inherent evil to the system because it requires you to accept some unpalatable restrictions and make contributions to the general welfare. Please note redirected followup. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 231 ------------------------------