Re: 1 year ago today...

From lsi <>
Date Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:12:07 +0100

[: hacktivism :]

> Trust me when I say that what was once solely the realm of the
> magician, the hypnotherapist, and the actor is not being co-opted for
> the betterment of the company.

Yes it is. :)  Do you mean 'now'... and Company with a capital C?

> I suggest rapid acceleration in our own attempts at cognitive
> enhancement...

I recently put the papers below onto my website, as I too think that 
the more people that amp up their brain, the better the world will be.

memory and association

practice and skill

how memory works

bases of learning

..I also put online a paper about pollution credits, which is a free-
market alternative to 'environment tax'.  Tax is a monolithic 
structure which cross-subsidises inefficiency.  <spit>

money and the environment

I decided that I had done enough jumping up and down for now (it 
comes in waves ;) and have proceeded to make more tools 

I have also been completing the latest versions of several of my 
DOS utilities, but I don't think you *nix people want to hear about 
that. :)

It has been very quiet in here recently, I have been hoping that 
everyone has been equally busy.

That was an excellent article you posted, although there seems to 
be room for critique.  For example, the author labels free-marketers 
neoliberals, and claims that "progressive thinkers ... must confront 
neoliberal dogma ... backed by the .. police".  Yet I would contend 
that a free-marketer is strongly OPPOSED to government 
regulation, particularly in economies.  I can provide academic 
references for this assertion.  

For example, in the illegal drugs market, a free marketer might 
argue that the War on Drugs hurts consumers (drug users) by 
increasing the price (due to restricted supply) while lowering the 
quality (due to weak competitive forces).  Just like any other 
monopoly.  ILLEGAL is the nastiest MONOPOLY there is.  

I'll even compromise a bit and suggest that if illegal drugs were 
legalised, they could be regulated by existing consumer protection 
laws.  Just like any other product.  I don't like suggesting another 
protectionist mechanism, but it's a step in the right direction. 
(illegal -> regulated -> freedom)

The point is, this particular free-marketing, faire-thinking neoliberal 
has already devoted considerable bandwidth to debunking those 
very systems the author of the posted article claims neoliberals 

I would like to draw attention to the fact I have just posted an essay 
on the topic of pollution credits, which is a darstardly mix of green 
thinking and liberal economics.  I believe that this model could be 
generalised to other social causes.  I also believe that the model 
will prove somewhat confounding to SUBCOMANDANTE MARCOS.

A question for anti-globalisationists - do you think that the 
increased efficiency of the global economy will be beneficial to the 

I find it interesting that Marcos did not include government in his 
list of neoliberal supporters (he included media, banks, police).  
Interesting because earlier in the article, he says

"They can find any number of excuses for this supposedly 
"inevitable" outcome: ... the police have taken the place of 

So in leaving govt out of the list, Marcos is doing what "they" do. 
"They" are defined in the sentence prior to that: "They are awarded 
with a comfortable armchair, on the right hand of the prince they 
once denounced. "

Perhaps this is a symptom of the culture in which Marcos lives.


snippet 1:

...The American Environmental Protection Agency has 
successfully used [pollution credits] to
lower the concentrations of lead in petrol and pollutants in the 
atmosphere (Raven et al, 1993).

snippet 2:

...The level playing field aims to minimise subsidies, which 
undermine the market
mechanism by propping up uncompetitive producers, and minimise 
tariffs, which undermine the market mechanism
by decreasing the viability of substitutes (French, 1993).

snippet 3:

...The increased trade that GATT and associated agreements 
provide will increase
the contestability of every international market and as such improve 
the efficiency and performance of those
markets (French, 1993). 

snippet 4: is inaccurate to state that free
markets cause [pollution], as is attested by the environmental ruin 
in the former Soviet Union (Raven, Berg and
Johnson, 1993)

snippet 5:

...[environmental] damage has occurred through
human action, both with and without the free market, and has been 
done not just by Big Business but also by
governments and the average citizen (Baumol et al, 1992).


Raven, P.H., Berg, L.R., Johnson, G.B. (1993) Environment 
Saunders College Publishing 

French, H.F. (1993) Reconciling Trade and the Environment State 
of the World 1993 Earthscan Publications 

Nordhaus, W.D., Richardson, S., Samuelson, D.A., Scott, G., 
Wallace, R. (1992) Economics, 3rd Australian Edition
McGraw Hill 

Economics, Principles and Policy, Second Australian Edition, 
Baumol W.J., Blinder A.S., Gunther A.W., Hicks J.R.L., Harcourt 
Brace Jovanovich, 1992.

. ^               Stuart Udall
.~ \

..revolution through evolution

[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: :]