From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 02:33:18 MST
John Clarke writes:
> Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
>
> > it can take a lifetime of careful and fair dealing to earn a
> > person the sort of good reputation that enables their name
> > to act as a brand and for them to get serious things done.
>
> My reputation is valuable to me, the higher it is the greater
> the value,
Yes.
> my reputation is valuable to other people too but only if it is
> accurate.
Some people such as your family and friends may also benefit
from you having an excessively good reputation.
> It's possible that my good reputation is too high and undeserved,
> if I'm given control of it you can bet it will be.
Control is a question of degree. We do have some control of our
reputations. But I'm not too concerned that there is anyone around
with full control as yet. Defending anything, including one's, reputation
takes resources. I reserve the right to deploy my resources as I see fit.
I like free speech AND defamation laws.
>
> > Unfortunately "they" includes both ones customers and ones
> > competitors.
>
> Then fight back, if I say nasty things about you then say nasty things
> about me,
Why should I only fight an inefficient way? Free speech can sometimes
be cheap speech.
There have always been plenty of people willing to say nasty things
about each other and fortunately some of one's forebears saw fit to
invent a sort of flyswat which one can use to save energy. This means
that despite understanding the principle of tit-for-tat, one doesn't need
to personally punch every nose, return every shot or refute every bit
of pissant nastiness. By leveraging knowledge of the law one can
delegate. And in delegating one gets the benefit of spending more of
one's time working on the stuff one wants to work on and less time
personally chasing away pests.
Perhaps "the jungle" hasn't gone its just changed shape, affording those
who recognize that that is so, a wider range of effective and efficient
responses than those that don't. Or maybe not.
> pretty soon people will learn to disregard what competitors say
> about each other, if they haven't already.
They haven't already. Some people start out a bit naive and
innocent. Kids seem like that. And the young and capable get sick
or old sometimes. Should a person without a tounge to speak have
no defence? Should a stutterer surrender every field to every fluent
fool? Why are lawyers called 'mouthpieces" sometimes?
>
> > Yeah the laws an ass. But what's the alternative?
>
> Encryption, black markets and anonymity.
>
I liked the way your answered that ;-)
But I should have said the law's *sometimes* an ass. Fortunately
for me, I was born into a world progressive enough to have *some*
laws already in place. Maybe in future we'll get by with fewer laws
and in the mean time I know some folks will break some of the ones
we have. So be it. A fence that acts as a filter can still serve some
use as a fence.
Law's are just another part of the contemporary environment. Let's
factor them, assess them, use them and maybe change them, just like
any other part of the environment.
Stone age encryption looks like a barren sort of exercise. All later
sorts of encryption seem to presuppose societies requiring laws.
I'm pretty sure 'John Clarke' could be traced back to a real person ;-)
You've not felt the need to hide. I suspect you share my confidence
that the law is something that you can use (or rely upon) to protect
yourself more efficiently than having to build an army of your own
or having to stay small and inconsequentially enough to pass
beneath the attention of every bandits and opportunistic parasite.
Regards,
Brett
[possibly writing under the influence of reading Heinlein and
Lazarus Long]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST