Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: macsnafu on December 09, 2010, 08:49:54 am

Title: Gambling in Society
Post by: macsnafu on December 09, 2010, 08:49:54 am
So, we have a new story plot--instead of getting a job, Morris is trying to make a living by gambling.  Being a society based on NAP, gambling isn't against the law.  But if Morris is cheating, then that will cause a problem, and perhaps be a violation of his "parole".  I also wonder about how they would deal with compulsive gamblers.  Again, it's not illegal, so I suppose family and friends would intervene and try to help.  There might even be a group or organization like Gamblers Anonymous to help people.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on December 09, 2010, 10:38:38 am
So, we have a new story plot--instead of getting a job, Morris is trying to make a living by gambling.  Being a society based on NAP, gambling isn't against the law.  But if Morris is cheating, then that will cause a problem, and perhaps be a violation of his "parole". 

No it wouldn't. His cheating is absolutely none of the business of the parties to the arbitration. However, that doesn't mean the cheated players would just roll over. "Cheating" is what most libertarians would (incorrectly) call "fraud." It's actually "fraudulent inducement," but in either case, NAP/ZAP treats it like the initiation of force. (If you want to know why, read the literature). Of course, the cheated gamblers would have a cause of action and a right to self-defense.

I also wonder about how they would deal with compulsive gamblers.  Again, it's not illegal, so I suppose family and friends would intervene and try to help.  There might even be a group or organization like Gamblers Anonymous to help people.

I don't know who "they" are in your example, but families and friends certainly could (non-aggressively) intervene and try to persuade the gambler to modify his behavior. So you have the right idea about dealing with these sorts of problems. 
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 10, 2010, 12:27:49 am
No it wouldn't. His cheating is absolutely none of the business of the parties to the arbitration. However, that doesn't mean the cheated players would just roll over. "Cheating" is what most libertarians would (incorrectly) call "fraud." It's actually "fraudulent inducement," but in either case, NAP/ZAP treats it like the initiation of force. (If you want to know why, read the literature). Of course, the cheated gamblers would have a cause of action and a right to self-defense.
Yes, I agree with all of this except the first part.

Because the cheated gamblers have "a cause of action and a right to self-defense", their exercise of those rights will compromise Morris' ability to repay the claims against him by the parties to the earlier arbitration.

That doesn't mean that Merry has any right to limit or interfere with the rights fo the cheated gamblers - I'm not trying to argue that, which would of course be a clearly nonsensical position.

Given the way an AnCap society works, unlike the (theoretical, not practical) case in a state society, the cheated gamblers, on the other hand, can't sue Merry - and, for that matter, Bert and Ernie - for being negligent in pursuing their claims against Morris, and thus letting a known dishonest individual wander around at large without adequate supervision. (In state societies, though, we can't sue judges for turning dangerous criminals loose because of some error in police procedure either.)

It was Merry's choice to trust the three miscreants without ankle bracelets. And, thus, it isn't unfair to her that Morris will now have to pay off his debt to his most recent victims first before he can resume repaying his debt to her. But because she is subjected to that inconvenience... it was legitimately her business whether he was earning the money to pay his debt to her and to live in an honest manner, or in one that was doomed to failure. His cheating may be "absolutely no business" of hers after the fact, which I think is what you meant, but it was very much her business before the fact.

So after he finishes repaying his latest debt, he will also find, I would think, that he has incurred, in effect, an additional debt to Merry - and she will seek authorization to impose appropriate conditions to enforce its repayment. This assumes he doesn't do something stupid which will require the cheated gamblers to exercise their rights of self-defense - which is a rather shaky assumption at this point.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on December 10, 2010, 06:43:03 am
More unsupported assumptions.

Yes, I agree with all of this except the first part.

Because the cheated gamblers have "a cause of action and a right to self-defense", their exercise of those rights will compromise Morris' ability to repay the claims against him by the parties to the earlier arbitration.

You seem to assume the new liability would take precedents over the previous liability. What is the basis of your assumption?

Given the way an AnCap society works, unlike the (theoretical, not practical) case in a state society, the cheated gamblers, on the other hand, can't sue Merry - and, for that matter, Bert and Ernie - for being negligent in pursuing their claims against Morris, and thus letting a known dishonest individual wander around at large without adequate supervision.

Now this is a curious assumption. (Actually, just goofy.) Even if Bert and Ernie had liability for, "letting a known dishonest individual" wander around at large without adequate supervision" that is not the case here. The three stooges were not found guilty of a status crime (i.e., being a drug addict or being a rapist). The result of the arbitration was that they had to pay the plaintiffs for damages and other expenses they caused them, not for being "known dishonest individuals."

It was Merry's choice to trust the three miscreants without ankle bracelets. And, thus, it isn't unfair to her that Morris will now have to pay off his debt to his most recent victims first before he can resume repaying his debt to her.

See, there's that first assumption again. Why should the new victims get to jump the queue? Where did that assumption come from?

And while we are at it, let's clear up another assumption that you and one or two others have made. You keep saying that Merry is owed money, as though that were it. Yes, they owe her for the room and board she advanced them, but the primary debt is owe Bert, Ernie, Reggie and the ship rental company. Your assumption is that because Merry posted a bond, she was assuming those debts. Nope, her only liability was the amount of her bond she posted and nowhere was that bond said to be equal to the whole of the debts. If the bad guys take a hike, she and the plaintiffs take a bath. To bad, so sad.

But because she is subjected to that inconvenience... it was legitimately her business whether he was earning the money to pay his debt to her and to live in an honest manner, or in one that was doomed to failure. His cheating may be "absolutely no business" of hers after the fact, which I think is what you meant, but it was very much her business before the fact.

The assumption having failed, the dependent conclusion also fails.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 10, 2010, 08:02:48 am
Yes, I agree with all of this except the first part.

Because the cheated gamblers have "a cause of action and a right to self-defense", their exercise of those rights will compromise Morris' ability to repay the claims against him by the parties to the earlier arbitration.

You seem to assume the new liability would take precedents over the previous liability. What is the basis of your assumption?

It looks to me like that could go any of several ways, and Quadribloc is claiming that they way he proposes is better than the others. That's open to inspection and opinion. Whether it goes that way in your story is of course up to you.

Here's a possible argument in his favor: The original plaintiffs had the opportunity to make it far less likely that their debtors would commit new crimes. They chose to let them do so. Why NOT let their new victims have the first payments?

Here's something that could happen with one of the alternatives:

Bob is a sneak-thief, and he's good enough at it that he can usually clear 10 grams of gold a day over expenses. But every now and then he gets caught. You caught him, and the arbitrator has awarded you triple damages. Bob can work that off in a secure facility at 1 gram per day, and he will pay your debt in 1000 days. Or you can let him go free and he can pay you off at 10 grams a day. But he gets caught again, so he will have to work a second hundred days after he pays you off to pay off the next guy. Poor Bob on his treadmill, stealing and stealing and somebody else gets the profits.... Then he gets killed and his latest official victims don't get their money back -- nor do of course any of the victims who didn't catch him.

If each new victim got paid back first, you would be more likely to take the certain income than the one which might be indefinitely postponed. To me that looks like a good thing.

It definitely isn't the only way the laws might be set up, but I can see an advantage to it.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: bjdotson on December 10, 2010, 12:18:30 pm
The original basis for tort law was to make you whole again. I would imagine that in a restitution based society, "Triple damages" would not be done. The result of arbitration would be to cover your losses; not to be punitive.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 10, 2010, 12:47:45 pm
Yes, they owe her for the room and board she advanced them, but the primary debt is owe Bert, Ernie, Reggie and the ship rental company. Your assumption is that because Merry posted a bond, she was assuming those debts.
I missed that detail; it is reasonable that Bert, Ernie, and the ship rental company might have found a bond acceptable that only covered the costs of rounding up the three stooges again times the probability that they would wander off.

This just complicates who is involved; now, it isn't just Merry for setting up the scheme, but the others for accepting it, who are affected.

See, there's that first assumption again. Why should the new victims get to jump the queue? Where did that assumption come from?
Well, that assumption comes from my initial thinking.

Even if Bert and Ernie had liability for, "letting a known dishonest individual" wander around at large without adequate supervision" that is not the case here. The three stooges were not found guilty of a status crime (i.e., being a drug addict or being a rapist). The result of the arbitration was that they had to pay the plaintiffs for damages and other expenses they caused them, not for being "known dishonest individuals."
I'm not surprised that an AnCap society doesn't believe in "status crimes".

Even our own state society has branded as unconstitutional - for example, in a court decision in British Columbia a few years ago - a law that would let the police round up all the drug addicts and eliminate the drug problem by putting them all in rehabilitation programs where they can't use drugs any more and won't be let out until they don't want them any more.

My assumption is, therefore, that even if an AnCap society doesn't believe in status crimes, it's still true that... status conditions... exist. And whether it's the society as a whole, or Bert and Ernie as plaintiffs, it's possible to be negligent in failing to take these status conditions into account.

Given my sanguinary interpretation of common law, it should come as no surprise that I assume that the default penalty for force or fraud is that the responsible party becomes the property of the wronged party. Subject to protections against sexual assault, and against being cut up for transplant organs... if doing so is not required to satisfy the debt.

Thus, I see Morris as Bert and Ernie's Rottweiler that they chose to let wander around without a leash.

On the other hand, through Lawrence and Kinko, you have shown that people who do wrong things can redeem themselves, and thus offenders should be recognized and treated as human beings, even if they have a debt to repay. I applaud the sentiment, but I despair of being able to afford to fully put it into practice. But it certainly does help if, as is the case in the Belt, there's plenty of honest work available.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: mellyrn on December 10, 2010, 01:37:21 pm
Quote
I applaud the sentiment, but I despair of being able to afford to fully put it into practice.


Emphasis added.  That's the desire for certainty again.  There are no guarantees, period.  Restraining the "rottweiler" (Morris) gets you the illusion of additional safety, even as it creates more uncertainty by turning the Kinkos and Lawrences into rottweilers themselves, out of sheer resentment.  Even if they "deserved" to be treated like dangerous dogs, they'd still resent it, and unless they're positive saints or suddenly enlightened, they're going to act out of that resentment.  And if you're going to argue that knowing the "unreliable" "status" of one of our 3 stooges makes the knower responsible for later problems, you must accept responsibility for treating someone in a way you know generates resentment & its attendant hostility.

You can't tell the Lawrences & Kinkos from the Morrises until you take the chance.  Not taking the chance implies that you think the Morris outcome is the more probable.  You will thus generate the very outcome you don't want, by "resenting" the Ks and Ls into becoming the Ms they weren't.

I'll take the risk of trusting someone for a variety of reasons:

a) I know people, personally, who behave trustworthily in response to being trusted, and, if mistrusted initially, will post-facto oblige by becoming untrustworthy; sort of, "I done the time, might as well do the crime" sort of thinking;

b) taking the chance doesn't create the abovementioned resentment & subsequent problems, but rather invites cooperation;

c) having come to terms with my inherent insecurity, I prefer in myself the friendliness of trusting (which doesn't have to be blind, btw), so if I'm betrayed, I get to die (worst-case) being the kind of person I like, rather than someone I don't like.

The State promises a level of safety it cannot provide.  What percent of ex-cons are better people than they were before prison? 
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: jamesd on December 10, 2010, 07:22:45 pm
The original basis for tort law was to make you whole again. I would imagine that in a restitution based society, "Triple damages" would not be done. The result of arbitration would be to cover your losses; not to be punitive.

That does not work for crimes:  If a burglar only has to pay back what he steals when he gets caught stealing, he is going to go on stealing.  Where someone has been wrongfully harmed, to make him whole, requires vengeance.

The rule in Athens before the rule of kings, was that if you caught someone burgling, you could kill him, or hold him prisoner and demand whatever his friends and relatives would pay in return for his life.  The rule in saga period iceland was a little gentler, but still pretty harsh.  You were supposed to sue the offender, on the spot execution only being acceptable for grave offenses such as arson or burglary of an occupied dwelling, and you could not hold the offender hostage for payment.  The offender would be fined. If he failed to pay up, you would go back to the court to have him declared outlaw.  If an outlaw, then you, or anyone else, can kill him without consequences.

Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: mellyrn on December 11, 2010, 07:09:14 am
Quote
Where someone has been wrongfully harmed, to make him whole, requires vengeance.

The burglar upon whom vengeance is wreaked says to himself, "My goodness, I've been wrong" and becomes a nonburglaring person?

Or, the burglar upon whom vengeance is wreaked becomes a more careful burglar?

Your vengeance, no matter how extreme, is nothing more than "hazards of the course" to a burglar, exactly analogous to ice chasms to the Himalayan climber, or micrometeorites to the traveling Belter.  Notice how effective either chasm or meteorite is or will be in stopping either the climber or the space traveler?  Rage how you will against the criminal, you are nothing more than a meteorite to him.

There are alternatives, but I am daunted by the magnitude of the task of conveying them to you.  If you are sincerely interested (and not merely vested in preserving your "vengeance" model come what may), you could start by investigating "pattern interrupts".
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 11, 2010, 08:07:58 am
Quote
Where someone has been wrongfully harmed, to make him whole, requires vengeance.

The burglar upon whom vengeance is wreaked says to himself, "My goodness, I've been wrong" and becomes a nonburglaring person?

It depends. An incompetent burglar might figure out he doesn't want to do that, almost regardless of the punishment. He does something, he gets caught, people don't like it and they don't like him. He tried it and it didn't work.

A competent burglar gets away with it most of the time. He gets proud of his skill and he figures if he's good enough he can get away with it all the time. Every now and then he gets caught and he considers it a freak accident. He has no other way to make money that's nearly as efficient. So it's likely he rationalizes out reasons why he deserves his profits. Really no different than bankers or lawyers, except for the social stigma and the chance he'll get caught.

He can turn moral from the goodness of his heart.

Or if the punishment is severe enough, he might make an economic calculation. "Hmm. I get caught about once a year, and then I get incarcerated for a year. So my profits are only half what it looks like they are because I can only work about half the time." Prison is an occupational hazard. He can take a poll of the other burglars in prison and figure that on average they last about 6 months and he's twice as good as they are. (He can also compare how they got caught and think about ways to do better.) It takes repeated cycles for him to estimate the cycle length. The more uncertainty in the process, the longer it takes him to tell how profitable his business is. And of course over the years he gets set in his ways and more resistant to taking an entry-level job.

In general it's hard for people to learn from freak accidents. Look how many people chose to rebuild in New Orleans. And a lot of criminals think of getting caught by the police as a freak accident.

So I think the size of the punishment is not nearly as important as the likelihood of getting caught. The more likely it is that burglars get caught, the more social stigma they might get from repeated prosecution etc.

Quote
Or, the burglar upon whom vengeance is wreaked becomes a more careful burglar?

I would hope so! At the least.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: jamesd on December 11, 2010, 01:11:46 pm
Quote
Where someone has been wrongfully harmed, to make him whole, requires vengeance.

The burglar upon whom vengeance is wreaked says to himself, "My goodness, I've been wrong" and becomes a nonburglaring person?

This has been demonstrated to work, given sufficiently dramatic vengeance.  Recidivism is extremely rare after a Singaporean caning.  I personally have observed dramatic change in behavior after I beat the crap out of an offender.

Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 11, 2010, 01:19:57 pm
Your vengeance, no matter how extreme, is nothing more than "hazards of the course" to a burglar,
Even restitution includes "vengeance" in the sense that the thief's profit is usually less than the damage he does to his victim. He might break doors on the way in, and he is likely to sell stolen articles at less than their replacement cost.

If it weren't for that, getting caught occasionally, and having to pay back what was stolen, wouldn't be enough to make stealing unprofitable. Whatever approach is taken to theft, that much, at least, does have to be achieved - but restitution without vengeance may be sufficient for that for the reasons noted above.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Scott on December 12, 2010, 01:27:22 pm
A restitution-based system would include not only returning what was stolen, and compensation for damages incurred in the burglary, but compensating the victim for the effort used in tracking down and apprehending the burglar, possibly paying one's advocate for her or his services, and certainly paying the judge. These charges could easily amount to, effectively, "treble damages."

Although, in most cases what would likely happen in simple burglary situations is that the insurance company would pay for losses and not likely make an effort to track down a burglar unless a string of burglaries -- and resultant claims -- make it worthwhile.

Of course, if Ceres has a "castle doctrine," which seems likely, a burglar also has to figure risk of getting shot and killed in the course of the burglary. We know already that they do this, because so-called "hot" burglaries (where the victims are at home) occur far less frequently in areas of high gun-ownership rates than they do in areas of low gun-ownership rates.

Finally, a recidivist in a place like the Belt faces the prospect of social shunning. A one-time offender may be forgiven but a repeat offender may find no one willing to trade or give him anything. And in the Belt, that could be fatal.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: jamesd on December 12, 2010, 02:34:39 pm
Thus, I see Morris as Bert and Ernie's Rottweiler that they chose to let wander around without a leash.

In Saga period Iceland, it was quite uncommon for offenders to become enslaved or indentured.  Rather, when you committed an offense you could not pay for, the offended person frequently killed you.

Sometimes the offended person went to court first, thereby giving the offender a chance to get the hell out.  If he pursued this legalistic path, the offender would be fined, and being unable to pay, would be outlawed, and, being outlawed, could be killed out of hand by anyone - though by this time the offender was usually no longer in Iceland.

Sometimes the offended person just killed the offender out of hand, and then went to court.  The court might order him to pay restitution to the relatives of the offender, depending on the severity of the offense.

My expectation is that at anarchic society would have a swifter way with impecunious criminals, that was a lot closer to saga period Iceland than the society depicted in this story.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: mellyrn on December 12, 2010, 08:43:24 pm
I don't much care for what I see as jamesd's preferred system for dealing with offenders.  He probably wouldn't like mine, either.

A State establishes a universal system for coping with offenders.  Perhaps it sets up one that jamesd likes, in which case I am obliged to be party to practices of which I disapprove; perhaps it sets up one more tolerable to me, in which case jamesd is made complicit in practices he objects to; perhaps it chooses some third program that offends jamesd and me equally (if for unlike reasons).

In an anarchy, if you burgle jamesd's home or otherwise trespass upon his personal sovereignty, he will do to you whatever it is he does in reaction to that, and I will not interfere, because that would be, in my view, a worse transgression against his sovereignty than merely messing with his physical property or being.  If it's my home you burgle, I expect neighbor jamesd not to interfere in whatever it is I do about that.

And neither of us is coerced into forking out time or money (e.g. taxes) to support an approach to criminal trespass that we don't respect.  At worst, we're obliged to put up with someone else somewhere doing something we don't like, but not to us -- and it's not like that never happens.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: bjdotson on December 13, 2010, 02:17:11 pm
A restitution-based system would include not only returning what was stolen, and compensation for damages incurred in the burglary, but compensating the victim for the effort used in tracking down and apprehending the burglar, possibly paying one's advocate for her or his services, and certainly paying the judge. These charges could easily amount to, effectively, "treble damages."

Although, in most cases what would likely happen in simple burglary situations is that the insurance company would pay for losses and not likely make an effort to track down a burglar unless a string of burglaries -- and resultant claims -- make it worthwhile.

Of course, if Ceres has a "castle doctrine," which seems likely, a burglar also has to figure risk of getting shot and killed in the course of the burglary. We know already that they do this, because so-called "hot" burglaries (where the victims are at home) occur far less frequently in areas of high gun-ownership rates than they do in areas of low gun-ownership rates.

Finally, a recidivist in a place like the Belt faces the prospect of social shunning. A one-time offender may be forgiven but a repeat offender may find no one willing to trade or give him anything. And in the Belt, that could be fatal.
True, but it still would not be triple damages; you're just adding to the list of damages needed to make him whole. Restituition, not punishment.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: jamesd on December 13, 2010, 10:55:16 pm
.Now this is a curious assumption. (Actually, just goofy.) Even if Bert and Ernie had liability for, "letting a known dishonest individual" wander around at large without adequate supervision" that is not the case here. The three stooges were not found guilty of a status crime (i.e., being a drug addict or being a rapist). The result of the arbitration was that they had to pay the plaintiffs for damages and other expenses they caused them, not for being "known dishonest individuals."


Your imagined anarchic society is kinder and gentler to no-account broke low lifes than I would expect.  I would expect them to be sent out the airlock with no spacesuit.

But, assuming that at least some of the low lifes keep keep on misbehaving, as seems to be happening in the story, I would suspect the kindness and gentleness to run out pretty fast.
.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 14, 2010, 01:23:34 am
A restitution-based system would include not only returning what was stolen, and compensation for damages incurred in the burglary, but compensating the victim for the effort used in tracking down and apprehending the burglar, possibly paying one's advocate for her or his services, and certainly paying the judge. These charges could easily amount to, effectively, "treble damages."

True, but it still would not be triple damages; you're just adding to the list of damages needed to make him whole. Restituition, not punishment.

Agreed. I originally wrote "triple damages" as a sort of shorthand. As various people have pointed out, if you can steal and pay back what you took if you get caught but otherwise you keep it, then the overhead for stealing is not very high -- apart from social problems.

In the example, the thieves are clueless. Not unlikely if they had succeeded, they would have tried to take both ships. "What are you doing with my friends' ship?" "Oh, they sold it to us. Right before their accident."

Maybe they knew how to collect a mascon and just took that. Maybe they knew where to sell it. "Hey, this isn't the missing mascon that Bert and Ernie were working, is it?" "Oh no, this is another one we dug up ourselves. We went out mining -- over there." "On Cicero's claim? He didn't know there was a mascon there."

If you have criminals who know where to fence a stolen spaceship then it's a whole different story. But that requires a working criminal culture for them to be part of.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: terry_freeman on December 14, 2010, 04:00:46 am
jamesd, that's one feature of AnCap law - in a sense, it is "kinder and gentler" in not requiring treble damages, nor punitive enslavement. But in another sense, it can be brutal. Using violence to rob armed AnCap citizens can be a "dead end career" in a most literal sense.

Old saying: better to be tried by a jury of twelve than carried by six. Armed robbers face a systemic disadvantage; they may "win" encounters 1, 2, . . . but lose everything in the nth encounter.

There's a fine line. In a case such as Bert and Ernie faced, it was possible to subdue and bring their attackers to justice. In a violent melee, one does not always have that choice. Deadly force is an acceptable method of preserving one's own life against immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.

I am curious about how martial arts would adapt in low- or zero-g -- but that's another question. Momentum and mass still exist; hurling oneself into a powerful kick could be judged a form of assisted suicide.

Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on December 14, 2010, 08:18:25 am
Your imagined anarchic society is kinder and gentler to no-account broke low lifes than I would expect.  I would expect them to be sent out the airlock with no spacesuit.

That is because your expectation are always collectivist. An anarchist society is not gentle or cruel, nor does "it" throw people out the airlock. People are gentle or cruel and some might throw someone out the airlock. However, because MYOB* is the default setting in an AnCap society, there are a lot fewer people to agree with you about giving someone the old heave-ho. To the extent that people would prefer to preserve the ZAP status que, they might use force to stop you from initiating force on another. That would be perfectly acceptable under the ZAP.

* "Mind Your Own Business." Here's a bit of trivia. The pennies minted by the Continental Congress were inscribed with the words "Mind Your Own Business." They were designed by Ben Franklin.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 14, 2010, 11:51:41 am
The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.
I would assume, though, that people have more latitude for self-defense in an AnCap society than in a statist society.

Was there reason to believe that he owed her money, and was attempting to impede the determination of that fact? Yes.

Did he behave in such a manner to indicate that her life could have been endangered if she attempted to stop him from running away, and check him for the relevant evidence, in a gentler manner? Yes.

In a statist society, she is likely to have been required to accept the alternative of him running away and evading responsibility for his actions as a card shark in preference to using "excessive" force in such a case; after all, it's only money. That is not how it works, nor is it how it should work, in a free society.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 14, 2010, 12:13:30 pm
The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.
I would assume, though, that people have more latitude for self-defense in an AnCap society than in a statist society.

Was there reason to believe that he owed her money, and was attempting to impede the determination of that fact? Yes.

Did he behave in such a manner to indicate that her life could have been endangered if she attempted to stop him from running away, and check him for the relevant evidence, in a gentler manner? Yes.

In a statist society, she is likely to have been required to accept the alternative of him running away and evading responsibility for his actions as a card shark in preference to using "excessive" force in such a case; after all, it's only money. That is not how it works, nor is it how it should work, in a free society.

All that aside, it might be culturally acceptable to have occasional lethal fights during certain sorts of card games. If you don't want to take that chance, stay away from those particular games.

Some places might tend to prevent that sort of thing. If you have a problem, call the bouncers and anybody who wants to resist them is volunteering for as much violence as it takes. For part of their arbitration they can refer to their recordings of their cameras. (If you don't trust them to keep your hands secret during regular games then play somewhere else.)

If you want to play with a rough crowd and you know the groundrules, who should stop you?
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on December 14, 2010, 04:26:15 pm
Here's a bit of trivia. The pennies minted by the Continental Congress were inscribed with the words "Mind Your Own Business." They were designed by Ben Franklin.

Here's a clipart graphic of the same:

(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/12600/12689/frank-penny_12689_lg.gif)

Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 14, 2010, 07:42:52 pm
Here's a clipart graphic of the same:
"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

Which is good. In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on December 14, 2010, 09:14:29 pm
Here's a clipart graphic of the same:
"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

Which is good. In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.

Both with and without "own", the phrases have identical meanings.  "Own" simply adds emphasis for the dull-witted.  It has dual meanings; pay attention to your own business, and keep out of mine.

I have never encountered a "thug" stating either; in most cases they are attempting to "mind" my (or some third party's) business.  Those who use it and practice it have my respect; those who fail to mind their own have my pity, and those who try to mind mine have my ire.

I'm certainly  glad Quadibloc doesn't put his (or her) thoughts on money I use.


Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Plane on December 14, 2010, 09:59:47 pm

How are Cerieans bringing up their children?

People with a strong understanding of math , Probability and Games , might not enjoy a game of chance, or am I wrong and they would just want a more complicated game? I think that the median education level will make a diffrence either way.

Are children "free" at early ages?

Is integrety taught as a need?
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Iron Lightning on December 14, 2010, 10:23:35 pm
Are children "free" at early ages?

Is integrety taught as a need?

Good question, I assume that children are free at early ages.  Most children are likely to stay with their parents unless the parents in question are particularly abusive.  This is pretty much the case in the U.S., wherein children under substantial abuse have the right to file emancipation paperwork and go to live on their own.  I see no reason why this would not be the case in an anarchic society (without the paperwork, of course.)

As for your second question: that's up to the parents.

By the way, hi, long time lurker first time poster.  I hope that my time on this forum will be both informative and enjoyable.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on December 15, 2010, 07:55:15 am
"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

My understanding is that Franklin intended "Mind Your Own Business," but that it was shortened to fit on the coin. In any case, "Mind Your Business" could also mean, "Mind Your Own Business."

In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.

I sincerely doubt you have ever had any experience with thugs saying "mind your own business." Be that as it may, in my experience the expression was only used by government types, "move along, nothing to see here," and the victims of snoops and officious intermeddlers. YMMV
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: terry_freeman on December 15, 2010, 08:28:17 am
I suspect that children on Ceres will be much more independent, like today's "Free Range" movement. They'll often be taught at home; excellent resources will be on the tanglenet equivalent of today's interweb; they'll mingle more freely with all sorts of people than today's cloistered youth do. They'll be articulate; they'll learn social norms appropriate to AnCap society, rather than to regimented factory you-will-do-as-you-are-told schools. Emancipation will happen without formal paperwork, and will depend on the child's preferences; they are unlikely to stay in abusive relationships. It is probable that youngsters will be more prone to accept invitations to bunk over with friends, sometimes for extended periods - a sort of voluntary and congenial form of foster parenting. The "age of reason" will move downward from 18 or 21; if I recall correctly, children as young as ten were presumed to be able to responsibly defend themselves at the age of ten in pre-War-between-states Massachusetts. Admiral Farrugut went to sea at the age of ten, and captained a ship at the age of twelve. Today, in farm country, one sees quite young children driving horses, cows, trucks, and tractors - and "bringing home the venison" with skilled and responsible use of firearms.

Regarding "Mind Your Own Business", there is a delightful story where MYOB is frequently heard. IIRC, the title is "And then there were none."

http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: bjdotson on December 15, 2010, 10:02:23 am
I love this story. I have it in a two volume set called, "The Science Fiction Hall of Fame" It's a collection of short stories and novellas that came out too early for Hugo or Nebulla award consideration, but derserved it.

Added note: I am talking about the post recommending "and then there was none"
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on December 15, 2010, 05:03:13 pm
I suspect that children on Ceres will be much more independent, like today's "Free Range" movement. They'll often be taught at home; excellent resources will be on the tanglenet equivalent of today's interweb; they'll mingle more freely with all sorts of people than today's cloistered youth do. They'll be articulate; they'll learn social norms appropriate to AnCap society, rather than to regimented factory you-will-do-as-you-are-told schools. Emancipation will happen without formal paperwork, and will depend on the child's preferences; they are unlikely to stay in abusive relationships. It is probable that youngsters will be more prone to accept invitations to bunk over with friends, sometimes for extended periods - a sort of voluntary and congenial form of foster parenting.

I think all of the above is a pretty good guess. Of course, humans and human relationships are all different. I'm sure we will see everything Terry predicts, plus things none of us would ever think of.

The "age of reason" will move downward from 18 or 21; if I recall correctly, children as young as ten were presumed to be able to responsibly defend themselves at the age of ten in pre-War-between-states Massachusetts. Admiral Farrugut went to sea at the age of ten, and captained a ship at the age of twelve. Today, in farm country, one sees quite young children driving horses, cows, trucks, and tractors - and "bringing home the venison" with skilled and responsible use of firearms.

I have read about parentless Jewish children as young as 10, were able to "pass" as gentiles and live on their own or with others off the grid, in WWII Germany. They mingled with the German soldiers and even Nazis, and were able to get by on handouts and other means.

Depends on the kid, of course, but there is no magic cut-off age. All throughout childhood, children incrementally take on more adult skills. Once on a trip across the country, I spent a night on L. Neil Smith's couch. At that time, his daughter, Rylla, was four. She stood around like a little grownup as the adults talked--no interrupting, fidgeting or whining. It was eerie. There were guns around the home--no trigger locks or any of that crap. And of course, Rylla had her own gun. I will tell you this, I would be more comfortable with that four-year old, packing than I would with some of the posters on this Forum. (You know who you are.)   ::)
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 16, 2010, 09:54:51 pm
So, we have a new story plot--instead of getting a job, Morris is trying to make a living by gambling.  Being a society based on NAP, gambling isn't against the law.  But if Morris is cheating, then that will cause a problem, and perhaps be a violation of his "parole". 

Now it appears that the cheating was not even an issue. Morris got into a conflict with an established prestigious regular, and that might be enough to get him banned from every gambling hall in the Belt. The regular said he was cheating and attacked him, and he tried to hit back. Bad move.

Things often do work that way in our world. Governments make claims of due process and equality under the law and all that. But people who voluntarily associate don't have any obligation to be just as fair to strangers as they do to regular members. If they don't want trouble, and a stranger causes trouble, then they don't have to continue to associate with that stranger.

Maybe a regular who starts too many conflicts with newbies will find his welcome growing cold too. He should let somebody else take their turn at harassing the grifters. There are all sorts of ways it could go.

Morris made the mistake of cheating in a way that could easily be proven if it came to a search after the event. That was pretty stupid. But maybe it was stupid of him to win too much on his first visit. It's possible that all it would take was winning too much too soon to get him thrown out. And if it turned out that as a newbie he couldn't win enough to live in the style to which he wished to become accustomed, that would be just too bad.

A cheater-friendly gambling house might figure that a competent cheater would be OK -- they would get the house percentage regardless. And an incompetent cheater would provide some excitement. People could break his thumbs or whatever, and it would be a good time for all but one. Not the house's problem.

But they would probably want to avoid fights, and when newbies get into fights then just get rid of them. There are always more newbies.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 17, 2010, 12:11:15 am
It was clear enough that Morris' mistake was to get greedy. He could have been patient, and been a successful card hustler. Instead, he chose to rush things, and poisoned the well.

I don't think that Suki just murdered him and disposed of the body well. (It could be that he has been killed, though, and Suki will be suspected of the murder.) Instead, I suspect that since "card" is not an option for him, it's either find a couple other lowlifes to help him steal another spaceship, or disappear from the Belt, using some sort of disguise to board commercial transport.

And it will be his own greed and dishonesty and stupidity that will cause his "karma" to catch up with him in the end. And yet twists that avoid the story being accused of being simply a "morality play" are quite possible too.
Title: Re: Page 595
Post by: AlpineBob on December 17, 2010, 03:41:43 am
Looks like the speech bubbles in panel 5 are misattributed.

Also, thanks for posting the penny, Neither.
Title: Re: Page 595
Post by: SandySandfort on December 17, 2010, 06:50:02 am
Looks like the speech bubbles in panel 5 are misattributed.

Yeah, I noticed it too and notified Scott. Check again later today.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Azure Priest on December 17, 2010, 07:31:37 am
Quote from: SandySandfort
If the bad guys take a hike, she and the plaintiffs take a bath. To bad, so sad.

As I recall, the judgement leveled against them had Merry pay Bert, Ernie, and Reggie for damages, and then Larry, Curly, and Moe would reimburse Merry. Should they "take a hike," Merry would be the only one "taking a bath."

To date, only Larry seems to be in the "take a hike" mood though. The others seemingly had a "change of heart" and have found gainful employment. Bert and Ernie's mercy does not appear to have been misplaced.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: RayInHalifax on December 27, 2010, 06:57:21 pm
There is a big blind spot in this discussion.  From what I understand each and every transaction in belter society is at its' root understood to be an ethical transaction as well as what ever service or good is exchanged.  In making the exchange you implicitly affirm that the goods or service you put up are ethically obtained.

Take Bob the Thief that was brought up.  He gets caught and goes to arbitration. Ok say he pays off the debt with stolen 'money'.  It's found out later that he did it through whatever means.  All right what do you suppose happens next?  If he manages to get another arbitration he either gets sent to 'slave labour' or would have to get certification that is acceptable to all parties that the payment is Bob's to ethically put up in payment.

Take it further he doesn't do either of the these things; for what ever reason.  Bob's name and pic get circulated as an ethical version of a bad cheque.  No ethical merchant or person will trade with him for food, water, shelter, clothing; nothing, zip and bupkus.  That gives a person a powerful need to carry though on their obligations from an arbitration.  Oh and the unethical merchants?  Well they probably won't trade with Bob to keep from attracting attention to them selfs.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 27, 2010, 07:21:50 pm
I suppose that the party of four benefiting from Belter "respect for privacy" is an elite hit squad brought all the way from Earth to find Morris and do him in.

This doesn't make sense, unless, I suppose, that Suki just happens to control something like 50% of the United Worlds' trade in illegal drugs... and finds the belt a less expensive place in which to live well. Oh, my, Morris' impulsiveness really landed him in trouble. Somehow, though, I'm sure that my guess must be wrong, and the plot will turn out to be much more reasonable in its circumstances.

Now, if they were a UW hit squad sent to make an example of that "traitor" Guy Gaillard, that would make sense. Like a gangster, a tyrant depends on "respect" for his power. But that would be a whole new story arc.

Ah, well, there could be plenty of reasons, such as doing the right person a favor along the way, that Suki could happen to have some very loyal friends. And they may not even be there to murder him. Since he hasn't already been murdered, simply doing the public service of pointing out to his creditors where he happens to be hiding would be vengeance enough... and that would make sense in the context of this story arc. But I suspect the reality will be even better.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: terry_freeman on December 28, 2010, 05:06:22 pm
I am guessing that the squad of military types was sent by the UW. They may simply wish to stir up trouble by direct application of force - such as arresting Guy or engaging in sabotage or mayhem - but they may have even deeper plans.

What if, for example, they are angling to become involved in an arbitration case which somehow "violates" UW law, in order to provide a pretext for UW "intervention" on their behalf?

In the latest panel, they are meeting a lass who may be engaged in the provision of certain erotic services. Perhaps that violates UW law? Or perhaps she offers to sell certain politically-incorrect vegetables, such as marijuana?
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on December 30, 2010, 06:53:57 pm
I'm now beginning to think that the only explanation of the last few strips that "makes sense" is that it's a flashback to The Origin of Suki. Which presumably means that Ed is going to find himself in an awkward situation as the young lady at the bar has to explain herself. However, since she doesn't look like Suki, even, say, a younger Suki, I guess that one's out too.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: J Thomas on December 30, 2010, 07:18:22 pm
I'm now beginning to think that the only explanation of the last few strips that "makes sense" is that it's a flashback to The Origin of Suki. Which presumably means that Ed is going to find himself in an awkward situation as the young lady at the bar has to explain herself. However, since she doesn't look like Suki, even, say, a younger Suki, I guess that one's out too.

Rhonda is described as ethiopian, while Suki is presumably siamese. I don't think they're the same person.

The buttons describe this as a new story arc, so it doesn't have to have anything to do with Suki etc. The phrasing "The incident that would lead this group to be called 'the coal-mine canaries' happened late on their third night on Ceres...." tends to imply it is in the past relative to something else, but since it's a new story arc it isn't obvious what the reference point would be.

"Coal-mine canaries" refers to the practice of keeping small birds in coal mines. If the air went bad they died quick which was supposed to warn miners there was a problem. Presumably these people will be trouble magnets of some sort. If it kills them then they might likely not get a posthumous label. But they might be good people to have around if they consistently run into problems quick that you would run into later.... And somehow they aren't the heroes of the story. Ed is the hero.

We don't actually get a look at the gun on the guy on her other side, but Ed's gun and his gun are the only ones described so far....
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Plane on January 01, 2011, 05:16:54 pm
I suspect that children on Ceres will be much more independent, like today's "Free Range" movement.

Depends on the kid, of course, but there is no magic cut-off age. All throughout childhood, children incrementally take on more adult skills. Once on a trip across the country, I spent a night on L. Neil Smith's couch. At that time, his daughter, Rylla, was four. She stood around like a little grownup as the adults talked--no interrupting, fidgeting or whining. It was eerie. There were guns around the home--no trigger locks or any of that crap. And of course, Rylla had her own gun. I will tell you this, I would be more comfortable with that four-year old, packing than I would with some of the posters on this Forum. (You know who you are.)   ::)


Part of this story  is that aquireing wealth is pretty easy in the Belt, or if not easily then quickly with hard work.

It is quite nearly universal that people want the best for their children, I wonder if really good teaching could earn a person a good living?

If poor teachers might starve ?Why settle for substandard where a bit of ignorance might be fatal?

If a seriously good teacher might become a rockstar , with fans and flunkys and high income because he is able to explain the difficult so well?
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: terry_freeman on January 02, 2011, 11:19:06 am

It is quite nearly universal that people want the best for their children, I wonder if really good teaching could earn a person a good living?

If poor teachers might starve ?Why settle for substandard where a bit of ignorance might be fatal?

If a seriously good teacher might become a rockstar , with fans and flunkys and high income because he is able to explain the difficult so well?

This is very likely to be the case. On my shelves is an interesting book, "Sacred Mathematics: Japanese Temple Geometry" by Fukagawa Hidetoshi & Tony Rothman

The level of mathematics instruction in Japan when they were isolated from the West was striking. Schools during this period were dojos, specialized one-room schools which prospered or failed depending upon their reputation.

I expect an AnCap society to have superstar teachers who prosper. Those who cannot teach will not be subsidized by the State [ since there is no State ], will lose customers, and will probably gravitate toward something more closely matched to their talents.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: SandySandfort on January 02, 2011, 03:01:00 pm
I expect an AnCap society to have superstar teachers who prosper. Those who cannot teach will not be subsidized by the State [ since there is no State ], will lose customers, and will probably gravitate toward something more closely matched to their talents.

If I had to guess, schooling would be primarily home schooling. So far, home schooling not only kicks government school ass, but private school ass as well. Of course, you might hire a math specialist to teach mathematics to Barbie ("Math is hard!" says Barbie), but concerned parents and the internet will be the cornerstone to superior education. Plus, check this out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645070639938954.html
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: KBCraig on January 03, 2011, 03:17:13 am
If I had to guess, schooling would be primarily home schooling. So far, home schooling not only kicks government school ass, but private school ass as well. Of course, you might hire a math specialist to teach mathematics to Barbie ("Math is hard!" says Barbie), but concerned parents and the internet will be the cornerstone to superior education.

A basic elementary education, as it was known until the late 19th Century in America, can be adequately taught at home by any parents who are functionally literate and numerate.

I used to compare the Jethro Bodine "Sixth Grade Edjumecation!" to a modern High School diploma, until the latter proved insufficient by comparison.

I consider all of the following equivalent levels of general education:

1890: Sixth grade
1940: Eighth grade
1970: Twelfth grade, high school diploma
1990: College, BA/BS degree

And after that, it breaks down completely, simply because many current BA/BS and even MA/MS diplomates lack the literacy and numeracy (not to mention knowledge of history, language, and rhetoric), that would be required for a Sixth grade diploma from a one-room schoolhouse on the American prairie just 120 year ago.


Quote
Plus, check this out:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645070639938954.html

Thanks very much for that link. I recall his original self-learning project, where he placed internet kiosks in the back country of India, in regions that had never seen television, let alone computers. When he came back weeks later, the children had mostly mastered the internet, and were hungry for more.

We are home schoolers. Our oldest four (two hers, two mine) mostly suffered through public schools, but when Little Mister Honeymoon Surprise came along (9 months, 1 day after the wedding; 8 years after his youngest sibling), we vowed we would not subject him to that. Literally from the day he was born (and sometimes even before then), he was read to by parents or older siblings. At Age Two, he knew his alphabet; by Three, he was reading on his own.

He turned 8 in November.

This (Sunday) evening when I called from work to check on things at home, my wife had to cut me short, because LMHS had been poring through my collegiate dictionary, and had questions. Among other things, he had recited to her the Popes Innocent; since we're not Roman Catholic, I was only vaguely aware that there hadn been a Pope Innocent, but he listed all 13 from memory, using their Latin names.

This is the same kid who doesn't get to use the computer himself, although we do allow him to read certain pages or articles. Just the day before, he asked me which month the War of 1812 started. I didn't know off-hand, so I pulled up the Wikipedia article, then promptly got scooted out of my computer chair while he read the entire article. Not just once, but over and over. He used my Apple Magic Mouse to scroll through the article, but never clicked any links. Three hours later, I had to give him the boot. It only took him 15-20 minutes to read the article straight through, but he had to go back and really absorb it.

Same kid, within the previous week, saw the year 1880 on some television program. "1880? Cool! That was just 4 years before Eleanor Roosevelt was born!" Wait... WTF? I can understand a kid who loves history learning the presidents, but knowing the year a particular first lady was born, and pulling that up out of context, only related to a similar date?

We are educated people, but at this point we're just trying to keep up and provide enough materical to feed his autodidactic hunger, until we can turn him loose at an institute of higher learning. By that time we'll be living in New Hampshire, and thankfully Dartmouth has a full scholarship program for anyone who can meet their academic standards. His big sister might have to go with him, because I doubt he'll be driving by the time he's ready for college.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: terry_freeman on January 03, 2011, 08:41:04 am
Yes, I agree - autodidactic learning will become the prominent method. People - including children - will seek out information and mentors. Parents will share what they know.

If you can find a copy of Ben Franklin's Autobiography, it is an interesting read. Ben had just two years of formal schooling. Somewhere around the age of 10 or 12, Ben's father took him around to see various people engaged in their trades, to enable Ben to choose "what to do when I grow up" - which is to say, at the age of 12 or so.

The Autobiography relates a sea voyage to Britain, where Ben carried a large sum of money which was owed to someone in Britain. Ben, acting as an agent of the debtor, was only 17 years old at the time.

Ben taught himself languages, mathematics, science, and rhetoric. He organized study groups of like-minded autodidacts.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: mellyrn on January 03, 2011, 11:20:39 am
While homeschooling my own, we looked into Sumerian history.  They made zillions of clay-tablet letters, many of them still familiar (a daughter sent off to a priestess school writing home to ask for more money, for example).

The descriptions of schools and schooling floored me.  A boy would be wakened by his mom, who handed him his packed lunch.  He went to the school building, where he sat in rows on benches facing the teacher at the front of the class.  The teacher presented the day's lesson, and the boy went home to do his homework.

A poem preserved from them describes a boy struggling to do well, who decides to invite his teacher home for dinner -- sort of the Sumerian version of bringing an apple, apparently.

"Modern" classrooms are still pretty archaic, hey?

My dream school consists of a community of people all doing whatever it is they do, who accept that kids will be barging in and out, observing, asking questions, wanting to help.  A "teacher" -- more like a 'childherd', I guess -- would be handy for those adults who are less kid-friendly or -competent, or who just have their hands full when the student arrives.  The childherd could also facilitate student discussions on why Sov. Businessman was doing what he did the way he did, or its implications to society, or whatever the kids were intrigued by.

St Johns College in Annapolis has this structure to their classes:  the students read the assigned reading (so they're all talking about the same thing) beforehand; when they come to class, the tutor poses "the opening question".  The tutor may have read the material for the first time himself just the night before, and all the tutors facilitate (as opposed to "teach") all the classes sooner or later.  The "opening question" may be anything. 

It launches a discussion and, since the students in one class are necessarily not the same as the students in another class doing the same reading, each discussion will be unique.   All students have the same curriculum; there are no "majors".  All three of mine went to St Johns; no two of them got the same education -- save that they all reeeally learned critical thinking.

Parents' Day, we got a chance to experience it.  Mine was a geometry class and the reading had been the first chapter of Euclid's original work (St Johns teaches from original sources), so we were discussing what was a 'point', a 'line' and so on.  It was terribly funny -- 'discussion'?  Hah!  We almost came to blows as some insisted that a line is a row of points, like a string of pearls, and others were equally vehement that, since a point has no dimensionality, no amount of them could "add up" to a line.  Hee.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: quadibloc on January 03, 2011, 08:36:29 pm
We almost came to blows as some insisted that a line is a row of points, like a string of pearls, and others were equally vehement that, since a point has no dimensionality, no amount of them could "add up" to a line.
This is what's wrong with the school system these days. They stick teachers up in front of a class who don't understand enough about the subject they're teaching to answer the kids' questions.

Since a point has no dimensionality, it is impossible to build a line from a finite number of points, or even a collection of points with cardinality aleph-null (that is, an infinite number of points that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers or the counting numbers). But a line indeed does consist of points and nothing but - however, a much larger number of points, having the cardinality of the continuum.

And then the teacher explains Cantor's diagonal proof.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: mellyrn on January 04, 2011, 06:53:31 am
Quote
This is what's wrong with the school system these days. They stick teachers up in front of a class who don't understand enough about the subject they're teaching to answer the kids' questions.

And that's the beauty of St Johns, where the whole point is to referee the students' own exploration (not only of the problem at hand, but how to communicate with their fellow students).  Had we been actual students, there for multiple classes, we would have progressed beyond that initial brawl.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2011, 09:11:02 pm
We almost came to blows as some insisted that a line is a row of points, like a string of pearls, and others were equally vehement that, since a point has no dimensionality, no amount of them could "add up" to a line.
This is what's wrong with the school system these days. They stick teachers up in front of a class who don't understand enough about the subject they're teaching to answer the kids' questions.

Since a point has no dimensionality, it is impossible to build a line from a finite number of points, or even a collection of points with cardinality aleph-null (that is, an infinite number of points that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers or the counting numbers). But a line indeed does consist of points and nothing but - however, a much larger number of points, having the cardinality of the continuum.

And then the teacher explains Cantor's diagonal proof.



I think of a line as a set of points.

Two described points define a line , there will only be one straight line that shares these two points as described.
All the rest of the points that are on the line are members of a set described when the line is defined. This is an infinate number of points all of the points in this set can be described as belonging to this line and haveing a magnitude of distance from one of the points that are used to describe the line.
Title: Re: Gambling in Society
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on January 04, 2011, 09:26:02 pm
Since a point has no dimensionality, it is impossible to build a line from a finite number of points, or even a collection of points with cardinality aleph-null (that is, an infinite number of points that can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers or the counting numbers). But a line indeed does consist of points and nothing but - however, a much larger number of points, having the cardinality of the continuum.

And then the teacher explains Cantor's diagonal proof.

I think of a line as a set of points.

Two described points define a line , there will only be one straight line that shares these two points as described.
All the rest of the points that are on the line are members of a set described when the line is defined. This is an infinate number of points all of the points in this set can be described as belonging to this line and haveing a magnitude of distance from one of the points that are used to describe the line.

More precisely, as quadibloc indicates, an uncountably infinite set.  That's where Cantor's work comes in, since he discovered and proved that some infinities are bigger than other infinities. :o