Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Andrew Sullivan <> Sun, 02 November 2014 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB5B1A8792 for <>; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:12:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.559
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpOAf3jJ6rym for <>; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:12:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010D01A878E for <>; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 05:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D02A78A035 for <>; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 13:12:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:12:12 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:12:16 -0000

cc:s trimmed

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 01:52:05PM +0100, JFC Morfin wrote:
> >At 17:52 01/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >But that didn't happen, which suggests to me that the division of labour,
> >again, is working.
> IMHO, to make the past the guarantee of your future is to ensure that you
> will be fooled.

I too have read Hume on induction.  It's worth noting that, despite
his position, he would retire to the Poker Club and play billiards and

But anyway, I wasn't looking for a guarantee.  I think you'll note
that my sentence makes assertions in the present tense ("is working").
It is possible that the future will be quite different; at that point,
it seems to me, we'd have to respond according to what changed.
Others seem to hope that they can write down, in advance, a procedure
for every possible case.  That is, IMO, complete folly.  What we need
are mechanisms that allow actors to work effectively, which includes
good incentives to work out differences co-operatively.

The only ways I know to provide those incentives are to provide
another authority or to provide power of independent action.  Some
argue that the NTIA has been serving the former function; I think that
interpretation is a little fanciful, but I don't have some
transcendental access to the truth _sub specie aeternitatus_.  I think
that the potential of independent action is a more powerful way to
focus the minds of the various actors in the case of ill behaviour,
and a meaningless detail when actors are collaborating as well as they
have been.



Andrew Sullivan