Poli-Sci Digest Volume 2
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 28 Aug 84 Volume 4 Number 83
Contents: Guns
Draft
Coffee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 84 01:29:12 EDT
From: Mike
Subject: Oh no! Guns again!
Excerpts from: LUBAR%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Prompted by the recent discussion on this topic, I reviewed the
wording of the controversial Second Amendment. It is clear that
the authors considered the right to bear arms to be connected with
the country's military needs.
Get a copy of the Senate Constitutional Subcommitte report on the
Second Amendment ($5 from the Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402, order number 052-070-05686-0). This report states that
the purpose of this ammendment was very clearly to garuantee the right
of all citizens to own guns. This conclusion is based on studies of
the writing style of the time, as well as correspondence between a
number of the founding fathers, and other notes and such of the time.
It isn't so clear exactly what our forefathers meant.
Here are a few of their thoughts:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas
Jefferson
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them. -- Richard Henry Lee
"The great object is that every man be armed ... Every man who
is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
"The said constitution ... shall never be construed ... to prevent
the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from
keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams
Looking even further back: ".. Virginia, in 1623, forbade anyone
to travel unless he was `well armed`. Instead of banning inexpensive
guns, it ordered local governments to buy guns for those too poor
to afford them!"
All these quotes come from "To Keep and Bear Arms", American
Rifleman, August 1982. This is admitedly a very biased source,
but the Constitutional Subcomittee speaks for itself.
Excerpt from Josh's footnote:
I urge you to see Red Dawn, as food for thought.
Actually, to save you the 2, 3, 4, or 5 dollars it would cost you
to see a basically mediocore movie, when "they" (and we all know
who they are) invade, one of their first tasks is to go to the
local police station and get the lists of everyone who has guns.
The movie depicts the resulting treatment of those people as less
than favorable. It also depicts armed citizens putting up an
armed resistance to the invaders.
-- Mike^Z
[According to friends who are "fans" of such things (including an Army
captain), the depiction of Soviet military hardware in the movie
is extremely realistic. Also realistic, I thought, was the sleazy
mayor helping the invaders pick out "troublemakers" to shoot as
examples. Or said "troublemakers", lined up in front of the machine-
guns, singing "America the Beautiful" as a last defiance--in poor
rhythm and off key, as it is generally sung. The gun-owners list
bit was almost a throw-away line, I thought. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 84 22:42:50 edt
From: bedford!mintaka!bandy@mit-eddie
Subject: the right to bear arms
If you look in the Federalist Papers, you'll find that Jefferson et al
wanted the populace to have arms in order that they could overthrow the
current government in case it got too far out of line.
Too bad there's such a trend to take away our rights and a large and
highly vocal percentage of the populace is in favor of it. Just you
wait - we'll have the goverment controlling all the money in no
time at all (via taking away all our cash and watching efts like
a hawk).
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1984 1350-EDT (Friday)
From: wdoherty@mit-heracles (Will Doherty)
Subject: Draft Indictment
Though the Justice (hmm) Dept has halted indictments of draft
nonregistrants for about a year now, on Wednesday, they decided to
indict my friend Andy Mager in Syracuse, NY.
They scheduled his arraignment for next Wednesday.
The Assistant US Attorney in charge of the case was quoted in the
Syracuse newspapers saying that Andy was randomly selected for
prosecution, though he had discussed Andy's nonregistration with him at
least five or six times before.
Many people who oppose the draft registration worry that the Justice
Dept will start a new wave of nonregistrant prosections.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 27 Aug 84 11:44:11-PDT
From: Wilkins
Subject: drugs
. . . I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that the morning
cup of coffee compares to an acid trip,
. . .one must assume that psycho-active drugs will have long-term
effects.
You're right that coffee isn't nearly as much fun as acid, but the reason for
comparing them is that you can make a much better case for coffee harming your
body or mind than you can for acid doing so. (Annette already pointed this
out.) Perhaps YOU must assume there are long term effects, but the research
done so far (and there is some) indicates otherwise.
David
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 30 Aug 84 Volume 4 Number 84
Contents: Drugs
Red Dawn
Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 28 August 1984 11:30:05 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: drugged out
How does anyone on this list get any work done if they're drugged out? I
don't know about you, but the programs I write look like "qwertyuiop" if I'm
not fully alert, and the only time I tried to wire-wrap after a six-pack, I
found it easier to throw the result away rather than try to correct the
errors.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 84 16:04 MST
From: "Paul W. Benjamin"
Subject: Re: LSD
The most disturbing thing about such misinformation ("practically
guaranteed to fry your brain", etc.) is the effect that it has on
people's (particularly children's) perceptions of valid information
about drugs. When some idiot like Nancy Reagan goes on the tube and
tells stories about people who steal to support their marijuana habits a
problem is created. Joe Sixpack hears this crock, believes it because
he wants to, and lectures his children about the ravages of marijuana
use. Somewhere along the line Joe Jr. smokes a joint at a party, lives
through the experience, has no sudden urge to strongarm fourth-graders
for their lunch money in order to buy pot, and decides that Joe Sr. is
either a liar or a fool. Meanwhile Joe Sr. also told him that heroin
addiction is a horrible thing and that extended amphetamine use can kill
or decapacitate folks. Joe Jr. puts those valid statements into the
same category as the misinformation about cannabis.
So, if you accept the premise that there are indeed problems in our
society that are drug-related, and accept further that education is one
of the ways to combat that problem, then you had better make damn sure
you have your facts straight.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 19:50:13-EDT
From: Chris.Koenigsberg@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
Subject: electric coffee
How much more interesting and creative work would be done if we had
electric kool-aid brewing in our morning pots than burned out beans!
ckk@cmu-cs-c
and we'd put in a LOOOONNNGGGGGG day's work too.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 84 12:36:21 EDT
From: Mike
Subject: Red Dawn
Excerpts from Josh:
... the depiction of Soviet military hardware in the movie
is extremely realistic.
This may well be, but I thought the depection of the success of
the freedom fighters - outnumbered and outgunned - was fantasy
stuff straight out of "Star Wars". Also, if the rebels were so
clever, why did they take the food left on the roadside by the
invaders (an obvious set up)?
Also realistic, I thought, was the sleazy mayor helping the
invaders pick out "troublemakers" to shoot as examples.
Since I believe all politicians are sleazy, I have to agree here.
The gun-owners list bit was almost a throw-away line, I thought.
I agree, but it was what came to mind when the issue of gun control
as related to "Red Dawn" came up.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzal
[The successes of the freedom fighters--outnumbered and outgunned--was
right out of Afganistan. Those guys also get caught in traps sometimes,
and most wind up getting killed too. Funny how the media wallowed in
Vietnam, but has surrounded Afganistan in a virtual blackout. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 84 10:49 PDT
From: Sybalsky.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Right to Bear Arms [Poli-Sci Digest V4 #82]
Indeed, the second amendment has been the subject of more debate than
any other. If only the framers had left out that first clause....
When the Constitution was written, the "Militia" consisted of all able
bodied men, who were expected to turn out when called to defend the
community. These days, I'd translate that to "all people".
The framers of the Constitution were deathly afraid of large standing
armies, and strongly believed that an armed populace was the best
defense against a government's becoming repressive. They had as
examples the repression of (at various times) Protestants and Catholics
by sundry English kings--whose favorite method was to outlaw the
posession of arms by the group in disfavor, then send in "wardens" to
enforce the law by repeated search and harrassment.
For a more recent example, consider the South, where you couldn't own a
gun if you were black (until about 1950). Why? So that the
white-dominated police (and KKK hangers-on) had no trouble keeping them
in their place.
Now then, is the right to keep arms an individual right (you keep your
gun), or a collective right (the gov't keeps the guns)? Given the
framers' view of arms as protection against a repressive central regime,
the collective interpretation seems absurd--what good is it to entrust
the safety of our freedom to the very group we're defending it from?
For a good discussion of the second amendment, and pointers to
law-review articles on both sides, try "Firearms and Violence: Issues
of Public Policy" edited by Don Kates. It's published by the Pacific
Institute for Public Policy Studies in San Francisco.
--John
------------------------------
Date: 28 August 1984 23:18-EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: Oh no! Guns again!
Date: 25 Aug 84 01:29:12 EDT
From: Mike
Get a copy of the Senate Constitutional Subcommitte report on the
Second Amendment ($5 from the Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402, order number 052-070-05686-0).
I believe you are referring to ''The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,''
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary (U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 2d Session)(Feb. 1982). The
report itself is quite short, but it has several good pointers to the
case law and commentary. The committee print of this report also
includes 8 other ''views of the Second Amendment,'' many of which are
''anti-gun'' (to simplify vastly, I know). For example, there is a
statement by the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (anti), and one by
the National Rifle Association (pro).
Both sides would do well to read the others' material.
-- Steve
[ Moderator -- Please don't edit or append to this message. Thanx. ]
$$
------------------------------
Date: 29 Aug 84 00:39:00 EDT
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Oh no! Guns again!
I do stand corrected, or perhaps more accurately, better informed.
You are correct, I have not actually looked at the report itself,
but simply assumed that the NRA would not write up, much less
distribute, any report which contained pro-gun control material.
Nevertheless, the report (as your message implies) would appear to
contain some interesting material.
-- Mike^Z
[I have the report, and it is substantially as claimed (by both of you).
The most frightening thing to me was the brief submitted by the New York
Bar assn, which claimed that the Interstate Commerce clause allowed
the US to "regulate" all trade in guns, interstate or not, because
(get this now) the statistical pattern of all gun trading affected
interstate commerce, whether or not any particular individual did.
Who do they think they're kidding? This interpretation leaves no
limits at all on Federal power, in any field. The tenth amendment
may as well never have been written. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 31 Aug 84 Volume 4 Number 85
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Arms
Drugs
Liberalism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 84 08:12:54 PDT (Thu)
Subject: Re: Right to Bear Arms
From: Martin D. Katz
A few questions:
If the second amendment prohibits the Federal Government from abridging the
right to bear arms, does this also take this power away from the states?
Can the Federal Government control "Interstate transport" or arms?
Can they restrict the types of arms (e.g. no Gattling guns for private
citizens)?
------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 84 09:34 PDT
From: Sybalsky.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: Right to Bear Arms
As with all constitutional issues, there are a number of opinions. One
at a time:
"If the second amendment prohibits the Federal Government from abridging
the right to bear arms, does this also take this power away from the
states?"
Pro-gun legal people say "Yes". The argument is that the 2nd amendment
was made binding on the states by the 14th amendment, much as the 1st
and the others were. Anti-gun people say "No" because the 2nd amendment
applies to the federal government. The issue has never been decided by
the Supreme Court, so who knows? My opinion: The Ayes have the better
argument.
"Can the Federal Government control "Interstate transport" or arms?"
Apparently, the answer is "Yes." That is to say, the Gun Control Act of
1968 does so, and hasn't been struck down by the Supreme Court. My
opinion: Restrictions on interstate SALE of a gun make sense if they
are in support of VALID local restrictions on who may own/buy a gun.
The problem in the early 60's was that you in NJ could mail away to CA
for a rifle or handgun, and only had to sign the little "I'm over 21 and
not a criminal" line on the coupon. Naturally, it makes sense to put
some teeth in that condition, so the gov't could fairly make it illegal
to sell across a state line to someone who couldn't legally buy in his
home state.
That's been illegal since the 30's. But nobody was enforcing
it--neither the FBI nor the postal inspectors cared to spend the time.
So the gov't took the easy way out in 1968: They made ALL interstate
gun sales illegal (except to licensed dealers).
"Can they restrict the types of arms (e.g. no Gattling guns for private
citizens)?"
As things stand, "Yes". The legal theory is that the only weapons
protected by the 2nd amendment are "militia-type" weapons, thus ruling
out bazookas and the like. This was the argument used to uphold the
federal gov't's restriction on sale of automatic weapons (i.e., machine
guns, NOT what the guy in San Diego had, which was a semi-auto rifle.):
You have to pay a federal $200 tax and register your machine gun with
the BATF, among other things.
My opinion: Not so clear. There are those who claim that the National
Guard is the modern replacement for the militia. If that's so (and it
IS, to some degree), then any weapon issued to them should be fair game
for private ownership.
Looking at it from the standpoint of someone worried about a repressive
central government, I'd say that the people should be allowed to keep
any kind of weapon that the central government keeps. Except that it
sounds so bizarre ("What, allow people to keep NUKES?!!"), I've heard no
coherent argument against the idea.
If you're interested, I have a fairly extensive bibliography of
law-review articles pro and con, which I'd be happy to type in in my
CFT.
--John
------------------------------
Date: Thu 30 Aug 84 12:15:37-EDT
From: Chris.Koenigsberg@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
Subject: bear arms
OK, let's go all the way then. If I have the right to 'keep and
bear arms' then I'm gonna get me some NUCLEAR arms in a silo in
my backyard. Why stop at handguns in our childrens' bedrooms, let's
reap the benefits of modern technology!
[You're right, notwithstanding you don't think so. On several points:
(a) the second amendment obviously applies to _military_ arms.
Today that means automatic weapons, rockets, etc.
(b) The people should always be at least as well armed as the
government. Of course you may take this to mean that the
government shouldn't have nuclear weapons either...
(c) Existing nuclear weapons are under the control of individual
human beings, no matter what badges they wear. I would much
rather see them in the hands of someone who had spent his
own, honestly earned millions of dollars for them, than in
the hands of demogogues and QANGOs. You may think that
everyone in government is automatically a saint, but I keep
remembering that 20th century national governments, including
ours, lead the list of mass murderers by orders of magnitude.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
30-Aug-84 13:23:40-EDT,1315;000000000001
Return-Path:
Received: from UCI-750a by RUTGERS.ARPA with TCP; 30 Aug 84 13:23:33 EDT
Date: 30 Aug 84 10:22:11 PDT (Thu)
To: poli-sci@rutgers
Subject: Civil Rights Act of 1984
From: "Tim Shimeall"
Received: from Localhost by UCI-750a; 30 Aug 84 10:22:29 PDT (Thu)
I read an editorial yesterday on the Civil Rights Act of 1984, which
is currently before Congress. According to the columnist, this act
would apply to "All public and private institutions which recieve
federal assistance directly or through other individuals." The
idea behind this bill is to get around the Grove City College decision
of last year, but such a broad definition would leave few unregulated
individuals in the United States. (Note that grocery store owners would
come under federal regulation through this bill, since they recieve
"federal assistance" through customers who use food stamps.)
Questions:
1) Does anyone have any independent knowlege of this bill? Is the
range of applicability as wide as this columnist says it is?
2) What precisely would be the limits of the federal intervention
this bill would generate? Would people simply have to meet the civil
rights portions of the Federal regulations, or would they have to meet
ALL federal regulations?
Tim
------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 84 15:31 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob
Subject: Oh no! Guns again!
From: Mike
I do stand corrected, or perhaps more accurately, better informed.
You are correct, I have not actually looked at the report itself,
-- Mike^Z
[I have the report, and it is substantially as claimed (by both of you).
The most frightening thing to me was the brief submitted by the New York
Bar assn, which claimed that the Interstate Commerce clause allowed
the US to "regulate" all trade in guns, interstate or not, because
(get this now) the statistical pattern of all gun trading affected
interstate commerce, whether or not any particular individual did.
Who do they think they're kidding?
They aren't kidding. Wickard v. Filburn [The Captive Wheat Case],
317 U.S. 111 (1942) [Winter wheat used by grower to feed livestock
and for seed, both on his own property. "It is well established ...
that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate
the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in.... It
can hardly be denied that a factor of such ... variability as
home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and
market conditions."]
This interpretation leaves no
limits at all on Federal power, in any field.
Oh, I dunno. Your cup of coffee is probably @i(not) a navigable
water of the United States. In substance, though, the real question
since Wickard has been how much state regulation should be allowed to
exist by grace of Congress.
Wickard (and some similar holdings) were the quid pro quo in the
compromise that ended FDR's Court-packing plan.
The tenth amendment
may as well never have been written. --JoSH]
Actually is just the codification of a maxim of construction
("expressio unius...") and I don't believe it has been cited as
a source of substantive law since Hammer v. Dagenhart [The Child
Labor Case], 247 U.S. 251 (1918).
_B
[If this means what I think it means, "I told you so." The tenth
amendment is a dead letter. It has to be--reasonably interpreted,
it allows states to secede, for example. But they should have had
the decency to repeal it, rather than merely ignoring it. --And to
add an amendment saying "The United States has the power to regulate
every detail of every citizen's existence," rather than the doublethink
reflected in the Captive Wheat case. That's just basically dishonest.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 84 09:15 PDT
From: "Charles R. Fry"
Subject: Drugs, social acceptability, work, and the law
Date: Tuesday, 28 August 1984 11:30:05 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
How does anyone on this list get any work done if they're drugged out? I
don't know about you, but the programs I write look like "qwertyuiop" if I'm
not fully alert, and the only time I tried to wire-wrap after a six-pack, I
found it easier to throw the result away rather than try to correct the
errors.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 19:50:13-EDT
From: Chris.Koenigsberg@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
How much more interesting and creative work would be done if we had
electric kool-aid brewing in our morning pots than burned out beans!
ckk@cmu-cs-c
and we'd put in a LOOOONNNGGGGGG day's work too.
Hold it!!! I don't think anyone on this list advocated or even
suggested using drugs while trying to function at any task other than
"consciousness expansion", at least not until the message above was
posted.
While I have used LSD, it's been two years since that last experience,
which was two years after the previous trip. It's not the sort of thing
one does continuously over a period of several years, for obvious
reasons. I have *never* tried to do anything important while under the
influence, again for obvious reasons.
Likewise with other drugs, such as alcohol and its social equivalent,
marijuana. As Hank Walker stated above, these do nothing for one's
ability to function at anything you can get paid to do (except play
guitar, I guess). However this has never stopped a few factory workers
I have known.
The concept of "peer pressure" rears its head again when the topic of
work and drugs comes up. While of course no self-respecting manager
wants his workers stoned, the workers exert quite a bit of pressure on
each other, in the manner of the old anti-dope commercials -- since most
anyone you can hire to do factory work under 30 gets stoned daily (at
least here in LA), it doesn't take more than one suggestion to start a
"smoke-[or drink-]your-lunch bunch". Everyone is predisposed to do it,
so all one has to say is "Let's get high at coffee break time" and
bingo! the entire crew is high. This works in other circles as well --
I know people in the entertainment industry who think nothing of
snorting cocaine at their desks, whose dealers work under them. TV
Guide is right, drug abuse is rampant in TV and movies.
I guess what I am trying to say is that drug use (and abuse) are so much
a part of society, that the law cannot hope to make a dent in drug use.
(I would guess it has always been this way; substitute alcohol for any
of the drugs named above and imagine yourself in the era of Prohibition,
or Biblical times.) If people are so willing to do what they KNOW can be
dangerous on the job, why should the existence of a law they did not
vote on stop them? Intense peer pressure can accomplish a lot more than
governmental restrictions, no matter how well enforced.
-- Chuck Fry
Chucko@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
The opinions expressed above may be self-incriminating and do not
reflect the views of my employer, my landlord or my Lisp Machine. I
reserve the right to change my mind under pressure from any of the
above.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 84 13:49 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Liberalism
I have a basically Libertarian outlook, but I came across an interesting
set of observation about Liberalism (note the difference in spelling)
that does shake some of the Libertarian pillars of faith.
Lets define Liberalism as the following: (accept this definition for
the sake of the argument, I don't want to get into a semantic debate
but to point of fallacies in a common belief set).
1. Personal Autonomy (I get to follow the dictates of my conscience)
2. Inherent Rights (maximization of my freedom of choice should be
societies chief goal. Some even carry this farther saying that
society owes them certain rights (affirmative action)).
In implementation though we see some very common hypocritical actions
supported by these "liberals".
1. Zoning laws - we restrict your freedom to paint/design your house
in "frivolous" manners that detract from the the communities
right to a common esthetic.
2. Insanity - we limit your right to be insane. Your personal freedom
of conscience does is overidden by society when we
consider you insane. We intervene in cases of self-mutilation.
In this respect we operate as fascists.
3. Inherited laws - one's personal rights do not extend to allowing
one to re-question and re-accept all the laws of the country one
resides in, in each generation. The sociologists call these social
social contract theories. By being born into certain societies,
one inherets certain obligations and limitations of autonomy.
4. Public Nuisance - Gun toting in public areas, reckless driving,
drunken driving, reckless handling of nuclear stockpiles.
5. Land use - you don't have the right to pollute, strip and defoilate
your land because you consider it your property.
6. Violent Pornography against women - (nuff said)
There reasons for these exceptions to "pure Liberalism" does not
spring from liberalism itself, but from anti-liberal reasons of
compassion and sensitivity. I would not condemn out of hand the
sensitivities that cause people to consider these exceptions.
But in "fairness" I would ask them why they become violently red-faced
and agitated when a "religous" person comes to them and says they
dont' have the freedom to:
commit abortion (sensitivity for human life)
work on the sabbath (sensitivity to a spirtitual quality that the
secular world is not aware of)
conversion (Jewish: Sensitivity to the primacy of halacha and the
importance of community as something more than a physical entity)
birth control (sensitivity to all forms of life)
etc.
I found the Ferrarro/Cuomo stand on not imposing their personal beliefs
on others fascinating. They impose their beliefs on the goodness of
democracy (why, just because lots of people in the USA think it is
better than communism - on what rationale ?)
The idea of religion as solely relegated to the personal domain is
a very intersting fallacy that grew out of the 30 years wars, and
really did not seem to catch on anywhere except among Christians.
I think by this time most people have plenty of things to say to me
so I will stop and see what replies this gets.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 6 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 86
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Liberalism
Flames
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 31 Aug 84 13:34:13-PDT
From: LUBAR%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: liberalism
This is in response to Steven Gutfreund's posting on Liberalism.
I am not convinced your examples are hypocrisies in the belief system
you describe. I believe that any system which tries to promote
"freedom of choice" runs its head smack into a basic problem: giving
any individual complete freedom of choice impinges on other
individuals' freedom of choice. As an extreme example, suppose some
"completely free" individual chooses to have slaves, and chooses me in
particular as a slave. I sure don't choose to be his slave, and we
have a conflict. We can't both be completely free.
In practice, it's not usually those issues that cause a problem. It's
the fuzzier area of my choice to have certain conventions and
agreements so that my life can be relatively stable, and so I don't
have to redecide every minute about everything that affects me. (For
example, how to get from one place to another. I expect the roads are
going to be the same day to day, and that, barring exceptions, the
public transit system will be the same, or I will still have my car
and I can still use it.) It's my choice to have certain *conditions*,
like safety. Perhaps these are a different class of choices than the
childlike "I want this now", but they are choices that many
individuals wish to be "free" to make. So, in that light, let's look
at your examples:
1. Zoning laws - we restrict your freedom to paint/design your house
in "frivolous" manners that detract from the the communities
right to a common esthetic.
Mr. A chooses to live in a place that's peaceful and quiet, and that
stays that way because he's getting too old to travel and he's retired
and can't afford to move. Ms. B chooses to build her roller-coaster
next door because she's determined it's the ideal location for her
market.
2. Insanity - we limit your right to be insane. Your personal freedom
of conscience does is overidden by society when we
consider you insane. We intervene in cases of self-mutilation.
In this respect we operate as fascists.
I think an operational definition of insanity is irrational,
unexpected behavior (at least, these are the "insane" people society
complains most about and tries to limit). My choice, my desire for
conventions and stability conflicts with the lunatic's choice to act
unconventionally and unpredictably.
3. Inherited laws - one's personal rights do not extend to allowing
one to re-question and re-accept all the laws of the country one
resides in, in each generation. The sociologists call these social
social contract theories. By being born into certain societies,
one inherets certain obligations and limitations of autonomy.
Again, almost a tautology, given my choice to have continuity. Since
the society as a whole is never destroyed or reborn, there are always
some individuals who choose today to be approximately like yesterday.
4. Public Nuisance - Gun toting in public areas, reckless driving,
drunken driving, reckless handling of nuclear stockpiles.
I choose safe highways, Ms. C chooses to drive home from a particularly
wild Hollywood party.
5. Land use - you don't have the right to pollute, strip and defoilate
your land because you consider it your property.
Mr. D chooses to completely strip his hilltop land, causing erosion
and a major mudslide. So what about Mr. E's choice to continue living
on that hill?
6. Violent Pornography against women - (nuff said)
Agreed. All the cases are really the same anyway.
I'm not trying to make a case for or against any of these laws, but
merely to point out that they ARE conflicts between individuals
wanting to "maximize freedom of choice". These cases seem to be
related to public goods; one individual wants the good in one state
and another wants it in another state. Freedom seems to be a scarce
good; everyone can't have as much as they want without taking some
away from someone else.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 4 Sep 84 17:40:48-EDT
From: Seshashayee Murthy
The opinion bboard on the cmu machnes contains flames galore. You may want
to look at it and possibly dump it on the poli-sci readers. The files
are opinion.bbd on the cmu-cs-c. Other machines alos have the same
file but with a different name. Sesh.
[Well, I won't dump it on you, but anyone who's interested, there's
your pointer. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 14 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 87
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Free Market Environmentalism
Liberty and related concepts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 11 Sep 84 12:23:17-PDT
From: mark thompson
Subject: Free enterprize meets Environmentalism
I am seeking any information or comments about an organization called:
The Nature Conservancy
1800 N. Kent St
Arlington, VA 22209
From reading their annual report, and various other literature, it
sounds like an admirable group. Their goal is to preserve a representative
assortment of natural habitats by, get this, BUYING them. Right. No
protest marches, no appeals to congress.
They also seem to be sincere about preserving things. They own most
of one of the little islands off of the California coast. The island
is being picked clean by a bunch of sheep that dont really belong there.
So, they have been shooting them --- which has gotten them into trouble
with the more common type of environmental group, which cannot abide
the loss of a bunch of cute wooly little animals, even if those animals
are destroying the alleged natural habitat.
Anyway, comments about this, well, unusual, approach to conservation,
or specific notes about this group, pro or con, are solicited.
-mark
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 6 September 1984 11:13:31 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: insanity
Anyone who has not had a close relative or friend with a mental illness does
not know what they're talking about when it comes to treating insanity. The
Libertarian position on insanity is completely bogus. I guarantee that if
you live with someone with a mental illness, your views will change
instantaneously.
[I don't think there is really a rigidly defined position. Libertarian
"dogma" should be mostly about cases where you are dealing with someone
who can be considered responsible. Other cases--insanity, children,
etc--are really orthogonal to the thrust of the philosophy. The only
real connection would be where conventional society would consider
someone insane even though they could take care of themselves and
pose no threat to others. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 6 Sep 84 20:27:22-EDT
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: Pornography - Right to Filth
A recent exchange about the need to limit freedoms, lest someone's
freedom encroach upon others', mentioned "Violent Pornography".
If this means mutilating people with razor-sharp video discs, stoning
them with hardbound copies of "Lewd Tales", or some such, then I agree.
But if, as I suspect, it merely means publishing material lacking in
taste, then please let me disagree. I claim a "Right to Filth", which
is not totally distinct from the right expressed by the First Amendment.
If, instead of reading uplifting poli-sci posts, I choose to retire to
the privacy of my library, close the doors, send the children to bed,
and read "I was a lobotomized nurse mutilator", or watch "Invasion of
the Two-Headed Nympho Chainsaw Gang from Krypton", whose freedom am I
infringing? And if some swinish capitalists voluntarily produce this
degenerate rubbish, so as to get me to spend money buying it, whose
freedom have they abridged?
Well, some people claim that a regular diet of this stuff will turn ME
into a lobotomized nurse mutilator. I happen not to think that likely;
moreover, the alleged cause is very remote from the effect. After all,
every chainsaw maniac must have acquired a chainsaw, and it seems very
farfetched to ban her reading material but not her chainsaw.
Yes, I am for pornography. I shall defend filth today, because if I
don't, then literature will be under attack tomorrow, and history the
day after that.
Robert Firth
------------------------------
Date: Thu 6 Sep 84 17:06:16-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: freedom
One of the reasons that discussions about freedom tend to produce
apparent contradictions is that the concept itself is so fuzzy. Look
at the individual's situation on a very basic level: the world
presents the individual with a set of conditions; the individual is,
invariably, "free" to respond to these conditions as the individual
sees fit.
This does not address the issue of the *desirability* of the
conditions presented to the individual, which is a seperate
question entirely. People are *always* free, but may prefer to have a
different choice set presented to them. If the issues is discussed in
terms of "These are the conditions I want to see around me..." rather
than "I want to be free...", the disucssion will make a lot more
sense!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 13 Sep 84 22:12:46 EDT
From: JoSH
Subject: liberalism
From: LUBAR%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: liberalism
... I believe that any system which tries to promote
"freedom of choice" runs its head smack into a basic problem: giving
any individual complete freedom of choice impinges on other
individuals' freedom of choice.
This isn't so much a basic problem as a basic principle. Most of libertarian
theory is an attempt to implement "the principle of greatest liberty"
which says that each person's should have the greatest liberty that is
compatible with everyone else's right to exactly the same thing. If
political science were a more rigorous subject, you could plug that
into a big equation and solve it to find just what freedoms we should
have. In the absence of this, there are some guidelines, about which
more later.
It's the fuzzier area of my choice to have certain conventions and
agreements so that my life can be relatively stable, and so I don't
have to redecide every minute about everything that affects me.
This seems to be a clear violation of the principle of greatest liberty.
It is surely your right to seek out stability, to associate only with
unchanging individuals, to make what agreements you can. However,
to enforce your idea of stability on everyone in the society by coercive
means is clearly incompatible with their right to make the same decision
for you (eg, to force you to change). Thus, NEITHER you nor they
can properly have that "right" under the principle.
[comments on zoning laws, insanity, public nuisance, land use,
pornography]
A common guideline in applying the principle of greatest liberty is
that prior restraint is usually a violation of it. Most so-called
"liberal" laws are flagrant examples of this. The zoning ordinance
in my township is explicitly a planning instrument: I can't build
more than X square feet per acre because "this part of town should
look rural". They have abandoned even the pretense that I would
be impinging on anyone's rights by (say) adding a greenhouse.
I'm not trying to make a case for or against any of these laws, but
merely to point out that they ARE conflicts between individuals
wanting to "maximize freedom of choice".
Wrong, as I've shown. Maximizing freedom is not the same thing as being
able to boss everyone else in the world around. In fact, it is very
close to being unable to boss anyone else around.
These cases seem to be related to public goods; one individual wants
the good in one state and another wants it in another state.
There is a connection. It turns out that freedom is maximized by
minimizing public goods.
Freedom seems to be a scarce good; everyone can't have as much as they
want without taking some away from someone else.
Again you confuse freedom with political power. Freedom is not attained
by making everyone a slave of everyone else. The ability to coerce
someone is not freedom for you, it is slavery for him. If he can coerce
you as well, you are both slaves. Freedom lies in the absence of coercion.
--JoSH
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 18 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 88
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Freedom
Porn
Voter Registration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 September 1984 03:10-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: freedom
Terry C. Savage's recent message is an illustration of an interesting
problem of definition: is justice result-oriented or process-oriented?
Those who believe that it is result-oriented want to arrange the rules
of society so that particular results (e.g. an "equitable"
distribution of wealth) follow. Those who believe that it is
process-oriented want to set rules which they believe are inherently
just (e.g. freedom of contract), and are willing to accept whatever
outcome issues from those rules.
Which definition of justice one chooses affects how important one
considers freedom. If society ought to be concerned exclusively with
results, then, as Mr. Savage asserts, freedom becomes irrelevant.
Everyone is "free" to make an appropriate choices in response to his
circumstances, but the important issue is, as he says, the
desirability of those circumstances. On the other hand, if society
ought not to be concerned with results, then freedom becomes
essential. No matter what the outcome, it may not be criticized if it
was obtained through the exercise of freedom.
Our society is ordered according to the result-oriented conception of
justice. Of course, we aren't simple-minded about it. In those cases
where procedure-oriented schemes seem best suited to meet our
objectives, we readily employ them. Our economic system is such a
case. Within wide limits we recognize the validity of commercial
contracts, regardless of their actual substance. But sometimes we
forget that such schemes are not just in and of themselves, but only
insofar as they do in fact meet our objectives. That is certainly not
a danger at present in the case of the economic system, but it is in
other areas. One such area is that of freedom of speech and the
so-called "free market of ideas." Behind freedom of speech is a
heuristic notion that truth will emerge from the robust competition of
differing ideas. But some people have moved beyond that notion to the
point of actually defining truth as that which emerges victorious from
the free market of ideas; that is, the result--no matter what--of
following a certain procedure. To such people, there is no
justification for suppressing certain speech beforehand because that
suppressed speech might very well win out in the free market.
That sort of thinking is what compels some people to support, for
example, the "right" of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., or the
Revolutionary Communists to advocate setting up a Communist society in
the United States. Such people ignore the reason behind freedom of
speech, and set up freedom of speech as an absolute right sufficient
unto itself, regardless of the consequences. They forget that some
ideas--like those of the Nazi and Communist parties--simply have no
right to win out in the free market of ideas, because they are utterly
incompatible with the principles of justice at the root of society.
And having no right to win out in the free market of ideas, they have
no right to compete; indeed, to allow them to do so is to debase the
system.
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: 14 Sep 1984 08:28-EDT
Subject: "Violent Porn"
From: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
Thank you for your submission on "violent porn."
I almost completely agree with you. The only part I have a
little bit of trouble with is your perception of distance between
reading (and graphic) material, the cause, and its effect,
alleged violent action. I believe that we don't know how much
such materials can affect the individual.
I am a writer. If I believed that everything I could possibly
write could not possibly have a "violent" effect on my readers, I
would think myself not a very good writer. For one thing, many
people believe that certain situations require violence. If you
point out to someone in such a situation that violence is
required, and if that person has never thought about that
possibility before, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect
that that person may actually use violence. Now, this appears to
be a fairly direct cause-and-effect relationship.
To bring this more to the realm of actual reality (as opposed to
pretend reality):
I know a priest/child psychiatrist who works with people who
commit sexual violence against (not *upon* (those passive))
children. Some of the people who engage in violence against
children have rituals they enact to fulfill strange (not
*abnormal*) psychological needs. These rituals appear to be
unique enough that the inspriation for them could not come from
elsewhere than from the reading material often found on the
premises of these violent killers and mutilators.
Thus, I do believe that words and pictures have an effect,
conceivably violent, upon people. This is not to say that they
are the entire cause of an action, but certainly may be a
component in that action.
Now, even if we accept that words and pictures can lead someone
to violent action in exceptional cases, does that mean that we
should try to categorize such cases and ban the literature
involved? I believe the answer is no.
The benefits achieved by the free exchange of words and pictures
far outweigh the deficits of violent action that occurs partially
as a result of such words and pictures. But such a conclusion is
my opinion (as are any of my unreferenced submissions ), and is not simple, and other people will reach other
conclusions.
Will Doherty
------------------------------
Date: 15 Sep 84 11:16:19 PDT (Sat)
Subject: Voter Registration Deadlines
From: "Tim Shimeall"
Unless you live in North Dakota, registration is required before you
can vote in the November 6 election. The following are the voter
registration deadlines, by state.
[ed note: I have shortened this list by removing every state where the
date is October 7, the most common date. If your state isn't here,
your deadline is Oct 7. --JoSH]
Alabama October 27
Arizona September 17
Arkansas October 17
California October 8
Colorado October 5
Connecticut October 16
Delaware October 20
Idaho October 20 with precinct registrar
Idaho October 17 with county clerk
Illinois October 9
Indiana October 8
Indiana September 22 with deputy registrar
Iowa October 27
Kansas October 17
Maine Election Day
Maryland October 8
Massachusetts October 9
Minnesota Election Day
Mississippi October 27
Missouri October 9
Nebraska October 27
New Hampshire October 27
New Jersey October 8
New Mexico September 25
North Carolina October 8
North Dakota No Registration
Oklahoma October 27
Oregon Election Day
South Dakota October 22
Utah November 1
Vermont October 20
Virginia October 6
Wisconsin Election Day
Puerto Rico September 17
Virgin Islands September 22
Alabama, California, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin
and the District of Columbia allow voters to mail in registration
forms. People in other states should contact their county registrar.
(Source: the Council of State Governments, Lexington, Kentucky)
Tim
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 20 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 89
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Porn
Freedom etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 September 1984 01:30-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: "Violent Porn"
From: WDOHERTY at BBNG
... even if we accept that words and pictures can lead someone to
violent action in exceptional cases, does that mean that we should
try to ... ban the literature involved? I believe the answer is
no.
The benefits achieved by the free exchange of words and pictures
far outweigh the deficits of violent action that occurs partially
as a result of such words and pictures.
I see that you have adopted a different standard here than the one you
advocated in the discussion a few months ago. Now you are balancing
the benefits against the "deficits." Earlier, you said, in effect,
that nothing that does not pose a "clear and present danger" should be
banned.
Assuming that the balancing standard is the correct one, why doesn't
it prohibit, say, pictures depicting violence against women? I'm sure
we're agreed that such pictures, in and of themselves, are of no
benefit to society, and possibly of some definite harm. Maybe you
will claim that, while there would be no harm in banning just those
pictures, it might "open the door" to banning all sorts of other
things in which various people saw "no benefit" to society. In other
words, where would we draw the line? The answer to that is, of
course, that the existence of twilight doesn't deny night and day.
Just because some pornography would fall in the "twilight"
category--that is, it could be subject to legitimate dispute--doesn't
mean that other pornography would not be clearly acceptable or
unacceptable. And we're only talking about banning what's clearly
unacceptable, what no reasonable person could defend--for example
pictures depicting women being raped or beaten.
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 13:13:42 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
Subject: speak for yourself...
I believe that we don't know how much such materials can affect the
individual.
Except I've never heard anyone claim that such materials affect him in any
way; we're always quite prepared to claim that porn affects the other guy,
or the nameless "individual", but it never, but never, affects me.....
Phooey. If porn doesn't incite violence on a regular basis among real
people, as opposed to the nameless "individual", then it's harmless, and
your claim is bogus.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Sep 1984 07:34:50-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Freedom, etc.
THe problem with the neo-nazis at Skokie was not really one of freedom
of speech, but rather a deprivation of the right of the residents of
Skokie to quiet enjoyment of their property.
If they had been allowed the freedom to determine absolutely who can
enter their (perhaps collectively owned) property, the n-n's would
simply have been guilty of trespass. Very few people, even in Skokie,
to believe the reports, had any intention of trying to muzzle the n-n's.
Freedom peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress
of grievances does not, or at least should not, imply the right to
assemble on someone else's property.
Therefore, rather than even consider abridging the concept of freedom
of speech, it would be preferable to allow neighborhoods to buy their
streets, et cetera, and incorporate them into a (perhaps nonprofit)
corporation which could vote to exclude neo-nazis, left-handed Latvians,
blonds, senior citizens, and/or Jews.
And before anyone starts flaming about what a horribly remark that last
sentence was, let me say in passing that although an entire side of my
family was annihilated by the nazis, I'd rather allow bigots to hang
signs on their establishments (public or private, as long as they don't
get gov't money) saying, "no Jews or dogs," than have the gov't abridge
their freedom to do so. (Also as an aside, I have, in fact, been turned
away from places because of my fairly obvious Jewishness, so I know
what that experience feels like.)
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 84 22:18 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Stomping extremists
"... some ideas--like those of the Nazi and Communist parties--
simply have no right to win out in the free market of ideas,
because they are utterly incompatible with the principles of
justice at the root of society."
I believe Mr. Cox is ignoring part of the purpose of the process
of free speech, which is to protect even those ideas which part
or all of the surrounding society would like to express.
Admittedly, it is extremely difficult to argue the case of a
handful of hateful old Illinois racists, *but* there are often
extremist groups whose actions become the basis for the very
systems of justice and freedom Mr. Cox would seek to protect.
Consider a few historical examples:
(1) During the late 1850's, a new political party appeared in the
northern, industrialized states. Fueled by the hatred of the
machine operators for their more civilized neighbors, this party
openly advocated expropriation of a large part of the American
population. Through demagoguery and political subterfuge,
including the undermining of the esteemed Democratic Party, this
organization successfully captured the Presidency, after which
time it proceeded to act so abominably that the South was forced
to exercise its constitutional right of secession. Not satisfied
with merely stirring up hatred against the new Confederacy, the
Northern radicals refused to vacate military bases in Confederate
territory, and eventually used the Confederacy's legitimate
response to this act of war as an excuse to carry out their plan
to utterly destroy the economy and infrastructure of the southern
states.
(2) The 1770's saw the rapid rise to power of a group of
disgruntled intellectuals who proposed to replace the rightful
authority of Parliament and the King, by violence if necessary,
with a system of unfettered mob rule. Although not an immediate
physical threat to the Empire, this organization engaged in an
active campaign of suborning military officers, inciting the
public to riot, terrorism, and committing high treason by
colluding with foreign enemies of the Crown. At a cost of
thousands of lives, these radicals succeeded in permanently
disrupting the Pax Britannia which had kept the violent forces of
the world in check since the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
These examples are not isolated; indeed, it would not be
difficult to argue that much of modern history has been carried
through by extreme and sometimes violent organizations. In many
cases this does not produce a positive effect (e.g., Nazi Germany
or Soviet Russia). But by suppressing fringe elements because
they threaten the current theories of rights or justice, one
commits a greater crime than hypocrisy; one dooms oneself to a
possibly undesirable status quo which continues because only
extremists are capable of seeing its faults.
--Jim Aspnes (Aspnes@MULTICS.ARPA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed 19 Sep 84 14:55:56-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage
"Freedom lies in the absence of coercion"
Josh
This is pleasant, poetic nonsense. Social interaction does
not exist without coercion. It's just that at the lower/more subltle
end of the scale we call it "persuasion" or "social pressure". If you
know how to push someone's psycological buttons, you can coerce them
just as surely as if you had a gun at their head. The former is called
"persuasion". They are morally equivalent.
TCS
[If you believe that persuasion and what I call coercion, ie pointing
a gun at your head, are morally equivalent, do you feel that you have
the right to shoot me because I try to persuade you otherwise?
(Which I am indeed trying...) --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 13:17 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Internal conflicts in Liberal-Libertarianism
Let me identify two strains of Libertarianism:
1) existential-Libertarianism:
According to Sarte - I am always completely free no matter what
laws/regulations society makes. My freedom is never Maximized... It is
always maximized, I only limit it when I don't recognize my inherent
freedom in every situation. This sort of Libertarianism is not
threatened by the questions I posed earlier.
2) Liberal-Libertarianism:
In this system I ask others in society to act in a way I feel increases my
autonomy and choices.
I think people missed the boat on the conflicts I presented that occur
within this system.
When people claim that seat-belt laws are an encrochment by goverment,
but laws against violent ponography are not - you are not making
NECESSARY objective compromises, you are applying a personal standard.
you happen to feel that rural zoning is useful, I happen to think not.
These things tend to come to a head in cases such as biblical creation
and abortion. Here is the case that is made: "I have the freedom to
think the thoughts I wish and to teach them to my children: how dare
you tell me that I cannot teach them the world is flat and was created
in 6 days. Where is your tolerance? It only appears when the item under
question is part of the liberal agenda. But if I turn around and try
and call your abortion murder, you talk about personal rights."
Cuomo really presented a perspective that really makes the discussion
more confused. He basically said that: "sure, I have the right to
restrict your freedom of abortion, but I only push for such limitations
of freedom when there is a consensus". Do I also kill myself (euthenasia)
when there is a consensus that it would be best?
A story from the Wall Street Journal: "A student turns in a paper about
ethical relativism. The teacher gives him an "F". The student complains:
"was not the paper a good paper". Teacher: "I thought it deserved an "F".
Student: "You can't do that!!!"
(what happened to the student's tolerance of other's freedom to choose
their value system).
- Steve Gutfreund
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 25 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 90
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: Freedom & Social Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 84 14:49:40 PDT
From: David Alpern
Subject: Re: Freedom, etc.
As a resident of Morton Grove, Illinois, living about 2 blocks from
our border with Skokie, I know why I didn't want the Nazis around --
all the JDL people who had "quietly" settled into nearby hotel rooms
threatening to cause real trouble. As I understand it, this was also
the "explanation" offered by the various Police Departments that were
involved in channeling the Nazis right back onto the highway as they
tried to exit into Skokie. My feeling from the time was that the
various anti-Nazi groups managed to convince the authorities that there
would be enough trouble if the march occurred that the police were
explicitely willing to violate the rights of the marchers in order
to prevent violence in town. It was this decision, publicly stated this
way, that seemed to get the ACLU involved.
This isn't to say that I would have liked what the Nazis wanted to
say; there wasn't much chance of that. But as many people in the
area put it, they can say anything they want -- but down in Chicago,
where the neighbors are used to them.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Sep 84 16:24:33 EDT
From: JoSH
Subject: Individual vs collective justice
From: James A. Cox
Subject: freedom
Terry C. Savage's recent message is an illustration of an interesting
problem of definition: is justice result-oriented or process-oriented?
Those who believe that it is result-oriented want to arrange the rules
of society so that particular results (e.g. an "equitable"
distribution of wealth) follow. Those who believe that it is
process-oriented want to set rules which they believe are inherently
just (e.g. freedom of contract), and are willing to accept whatever
outcome issues from those rules.
If you're interested in problems of moral epistemology, I have a better
one for you: Is justice an individual or a collective commodity?
Your categorization implicitly assumes a collective point of view,
and rejects the notion that individual rights are more important
than "social justice", *without even considering it*.
Given that you take as your goal a collective "justice", it is no wonder
that you find individual rights impeding your way to it. That has been
the experience of socialists in every experiment--including, ironically,
the Nazis.
There is more to the concept of rights than the pragmatic theory that
the free market is the best way to achieve affluence. I urge you to
consider it. I believe that an ethics built on individual rights is
sounder than one built on "equitable distribution of income".
I am in agreement with you on another unstated assumption, namely that
there is an objective truth and that most people spouting their nutty
theories are wrong in an absolute sense. However, I do not agree that
the government, or any political process, is a good way to arrive at that
truth. Indeed, whenever you start having to back your ideas up with
guns, it's a pretty good sign that they're wrong.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 22 September 1984 03:28-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: Stomping extremists
Aspnes at MIT-MULTICS:
... much of modern history has been carried through by extreme and
sometimes violent organizations. In many cases this does not
produce a positive effect (e.g., Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia).
But by suppressing fringe elements because they threaten the
current theories of rights or justice, one commits a greater crime
than hypocrisy; one dooms oneself to a possible undesirable status
quo which continues because only extremists are capable of seeing
its faults.
I don't agree that only extremists are capable of seeing the faults of
the status quo. And the important attribute of a theory of rights or
justice is whether it's correct, not whether it's "current."
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 14:46 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Justice, Correct and Current
Apple at MIT-MC:
"I don't agree that only extremists are capable of seeing the faults of
the status quo. And the important attribute of a theory of rights or
justice is whether it's correct, not whether it's
'current'."
There are two good points raised here, which are both related to some degree.
The entire purpose of my examples in my previous mailing was to attempt to
show that organizations promoting what we would now consider to be "correct"
theories of rights and justice were often forced into extreme positions
because these theories conflicted with the prevaling ideas of the time.
One can make a fairly good case that theories of a just society are by
nature subjective, as they require certain unsupported assumptions about
the nature of man and his relationship to his society. Some political
philosophers have managed to cloud this issue by invoking self-evidence,
Divine Will, or the reflexive property of equality as a basis for their
doctrine, but few have been able or willing to demonstrate that their
beliefs were necessarily correct under all circumstances. Of those who
have, there is considerable disagreement. Consider, for example, Hobbes'
assertion that "in Oriental despotism, one is free; in a democracy, some
are free; in a monarchy, all are free." The statement is well-justified:
Hobbes was well aware of the problem of the tyranny of the majority, and
of the temptations of self-interest that inevitably destroyed the
impartiality of democratic governments. We would not find this a valid
basis for a system of government today, having accepted the principle
that no citizen should be subjected to rule that he has not had some part,
however small, in deciding. In the eighteenth century, an individual or
group who questioned the doctrine of the monarchy was forced into an
extreme or radical position, if only because the political system of the
time was not designed to consider its own abolition.
These basic assumptions are the flaws in the status quo which only
extremists can question, as by questioning the most deep-rooted
underlying philosophy of the organization of one's government, one
becomes extreme merely through intellectual honesty and a will to put
one's own idea of a just society into practice. Who are we to announce
that we have achieved "correctness" in our principles of justice?
History is full of governments, both fair and tyrannical, that have
fallen through a failure to consider views that would require the
alteration of much of their present structure or policies. If we
squelch Nazis or Communists because we don't like them, we also run the
danger of squelching more beneficent groups, be they Libertarian or
Socialist, who might contain the seeds of the next advance in the
evolution of our society.
--Jim Aspnes (Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA)
------------------------------
Date: Mon 24 Sep 84 15:15:52-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage
"Results-oriented" vs "process-oriented" views of justice. It is only
a question of semantics, of course, but I maintain it all boils down
to results oriented anyway--If someone/some group is "process-
oriented", all that really says is that some particular process is the
result they want!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 25 September 1984 02:23-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: Justice, Correct and Current
Aspnes at MIT-MULTICS claims that "[i]f we squelch Nazis or Communists
because we don't like them, we also run the danger of squelching more
beneficent groups, be they Libertarian or Socialist, who might contain
the seeds of the next advance in the evolution or our society."
Earlier he asked, rhetorically, "Who are we to announce that we have
achieved 'correctness' in our principles of justice?"
I see evidence here of a double standard. "We" (presumably "liberal
society") may not claim that our principles of justice are correct.
But extremist groups, who are trying to supplant the "status quo,"
apparently may. Further, we may not attempt to suppress such groups
because they might "contain the seeds of the next advance in the
evolution of our society"--no matter that, once in power, they would
not be so respectful of /our/ beliefs.
If our society is truly so unsure of its principles that it no longer
excludes even Nazism and Communism from the list of permissible
outcomes of the political process, if indeed we have reached the point
where we will allow that process to /determine/ our principles rather
than to serve them, then this society is not worthy of survival. And
I am confident that, if that is the case, we will in fact not survive,
but will be replaced by some society which is less certain of its own
unworthiness.
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: 25 September 1984 02:53-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: Individual vs collective justice
It seems to me that my dichotomy between result-oriented and
procedure-oriented justice, while made from a collective point of
view, is not exclusive of individual rights. It's just a different
way of looking at things. Choose certain individual rights (e.g.
traditional libertarian rights) and you get a system which conforms to
procedural justice; choose others (e.g. the right to equality) and you
get a system which conforms to result-oriented justice. Now it may be
that you prefer to argue from the individual-rights point of view
because you think you can convince people that the right to liberty is
a "real" right, but the right to equality isn't. That's fine, but it
doesn't mean that that is the only way of looking at justice.
- James Cox
[This was sent to me personally (in-reply-to the letter above).
There wasn't time to ask Apple if it was intended for the digest
if it were to make the same issue that the original msg was in.
I apologize if it was not intended for the digest. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 29 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 91
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: KoreaP
Rights etc
Homework
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 84 16:46:06 EDT
From: dca-pgs
Subject: Korean War Questions
In the Korean War, there appears to have been a considerable lag
between the commencement and the conclusions# of cease-fire
negotiations.
What is the most accepted interpretation of why the North Koreans
Initially agreed to negotiate, and why a cease-fire agreement was
ultimately concluded? (I don't remember if the PRC was involved in
the talks.) Was it mainly military disadvantage, or were there other
reasons, and did those reasons remain constant or change over the
course of the negotiations? What are the chances of another NK/SK
conflict?
Thanks for all info, both direct & bibliographical.
-Pat Sullivan
------------------------------
Date: Tue 25 Sep 84 12:10:45-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage
In response to Josh:
1) I don't believe in "rights" as most people define them, so, in
response to the specific question, no, I would not have that
"right".
2) As a practical matter, of course I wouldn't shoot you for it.
It would probably help if , for the term coercion, I substitute
the phrase "attempts to modify the behaviour of..", which is much more
value neutral. In this particular example, I enjoy the "coercion" or I
wouldn't be on the list! In the more general case, if someone is
attempting to modify my beha\viour in ways that I don't care for, I
will typically use the minimum level of "coercion" needed to prevent
the modification, whcih, in this case, would be counter-persuasion!
Prior restraint--restriction based on probablilities
In the case of a past act, such as a murder, whatever, that has
already occurred, it is possible to have functional certainty that
harm was done. In the case of all prior restraint laws, which include
censorship,porn restrictions,driving restrictions(including drunk
driving) where no accident is involved, and other such, people are
being restrained, and often punished, because they are in some way
increasing the probablity (or so some say) that harm will be done
to someone.
I have never seen this issue addressed directly. It would be
silly to say that increasing the probablity of harm should not be
restricted at all, but how much of an increase should be considered
significant? How great should the harm be to be considered
significant? If for example, some act could be determined to
increase the probablility that someone will lose a nickel form
1% to 2% in the next year, that act should be ignored by the
law--that kind of change is in the noise of daily variations. If,
however, some act is judged to raise the probablility of death for
someone from 2% to 20% in the next year, that act should be
restricted somehow.
I would be interested in any comments people have! I don't
(yet!) have a specifc point to make, but I would suggest that
1) In order to impose a restriction, some quanitifed understanding
of the potential harm that might be done must be
obtained.
2) The amount of harm for consideration should be the increase
in probablity times the quantified harm
3) Some minimum threshold of "effective potential harm" must be
crossed before a restriction would be imposed.
I should point out, to avoid at least *SOME* flames, that I have no
illusions about the "accuracy" of the calculations--I submit that
the process (hah!) of going through the calculation will force peole
to see what it is they are really proposing.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 84 15:49 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Justice, Correct and Current
I don't see a double standard. "We" cannot *know* that our principles
are correct. We also cannot *know* that another's principles might be
more correct than ours. It is the denial of the possibility of
correctness among others that Mr. Cox lambasts the Nazis and the
Communists for; how can we call ourselves more correct if we share their
faults?
Mr. Cox states: "... I am confident that, if [we are unsure of our
principles to the point that we do not exclude Nazism and Communism from
possible outcomes of our political process], we will in fact not
survive, but will be replaced by some society which is less certain of
its own unworthiness."
I sense an argument here that seems to be running to "among pirates, one
must act as a pirate." Certainly we would not want to allow a
fundamentally unjust and unfree government to rise in this country. But
can we stay that process be erecting a government that is both unjust
and unfree without the need for revolution? Here, I believe, is the
double standard.
--Jim (Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS)
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 84 14:29 EDT (Fri)
From: _Bob
Subject: Individual vs collective justice
From: JoSH
From: James A. Cox
Subject: freedom
I am in agreement with you on another unstated assumption, namely that
there is an objective truth and that most people spouting their nutty
theories are wrong in an absolute sense.
Tell, tell, tell!
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 84 16:31:28 EDT
From: Mike
Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use
Recently, there has been some discussion in the net.general
newsgroup on Usenet about last Sunday's edition of Sixty
Minutes. Since I did not see this program, I can only
paraphrase what I have read and toss this out as a topic for
discussion. Maybe someone out there is watching this situation
closely and can comment and be a little more specific about what
is going on?
What I read: Appearantly, the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union (ILGWU), a branch of the AFL-CIO, has been fighting
to make it illegal for people to do piece-work type work in their
homes somewhere in the New England area. Sixty Minutes interviewed
some women who were doing some sort of sewing work at home and
earning about $8 per hour. The claim is that these moves against
home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down
on the computer business in which many people work at home. It is
further claimed that unions have been losing members lately and that
muscling in on the computer business seems like a good way to bolster
their ranks (though attempts so far have not been too successful).
Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with a union. At best,
it would be a waste of money. At worst, it helps feed a bunch of
thugs who should be exterminated. I certainly hope this government
movement - if indeed it is one - is quickly stiffled.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra, ihnp4] pegasus!mzal
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 4 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 92
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional
takes a little longer." --Henry Kissinger
Contents: Defining freedom and rights
Letters to Govt Officials
Homework
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14-Sep-84 11:56 PDT
From: Kirk Kelley
Subject: Re: Defining "freedom"
I use the following definitions to quantify concepts like "freedom"
and "life".
freedom: the total capabilities of a control process.
capability: a controlled alternative: an alternative controlled by a control
process.
control process: a negative feedback loop.
alternative: any possible state of a system.
time: a process maximizing alternatives.
life: a process maximizing capabilities.
Despite the current lack of a specific methodology for measuring the
quantity of alternatives actually controlled by a process, I find
these definitions provide a meaningful basis for thinking about
resolving conflicts that arise between different control processes
trying with various degrees of awareness to maximize their
capabilities (individuals trying to live, whatever that means to
them), especially in relationship to their environment which must also
maximize its capabilities for any of its parts to survive.
-- kirk
[Let's expand these macros. Freedom is thus: the total possible states of
a system controlled by a negative feedback loop. This being so, we can
measure freedom in bits: How many bits are required to measure the number
of states between which the control process can choose.
Consider a frictionless cylinder of gas, sealed at both ends, with a
piston in the middle. If the piston moves from the center, the pressure
rises in one end and lowers in the other, moving it back in a negative
feedback loop.
We do not have a definition for control, but it seems reasonable to say
that the negative feedback process controls the position of the piston
and the PVT state of the gas. How many states does the process control?
In attempting to quantize the position, pressure, volume, and temperature
we are driven to consider the QM energy level occupancy states. The
number of states available depends on the total energy, but we can easily
imagine such a system having 1E30 states from which to choose. This means
that the feedback process has about 100 bits of freedom. Please note that
this process controls all the states of the system; its control is thus
maximized and it is therefore alive.
It is also interesting to note that the American political process is also
alive under this definition. Such a huge, enveloping voracious monster
Hollywood has yet to dream of. Notice that the freedom of this Leviathan
is actually several hundred bits (the number of contested seats in a
given election). When we divide that freedom up among the people, however,
we get about a millionth of a bit apiece. Oh well.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 84 15:20 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Objective rights
Sure, there may be an objective system of rights and/or justice. But
unless it's self-evident, it's in the same boat as the subjective
theories. I have yet to see a set of principles that does not require
either explicit assumptions or quasi-syllogistical mumbo-jumbo to
justify its apparently subjective premises. (If you know of one, I'd be
happy to hear about it.)
--Jim (Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS)
[Systems of rights don't really break down as subjective vs objective.
They are something like geometries; you can have several systems,
each internally consistent, each "correct". (They are more complex
than geometry, so it's harder to get them consistent.) You can
take different systems and apply them to different real-world
situations with varying degrees of success. I never heard of
"subjective" geometry. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 1984 0637-PDT
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Kennan on USSR + US policies
In the 24 Sept 84 issue of the New Yorker George Kennan has some
interesting commentary on Russian and American policy in the form
of two letters to anonymous (and probably fictional) high government
officials in each country. Some quotes:
from the lettter to the Russian;
"... That such things could happen as did happen in the Soviet Union
in those years from 1935 to 1953 - that they could happen, above all,
to a great political movement and a great advanced society in the
modern age - is puzzling enough, but that the political regime through
which, and to which, these things occurred should not be interested,
some 30 or 40 years later, in inquiring into their causes, and should
instead try to bury in oblivion what were, after all, the dominant
domestic-political realities of two momentous decades of Russian
history: this, to us, is not comprehensible at all.
It is, in fact, a bad sign. When an individual is unable to face his
own past and feels compelled to build his view of himself on a total
denial of it and on the creation of myths to put in its place, this is
normally regarded as a sign of extreme neurosis. ... Can it be
otherwise, we wonder, with a political regime ? ...
let us ... consider certain aspects of the official Soviet personality
(not unconnected, incidentally, with Stalinist traditions) which have
remained generally constant for over half a century and have , in my
judgement, done as much as anything else to poison the relations of
the Soviet Union with the West. They constitute, collectively,
something that is very hard to sum up in a single sentence ... It has
been sometimes described as the "siege mentality". It is, in essence,
the state of mind that assumes all forms of authority not under Soviet
control to be, or to be likely to be, wicked, hostile, and menacing.
It conjures up the image of a Soviet regime endowed with unique
insight, wisdom, benevolence, and nobility of purpose, standing out
bravely through the decades against misguided and dangerous foreign
forces, frustrating their evil designs, protecting its own grateful
people from their wily encroachments. A number of troublesome
phenomena flow from this neurotic view of self and surroundings, among
them the conspiratorial nature of the regime itself; the dark
suspision of everything and everyone foreign; the obsession with
secrecy, espionage, and internal security; the evident compulsion to
conceal and protect the centers of Soviet power with an elaborate
facade; the determination to force others either (and preferably) to
mistake this facade for the reality or at least to connive at the
fiction that it is real. ...
And this does endless damage to your foreign relations. Consider just
your treatment of the foreign resident in Russia - the diplomat or
journalist. There is the beady, mistrustful, clandestine observation;
the determination to isolate him from Soviet society ... If an example
of this is needed, take only the recent Soviet televison series so
obviously designed to make the American Embassy in Moscow the target
of general hatred and suspicion. ...
You cannot wall yourselves off in this way, like some Oriental
despotism, and then expect sympathy and admiration and confidence from
the world outside. ... Exaggerated suspicion invites exaggerated
suspicion. Don't you realize that by this sort of overreaction the
Soviet government has been "graduating" for more than half a century a
new class of embittered foreign diplomats and journalists, and sending
them out into the world to spread their bitterness ? ...
They [Soviet authorities] probably do not wish the Soviet Union to
appear threatening, but they are also not unhappy that it should
appear strong - perhaps, even, stronger than it really is. If this is
the case, I am sure they are making a mistake, for we are all now in
the danger zone with our wild military competition, yet the impression
of a Soviet Union arming inordinately, needlessly, and with implacable
determination, in a manner explicable only by aggessive intentions,
rests in large part on just such uncertainties, and on just the
exaggerated speculations they encourage. ...
The concept of bilateral relations that sees the two sides as two
deadly spiders in a bottle, only one of which can expect to survive,
is now self-defeating even from the standpoint of national security. ..."
from the letter to the American:
"...I believe that it is generally recognized today that the nuclear
balance, whatever it may once have been, has long been subject and
continues now to be subject, to steady destabilization by precisely
this process of technological innovation, the pace of which is faster
than the pace of negotiation. ... Nor, incidentally, will the Russians
have forgotten that they once negotiated with us for some 6 or 7 years
over a second SALT agreement, only to see us, after signing it,
decline to ratify it and then add insult to injury be reproaching THEM
repeatedly with allegedly violating it. None of this encourages them
to repeat the performance. ...
Despite the fact that there is no political issue in the relations
between the two countries which could conceivably justify a war
between them, the preparations, material and psychological, for such a
war have been allowed to become an ingrained dominating habit not just
for our armed aervices but for large parts of our civilan society as
well. ... The fleets and planes of the two powers chase each other
about on the high seas and elsewhere, snoop on each other, and take
high risks in the process, with an intensity that could not be greater
if it were known that war was coming next week. ... Preparations on a
vast scale for a specifically envisaged war, however defensively
conceived or masked, are a species of cogwheel that permits of advance
in only one direction. ...
We can no longer go on talking endlessly about a war with the Soviet
Union and then cllaim we are seriously attempting to avoid it. We can
no longer try to reassure each other of our patriotic vigilance by
striking the high-pitched heroic-chauvinist note in our
domestic-political discourse and at the same time try to assure the
outside world, including our political opponents, that our aim is only
peace. The truth is that the general attitude this country has
adopted in recent years in matters of East-West relations, of national
defense, and of arms control is not one that lends much credibility,
in eyes other than our own, to our claimed enthusiasm for renewed arms
talks. Rather, it suggests an anxious pursuit of that most unreal and
unreachable of all mirages: some sort of nuclear superiority that
threatens the adversary and does not threaten us in like measure. ...
The question is whether business can usefully be done with them [the
Soviets] over the removal of the greatest of all dangers: the danger
not just of nuclear war but of any further great war at all in this
age of high technology and of tremendous - almost uncontrollable -
destructive power. The fact that the Soviet leaders have no desire
for such a war, and would greatly like to see it avoided, is
unmistakably clear to anyone who knows anything about them. ...
The issue of war and peace is the crucial issue. The others, real or
fancied - Angola, Afghanistan, Central America, human rights, what you
will - all pale beside it. These others can wait. The crucial issue
cannot. But to get on with this crucial issue (and this is the
essence of what I am trying to say to you in this letter) we will have
to look more closely at ourselves - at our own motivation, our own
behavior, the formative processes of our own society - than we have
done to date. A mere "return to the negotiating table" will not solve
the problem."
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 29 September 1984 11:13:19 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: ban on home hacking
This was discussed briefly on our local opinion bboard:
Current law bans "homework" for women's outerwear, and possibly a few other
items of clothing. This law was written back in slave labor days, but seems
silly now. For example, with unisex-style clothing, it is legal to make a
coat with the buttons on the wearer's right (men's style) but illegal to
make the same identical coat with buttons on the left. The ILGWU guy then
went on to say that computer homework should be banned too. Comments:
Me:
I believe that the type of home computer work the union leader (the man
behind the union label) has in mind is data entry, not hackers at home.
Data entry operators type in handwritten forms, such as insurance claim
forms, credit card slips, etc. I know someone who used to do this down at
Mellon Bank. The work environment is best described as an electronic sweat
shop. The system monitors your typing rate, error rate, etc, and you are
evaluated on that basis. Full-time employees in these fields are ripe for
unionization. However much of the work is part-time, which makes
unionization difficult. Home-based data entry makes the work even more
attractive to large numbers of women with small children.
I don't think attempts at banning will go anywhere for two reasons. First,
professional programmers working at home are just as immune to unionization
as professionals at a workplace. Second, the whole concept of data entry
can be viewed as a temporary hack to make up for the fact that computers are
not sufficiently networked, adequate interchange standards don't exist, and
speech and image understanding isn't there yet. If the information was
entered as it was created, then most of these jobs would disappear.
Developments such as debit cards (use your Cashstream card at Gulf Oil) are
leading the way.
Dave Black@cmu-cs-a:
Actually I think the unions are after the CRT operators (modern version of
keypunch). I've already heard mumblings from various groups about how bad
work conditions are, and how awful it is to have a computer measuring their
work output. If they work at home, unionizing them becomes a non-starter.
On the other hand the engineers (many of whom are programmers) at Sperry
Corporation's Great Neck, NY facility (on Long Island) and possibly
elsewhere are unionized by some part of the AFL-CIO. [and have been for
some time; original dispute stemmed from management dismissing people just
before they would be entitled to pension benefits and similar idiocy.] The
only major difference this seems to make is that overtime is not mandatory
(but promotions are less likely if one is unwilling to do it when needed),
and must be paid at overtime rates.
------------------------------
From: Laurinda Rohn
Date: 01 Oct 84 07:51:57 PDT (Mon)
Subject: Sixty Minutes and Working at Home
This is mainly a clarification of what Mike Zaleski said about the
working at home controversy, as he got the story mostly right.
I did see the 60 Minutes segment in question and have been following
the USENET discussion fairly closely as well. In fact, it is already
illegal for the women in New England to knit their sweaters at home
and sell them. This apparently dates back to an old law trying to
prevent garment manufacturers from forcing their employees to work
at home for virtually nothing. The real controversy started when some
law enforcement agency actually went to the home of one of the women
and told her that she was breaking the law.
A point worthy of note is that if the women had been making MEN'S
clothing, they would not have been breaking the law. Apparently, when
the no home-work law was passed, the legislators decided that men's
clothing was harder to make than women's and required such heavy
equipment that people wouldn't be able to do it at home.
At any rate, the whole situation is absolutely absurd. These women
are obviously not working in a sweat shop environment. They are,
however, getting around the unions, which amuses me no end. I think
this is yet another example of the unions trying to get in where they
don't belong. But then I'm not convinced they belong anywhere.
An item was mentioned toward the end of the segment that might be of
more direct interest to a lot of us. It seems that the AFL-CIO is
now trying to get this no home-work law extended to prevent people
from working at home on computer terminals. I find this even more
absurd than the garment workers law. I sincerely hope that Congress
doesn't take this seriously.
Lauri Rohn
------------------------------
Date: 2 October 1984 06:39-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use
It is already illegal under federal law to make ladies garments
for sale if you work in your own home. ILGWU doesn't need to
get a law; they only need to (1) keep the one they have and (2)
get marshals to jail the women who use their home kniting
machines to make ski caps, underwear, etc, if intended for
women. If intended for men it's legal; women are EXPECTED to
make clothing for men, apparently. ILGWU strikes again. Sing,
sing the praises.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 10:07:50-PDT
From: Ken Laws
Subject: Computer Homework
Re: Women are EXPECTED to make clothing for men ...
The 60 Minutes piece made the point that the homework law was passed
(about 30 years ago) to correct specific abuses. At the time, men's
clothing was commonly made in factories using heavy machinery. Women's
clothing was, I presume, more detailed, individual, and delicate; it
was commonly made by hand either in factories or at home. Times have
changed and the law is now absurd, but I don't expect the law to change
until some larger issue such as computer homework forces a complete
restructuring.
(Factory sweatshops also exist; there are separate laws covering
them, but enforcement is lax. Milton Friedman apparently
supports such shops as an entry for immigrants and the poor into the
mainstream of the American economy. The same can be said for
homework. We certainly should not shut down the workshops unless
we provide alternative channels for these people.)
Computer homework and factory work can be just as abused as any other
kind of work. Not every terminal is going to have mailer capability
or storage of personal files. Terminals can be made to count keystrokes
and are thus ideal overseers. Some legislation may indeed be necessary;
let's just make sure it's sensible legislation.
Don't you wish your congressman had a terminal?
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Oct 84 14:53:45-PDT
From: Ken Laws
Subject: Homework
I just ran across a short article on the telecommuting homework problem
in the May issue of Data Communications. At that time Reagan was trying
to eliminate the homework laws (including knitting, etc.); other candidates
had taken no position. It seems that the AFL-CIO has already petitioned
that the current laws be extended to include computer homework after the
members of one of their subunions (United Service Industries Employees?)
voted for such an action. Politicians have not been very receptive to
the AFL-CIO position.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 15 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 93
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional
takes a little longer." --Henry Kissinger
Contents: Homework
Where is the bread buttered?
Rubber baby buggy bumpers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 1984 08:15:02-EDT
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Home Work
Assuming that work is paid by the piece, whether for knitting or
data entry, who cares how many strokes are used? Monitoring thus
is totally unnecessary.
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Mon Oct 8 22:38:05 1984
From: mclure@sri-prism
Subject: where your bread is buttered
I find it most amusing that so many of these young, liberal,
whipper-snappers at colleges and universities are always so
pro-Democrat no matter how idiotic the Democratic candidate and his
party's platform.
The amusement is not in the above statement. Rather, it is in what
happens to them many years later. Some subset of them will make it to
the big-time and get excellent salaries. Then, they get to see closeup
up to 50% of their salary being siphoned off their paycheck.
Do they ever change their tune then! They see their paycheck
vanishing, their being unable to give their families what they want,
and boy do they do an about-face!
The Republicans have been the only major party to say that taxing
people at such rates is wrong. It is especially wrong to then take
that money and give it to some welfare mother who just keeps having
more and more illegitimate babies.
Stuart
------------------------------
Date: Mon Oct 8 22:49:08 1984
From: mclure@sri-prism
Subject: 3 predictions
First prediction:
Reagan will be re-elected in a landslide.
Second prediction:
Reagan will apply the full anti-FDR anti-New-Deal
thrust that this country has needed for 50 years.
Remember that FDR wanted to dismantle much of the
New Deal but he died before he had the chance.
Keynesian economics, in my mind, is pretty much
discredited now.
Third prediction:
We will not see the full effects of Reagan's changes
for up to 10 years after they are put in force. Just
as FDR's implementation of Keynesian 'deficit spending'
took 50 years to bring this country to the nadir of the
Carter economic disaster, so will the Reagan anti-FDR
take many years to fully show its effect.
Stuart
[If I may comment: (p.1.) I tend to agree. (p.2.) It ain't that easy.
The Republicans probably won't get control of the House. The polity
has come to regard its transfer payments as rights, and has become
sophisticated enough to defend them tenaciously. The new right may
be able to slow the process, but the inherent instability in the
political process will ultimately win out. It may interest you that
major economic think-tanks (eg Wharton) are beginning to predict
high inflation, even if Reagan wins. (p.3.) FDR was really just the
first break into the limelight of socialist ideas which had been
gaining strength from the turn of the century. However, the 50
years since have been a tale of continued political expansion of
those programs -- they didn't just happen once and then take their
effect half a century later. Reagan is very much a corresponding
break into the political limelight; but it will take another 50
years of constant political pressure to get a sane government--
and it won't happen. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 11 October 1984 23:47:36 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: advertising big bumpers
A while back, a discussion on regulation touched on the fact that most auto
manufacturers cut their bumper quality when regulation was lifted. But Ford
has not, and advertises the fact that its cars qualify for lower insurance
rates because of this. I just saw a rather amusing TV commercial for
Escort, showing it bounce off of cars, and trucks, and then bump into a
building with a cut to a building being dynamited. So companies don't
always do the stupid thing. But after reading Iaccoca's Autobiography
exerpt, I'm probably never going to buy a Ford again (I own one).
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 18 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 94
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional
takes a little longer." --Henry Kissinger
Contents: Fusion
Politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 84 08:48:00 EDT
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Private Enterprise Fusion
The November issue of High Technology has a four page article on private
attempts to build compact copper coil fusion reactors. The article describes
Bussard's Riggatron (his company, INESCO, folded in August) and General Atomics'
Ohmically Heated Toroidal Experiment (OHTE), a copper coil reverse field
pinch machine. GA is owned by Chevron, so they have funding. They hope
to reach ignition in 5 years and commericialization within another 5-8 years.
Bussard's comment at the end of the article is interesting:
"There's no doubt that Riggatrons will be built, though they'll be called
something else. The fusion establishmentcan breathe a sigh of relief that
we're gone, do a study to 'discover' that, lo and behold, the only
sensible way to make fusion is in compact, high-field copper-magnet
machines, and then build one at a university or national lab. Of course,
the Russians will beat us -- they're going to ignite one of these things
in 1986."
------------------------------
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: where your bread is buttered
It seems that the principle thrust of your remarks is that:
(1) Idealism is both silly and juvenile.
(2) Self-interest will eventually convert Democrats to the ways of
righteousness.
(3) The Republican Party's unfriendly attitude to poor people is thus
justified by the recantation of idealists.
I find this an interesting extension of the cult of self-interest found
in many conservatives, and a still more interesting reversal. Traditionally,
those who've sold their souls for wealth are damned, not canonized.
Darkness indeed walks our land ...
(Before I get flamed, I'd like to point out that I don't believe in 50%
tax rates. I also don't believe in starving bastards as public policy.)
--Jim
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 1984 04:29 EDT
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: 3 predictions
(Are you better off now than you were 50 years ago? :-)
------------------------------
Date: Mon Oct 15 08:27:04 1984
From: mclure@sri-unix
Subject: Re: 3 predictions
Am I better off now than I was 50 years ago?
That's hard to say since I'm not 50 yet. Suffice it to say that
together FDR and Hoover destroyed this country. Reagan is the
first president to try and repair the damage. Others will follow.
Stuart
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 09:27:37 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
[mclure@sri-prism]
The Republicans have been the only major party to say that taxing
people at such rates is wrong.
Make that the only *major* party...there are others that have proposed
deeper cuts. Anyhow, the GOP's never claimed that it's wrong to tax people
at above some level of income, merely that it's ineffective and
counter-productive. Of course, those arguments really don't matter to the
class-warfare whiners that dominate That Other Party.
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 15 Oct 84 13:07:46-EDT
From: Larry Kolodney
Strange... Socialist ideas have been on the ascendency in this country
for the past fifty years... the same period of time during which
the USA reach its peak of power and influence. Why are you so
anxious to get rid of a good thing?
-larry
p.s. are you really suffering?
[A function peaks when its derivative is 0. Inasmuch as such concepts
are applicable, the peak of a society's well-being (which is not synonymous
with "power and influence") should be expected to come just when its
moral fiber has disappeared, and the stage is set for a decline.
--JoSH
ps: as one on a government payroll, ie one of the thieves, no.]
------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 84 11:55:34 PDT (Wednesday)
Subject: None of the canidates are acceptable
From: Jerry
If given the choice "None of the canidates are acceptable" in the
current
presidential election, would you select it rather than vote for the
least offensive canidate. Would it motivate you to vote instead sitting
at home and claiming that your vote means nothing?
I get the impression from many people that they dont like any of the
canidates.
A voting option like this would give us a way to tell the parties and
the world that we really dont like what the govt. is doing. If a large
number of people responded this way, it might motivate the politicians
to reform. or it might be the begining of a revolution (to set up an
electronic democracy?).
~ Jerry
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 23 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 95
There are some intelligent people in Washington.
More of 'em in Kansas.
--Alf Landon
Contents: None of the Above
New Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 18 October 1984 00:01:38 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: they all suck
An election year does not go by without much handwringing over voter apathy.
The standard reason given is that all the candidates a) suck, b) are all the
same, or c) it doesn't matter who gets elected anyway. A "None of the
Above" voting option is currently available. It's called voting for someone
else. In most states there is a spectrum of candidates to choose from. And
you can always write in Gus Hall or Lyndon LaRouche. If a voter really
feels strongly about the suckiness of the candidate choice, then he will get
off his butt and do something about it, like get active in politics. If
not, then he obviously doesn't care very much about it, and so politicians
correctly ignore these concerns.
[If everyone who thinks the choices suck (ie who doesn't vote at all now)
took your advice, Gus Hall or Lyndon LaRouche would be president, and
God help us then... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 16:14:17-PDT
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: none-of-the-above voting
Since I was one of the people complaining about my vote being
meaningless, I want to answer Jerry. Yes, it would help me to be able
to vote for 'none of the above'. I was seriously considering a
write-in, so disillusioned am I with my choices, but friends convinced
me that my voice would not be heard if I write in. My valiant protest
would be lost, meaningless, as it is if I simply don't vote. So given
my choices, I will vote *against* the candidate I like least.
This reminds me of an idea a friend of mine had for reforming our
method of elections. We were remarking what a high percentage of
people seem to vote, as I do, against a candidate rather than for one.
My friend's proposal may not be practical, but it sure sounded
appealing to me. He suggests we allow votes to be positive or
negative. A candidate's total would be the difference between
positive and negative votes. In a strictly two-party system, there
isn't much difference, but it's morally more satisfying to vote
against someone I hate vs. voting for someone I merely dislike. And
if there are small third parties or write-ins, it gives them a better
chance, since a major party candidate could actually end up with a
negative total, making a write-in with a small positive total the
winner! My friend made his proposal even less practical (and more
appealing) by suggesting that to win, a candidate would have to score
a certain minimum percentage (I believe he suggested 10-15%, which I
think is quite high under this scheme), and any candidate scoring less
than a certain percentage (0% being an obvious option) would be
disqualified from that office for that election. If everyone is so
disqualified, then we have to find new candidates and start again.
Well, I admitted it wasn't a very practical suggestion. But that
would really let us send a message to those party leaders! I wonder
if they would ever get the message and start giving us more real
choices?
------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 10:41:14-PDT
From: Wilkins
Subject: republicans and taxes
I would feel a lot better about the Republicans liking lower taxes if they
also liked lower government spending. However, a $260 billion deficit beats
(by half an order of magnitude) any deficit FDR, LBJ or any democrat ever ran
up (and we're not even at war). Anyone can be in favor of no income as long
as they can keep spending. Too bad the rest of us cannot mortgage the future
of others to live high off the hog now.
------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 16:25:58-PDT
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: FDR and Reagan
To say that FDR and Hoover destroyed this country and Reagan (along
with those who follow) will save it, seems to me to put too much
emphasis on the people involved. FDR instituted some programs to help
the country during a difficult time, with some difficult problems.
They were effective at the moment. But they weren't 'uninstituted' as
they became unnecessary. Politicians (and people in general) don't
think very long-term, and they tend to maintain the status quo. If
Reagan undoes what FDR did, he will do it, no doubt, to solve what he
perceives are this country's current problems. And he (and his
followers) will eventually establish a new status quo, by which time
the policies will be outdated and ineffective and even bring us
further along the path of destruction (but in a different direction -
there are many paths to destruction). And they will be defended as
the status quo.
The problem isn't FDR or Hoover or Reagan. It's that times change
faster than laws, and no one knows how to predict the future.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 84 09:55 PDT
From: Kiewiet.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
Re: Are you better off than you were n years ago, and 50% tax rate vs.
starving people
The Republican strategy "think tank" must have read Kiewiet's
"Macroeconomics and Micropolitics: the Electoral Effects of Economic
Issues" (U of Chicago Press), for they seem to have adopted these
theories into their current operations.
A recent poll (NYTimes I think) asked people questions along the lines
of:
Are you more worried about (a) some people not getting the welfare
payments they are enttitled to, or (b) some people getting more welfare
payments than they are entitled to? Question B is of more concern to
most people, and those vote Republican about 5-1.
Are you more worried about (a) Communist takeovers in Central America,
or (b) the U.S. becoming engaged in a war in Central America. More are
worried about (a) and vote Republican 6-1.
Lorraine
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 30 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 96
Corsair, n. A politician of the seas.
--Ambrose Bierce, in The Devil's Dictionary
Contents: Deficits
Politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 1984 14:59:30 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: deficits
In a quadrillion dollar economy, our $169B deficit would be 0.0169% of the
GNP instead of the maybe 3.7% of the GNP it really is. Clearly the size of
a deficit doesn't matter nearly as much as its percentage of the GNP.
Historical data other than GNP percentage is irrelevant (the current
percentage is higher than most previous deficits).
------------------------------
Date: 25 October 1984 00:37-EDT
From: James A. Cox
Subject: republicans and taxes
Spending would be lower if Reagan had gotten all the spending cuts he
wanted. Also, you have to realize that Congressional (mainly
Democratic) opposition to spending cuts has had a "chilling effect" in
Reagan's budgets. Remember how the Congress reacted when Reagan
proposed entitlement cuts in 1981? Remember how the Democrats
exploited it in the 1982 election (the commerical showing the
Republicans slicing up a Social Security card)? How do you think that
affected Reagan's later actions?
Actually, total spending is no greater now than it would have been under
Carter's proposed budgets. But under Carter, you wouldn't have gotten
the tax cut (okay, so it only offset other tax rises under Reagan--but
you would have been /worse/ off without it).
- James Cox
------------------------------
Date: 23-Oct-84 22:39 PDT
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD
Subject: The Candidates....
...I wonder if they vote for the lesser of two evils? --Bi\\
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 84 23:53:34 cst
From: Mike Meyer
Subject: Write-in Votes
In V4 #95, someone mentioned "You an always write-in..." Sad to say, but
this isn't true. In the state of Oklahoma, any marks on the ballot other
than check marks in the appropriate area are considered to be "mutilation",
and invalidate the ballot.
The reason I bring this up is that I'm curious if any other states have
similar (and unconstitutional, in my view) practices. Could you let
me know (by MAIL!) if write-ins are illegal in your state?
Thanx,
the whole POINT of a tax system is to spend your money on things that you
don't want it spent on.
I agree with you, but would word it differently: I thought that the whole
point of a tax system is to charge everybody to support projects for the
common good. This includes many things which one might support directly,
but equalizes the contributions and reduces the overall amount of decision
making effort.
To expand on the issue: It is my belief that "republican" systems of
government (not party politics) is based on this reduction of effort. It
turns out that concentration of decision making effort reduces the total
amount of decision making and the total communication necessary. Some
quantitative political models indicate that the size of a representative
body should be about P^(2/3) for an adult population of P in order to
minimize the communication problems in government.
With electronic communication, it becomes possible for each of us to have
more input because the communication costs are reduced. The problem is that
the communication costs for debate increase with the square of the number of
representatives. It might be possible to double the size of the house of
Representatives, but a much larger body would find it very difficult to
communicate internally.
Other possibilities, such as questionaires are practical. If there are
issues which each of us has an opinion on, then we can each notify our
representatives of our views. The problem is cost: Assuming that it takes
only one hour a week for me to peruse the important news, an additional hour
to peruse the important governmental questions, and a quarter hour to vote,
this is a total of a quarter billion hours each week for 100 million people
to run the country. On the other hand, with our representative system, the
federal government policy level (senate, house, the immediate staffs of
senators and representatives, and assistant secretaries and up in executive
branch) is only 2000-3000 people, for a total of less than 125000 hours, a
savings of a factor of 2000 over direct democracy.
In California we have 20 or 30 ballot measures put before the public each
year. For the most part, these are poorly drafted, and complicated. Many
of them are placed on the ballot by petition and opposed by the state
legislature. I oppose those who want to eliminate the initiatives, but feel
that there has to be a better way. The problem is that most voters have too
little time and training to properly study these measures before voting.
The result is private interests spending tens of millions of dollars in
advertising to coerce the public into voting one way or the other. I don't
see much success in expanding this system.
I aggree that a proxy system would give the individual more clout, but
relative to the automatically assigned proxies, this clout is not
significant. In fact, you probably have about 5000 times as much clout now
(if you consistently write your representatives) as you would with a proxy
system.
As to the individual assigning the fraction of his (or her) tax dollars to
go to each program, this could become like the California propositions. Can
you imagine DoD running television ads: "Vote for a Strong US -- put all of
your tax money into defense." We would wind up spending Billions on
advertising to try to convince the public that various services require
funding. On top of that, just think of the effort to decide where to put
the money ... It's hard enough to fill out our taxes now, any serious
attempt at deciding how much to pay for each of dozens of programs would
take weeks.
One final point (I have been too long winded already): paying taxes to an
organization which then doles them out to programs is exactly what we are
doing now, except that we can't individually decide on the organization. In
practice proxy system would probably be very similar to this scheme.
[If you simply want to reduce the communications costs, you should pick a
dictator at random and have him make all the decisions... The greater
communications costs of a direct vote system would in my opinion be a
boon, not a bane. The point is to reduce logrolling for pork-barrel
projects. Any representative body the size of Congress, however selected,
would logroll as badly as it does. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 84 12:37:36 pdt
Subject: Re: No vote option
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdchema!randy@Berkeley
Rather than simply vote against candidates, I wonder how many of you would
be willing to run for office yourself?
I prefer to program computers myself, so the point is not that you should
go out there and run for office if you don't like the candidates (although
that may be what some of you should and will do). Rather, I suggest that
the problem starts with the people (yup, you and me) who don't participate
more in government. This newsgroup is a great way to get started, and my
attack is less directed against the members of this group, since it is a
wonderful way to engage ourselves.
What if people volunteered more of their time to the local government
offices (which would be difficult at first because they are not set up to
use volunteers for the most part except during elections)?
To the degree that our governments don't work, it is because we gave up
the running of our government to professional politicians and then stopped
supporting them.
I am interest in your responses, ideas, and thoughts about the above.
Please send mail to
...!sdcsvax!sdchema!randy
[Personally, I consider running for office one of the most despicable forms
of human behavior. The reason that our governments don't work is that
they are based on a fundamentally evil premise, that some people should
be placed in a position of coercive control over others--essentially
slavery writ large. No social system based on this premise can prosper.
To run for office is to lie, cheat, and steal in quite a literal sense.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 31 Oct 84 Volume 4 Number 97
All kings is mostly rapscallions.
--Huckleberry Finn
Contents: Running for Office
Electronic Democracy
Politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 17:45:06 est
From: vax135!ariel!norm@Berkeley
JoSH, to run for office is not necessarily to lie, cheat, steal. Nor is it
incompatible with anarchy, as I see it. I've heard that the original Greek
meaning or root meaning for anarchy was "no rule", not "no government". That
is, a government that did not rule (initiate force) could still be a geographic
monopoly that legitimately controlled the use of force. Its primary function
would be to retaliate against those who initiated force or substitutes for
force to obtain values from others. So long as that government didn't "rule"
it would be anarchic, in the original sense of the word.
If someone runs for office, and gets in on the promise that he won't lie, cheat
or steal, and if that someone refuses the tax booty offered as salary and
refrains from initiating force or fraud in office, then what's the beef? How
is it evil? It may not necessarily be productive in a positive sense, but it
seems to me that just to hold an office hostage for a term at least prevents
a statist from exercising it.
Norm Andrews, vax135!ariel!norm
[This seems to be the Libertarian Party's argument also. I don't buy it.
"Let me, a principled man with a love of freedom, own these slaves,
so they won't be owned by these other evil persons." If you have a
geographic monopoly that controls the use of force, the logic of power
and human nature says that it will grow into a tyranny. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 16:24:52-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Running for office
"To run for office is to lie, cheat, and steal in quite a literal sense."
Josh
What nonsense! One of the reasons government has been able to expand
its influence is that Libertarian-minded people frequently
fail to understand transition problems, and to look at our multi-
colored world in terms of black and white, all or nothing.
Premises:
1) It is possible to run for office without lying
2) It is possible to run for office without cheating (I assume
this means some kind of general honorability other than lying)
3) It is possible to reduce the amount the government currently
steals
Conclusion:
If someone runs for office successfully without lying, cheating, or
stealing, and someone (through persuasion or whatever) effects a
*reduction* in the amount the government steals (or at least does not
increse it) they have neither lied, cheated, nor stolen in the process
of running for office.
Waiting for the best is the worst enemy of getting *anything*
better! The system is best reduced from within, not from sitting on
the sidelines and academically theorizing that the *net* result of
participating in the system *must* be to
strengthen it. That thesis is unproven, and I believe counterproductive
to the cause of reducing the intrusion of government into our lives.
As for actually running for office--I'd do it in a minute, if I
thought I had a chance of winning, and I may do it anyway just to
raise some issues. What would be the chances of success for a
candidate who told the electorate their concepts of right and
wrong were all screwed up?
TCS
[We have a fundamental disagreement in that you seem to think that the
only way to improve a political system is through political action.
If the people come to realize that all the political doings are
bad for them on the whole, the politicians will break their necks
trying to get out in front and "lead" the way to dismantle the
government. Someone who runs for office, no matter what he says
with his mouth, is supporting political "solutions" with his actions.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 30 Oct 84 13:52:12 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Steping towards an Electronic Democracy
From: Jerry
It is far to early to suggest a full fledged electronic democracy for a
society as large and diverse as the USA. Experience is needed with
smaller societies. One problem is access to the electronic systems. In
order to implement a electronic democracy everyone must have easy access
to the voting system (ie terminals in phones). Some of the local or
national computer societies (ACM, etc.) might be an interesting test
group since many of the members are already on Internet. Has any group
made such an attempt?
On the government side, I would like to see a representative set up an
electronic BBoard to which his constituents could write. It doesnt take
much to set up a BBoard and many of the rep. communities are rich enough
and sophisticated enough to support one. The rep. would need someone to
scan the BB for him (as the assistants scan the mail). Several BB's
might be needed to allow constituents to debate different issues and
also to register "votes" for or against pending legislation. The rep.
could publish a news letter BB to inform consitituents of such
legislation and committee actions on the BB machine. Anyone know a
high-tech representative?
A real advance in ED would be public, electronic access to the
congressional records (a HUGE Database) and other public documents
presented to the congress. This may allow easier scrutiny of
representatives by their constituents (and lobby groups).
Computer systems of this type would have a much better impact on society
than the proposed Star Wars systems. (especially if when the respective
systems get used.)
~ Jerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 10:04:56 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Propaganda
Any comment on the following? It is the text of a letter I wrote to
my elderly Republican aunt.
This is my first letter to you in a while, and I
apologize for that. Even worse, I'm writing with an imper-
tinent purpose: to get you to vote against Ronald
Reagan. Normally, I would never consider doing this, but
the prospect of four more years of his government makes me
genuinely scared.
Few others seem excited about the prospect; why am
I so fearful? It is the responsibility he holds in the
military power of the United States. The United States
and the Soviet Union have spent the last 25 years accumu-
lating nuclear arsenals, to the point where a fraction of
either can essentially end life in the Northern Hemisphere.
The president of the United States holds this responsi-
bility virtually alone. In the next war, there will be no
time for discussion, debate, negotiation, elections. He
will decide for millions of lives in a matter of minutes.
It's no exaggeration that in terms of destructive power,
Ronald Reagan is one of the most powerful men in human his-
tory. I wouldn't give this man life and death responsibility
over my family, much less entire nations.
I believe Ronald Reagan is incompetent for this
responsibility based on his view of the world. In Ronald
Reagan's world, there are two kinds of people, two kinds of
country: good and evil, Us and Them. Every person and
every country is either one or the other. Either you are
a friend of the USA, promoting our interests, or you are an
enemy now and forever. In the world of Ronald Reagan
there is no evil in a place like El Salvador, where death
squads kill thousands of people a year, because they are
our ally. Likewise, there is no good in the Nicaraguan
government, which, whatever its faults, did replace one
of the bloodiest, most corrupt in the Americas. They are
The Enemy.
Leaders have always promoted this view of the
world because it is simple, hence communicable to the body
politic. It is also useful in many situations to behave
publicly as if you believe it; John Kennedy's handling of
the Cuban missile crisis owed its success to his convincing
the Soviets that he meant business. But very few peo-
ple in power really believe in international politics as
Armageddon (Nixon's rhetoric was never friendly, yet he
opened the door to China and negotiated SALT I with the Rus-
sians). They disbelieve it because it is an utterly hope-
less, cynical doctrine, condemning the world to conflict
and destruction. Its natural conclusion is that the only
way to deal with your opponent is to destroy him. Every
President of the Nuclear Age has denounced the Soviets, yet
each has managed to find accord with them in one form or
another. This President has not, because in the world
according to Ronald Reagan, there is no way for us to
influence a situation for the better; the only variable is
how steadfastly you resist the Devil.
Watch the man, listen to what he says and the
policies he proposes. He really believes that the United
States is God's country, that the more like us a nation
is, the better it is, and the less like us, the worse.
Our enemies are God's enemies, and there is no point in try-
ing to get along with them, or to cooperate with them in
any way. In a crisis, there will be no course but fight it
out. However, unlike previous such leaders, Ronald
Reagan will be fighting with nuclear weapons.
I cannot believe that he appreciates the responsi-
bility he bears. I believe that based on its power to harm,
the increasing danger of nuclear war is the most important
issue on the human agenda, and that the only rational
response of a man in the President's position is a grim
determination to reverse the tide and find a way back to
a safer world. President Reagan sincerely believes that he
wants peace, but his actions belie that belief. No Amer-
ican president has been so openly hostile to the Soviet
Union, or so insistent on one-sided proposals. He offers a
proposal for reducing or eliminating land-based missile
systems, then expresses surprise that, unlike the United
States, the Russians are almost entirely dependent on
them. Ronald Reagan has publicly opposed every arms control
agreement made by his predecessors; what better can
we expect of him now, or in the next four years?
You or I hear the phrase "nuclear war" and the
first thing we do is wince in anticipation, and the second
thing we do is try not to think about anything so horri-
ble. As citizens, there is so little we can do that
avoidance is a rational response. But that just makes it
more incumbent on our leaders to worry about it for us.
Instead, we have a leader who actively encourages us to
sleep, by giving us the impression that we're all in good
hands.
I was having coffee with a friend one day, discuss-
ing a trip he made to Europe, and he was describing to me
the most impressive thing he saw there. He had gone to
Dachau, and he had actually touched a gas oven.. Reading
about millions dying, he said, means nothing. Touching
an oven is something you can understand. I could see in his
eyes the reality of it. I could see him being
frightened and revolted all over again, that something like
that could ever happen. If it ever happens again, he said,
it'll be over my dead body.
In the following silence, I tried to imagine how it
could happen in the first place. I thought of my
viewpoint on it, and how abstract it seems, looking at it
from another country decades later. Certainly many leaders
of Germany were malevolent, but the rest of the country had
gone along: officers had taken orders, citizens had not
tried to find out what happened to their Jewish neighbors.
I wondered how different the outcome would have been if that
whole country had had Mark's contact with the oven, if
every housewife and bookkeeper had had to herd five people
into a gas chamber. It finally seemed to me that the
evil of the process of abstraction was at least equal to the
evil of the Reich; while they had started the whole thing,
it was the distance of space that kept it going, that
allowed Germany and other countries to keep their backs to
what was actually happening. It enabled administrators to
shut their eyes to what their orders meant in terms of human
devastation. It allowed regular people to do nothing,
to say "Maybe they're in prison, maybe they're dead. So
what?" Or not to think anything at all. I would
even say that coolness of the facts, the distance between
orders and actions, allowed the leaders themselves to
rationalize their actions in terms of some greater good.
That same abstraction process is going on now.
In the corridors of power, the reality of national death
is masked behind jargonistic dialogues about megatonnage,
throw weight, kill probabilities. Under Ronald Reagan,
we have for the first time heard people in responsible
positions speak seriously of winning nuclear war, about
"acceptable" losses of twenty million people. These people
are completely removed from the destructive power they hold.
Ronald Reagan, who believes everything they tell him, is one
step further removed.
It's so hard to conceive of any war in personal
terms without having been there. It's particularly hard to
think about nuclear war because it will be incomparably
worse than any other. How many millions dead? How much
climatic change? How many years of radiation in the air and
water and food? It's so hard to grasp and so easy to deny.
Ronald Reagan is fundamentally unwilling to try.
Do you think he really appreciates the responsi-
bility he bears? Do you think he sits up nights worrying
about the possibility of war, wracking his brains to find
a way out of the trap of an endlessly escalating arms
race? Do you think he feels the least bit skeptical about
the idea of Peace Through Mutual Terror? Does he show any
regret, at all, that, as he says, the only way to bring
peace is to accumulate more destructive power? Is it too
much to expect a little appreciation for the horrible irony
of such a situation? Is it too much to expect hear a
sentence like "Well, this may be the only way for now, but
BY GOD we're going to find another."? I have never
heard any such sentiment from Ronald Reagan, and I don't
expect to. He is satisfied that safety can be assured only
by a continuing arms escalation which is the exclusive
responsibility of the Russians. He "jokes" about nuclear
war. He fights tooth and nail to build a missile for lev-
elling cities and calls it the Peacekeeper. The power of
the Presidency is unique. It seems to me that a
creative, determined President could make the world safer by
some other means than mutual terror. Failing that, he
could try. At the very least, he could show some re gret,
or fear, or minimally, respect for the hideous situation we
are in. For Ronald Reagan, this is the talk of
fools and weaklings. Where is American ingenuity and deter-
mination when it comes to the greatest problem facing the
human race? Utterly impotent, it seems. If the best that
America can do is reproduce brute force, then we truly
deserve him as president.
The world is getting more dangerous all the time.
This is not just a dreamy generality, but can be measured
in missile flight times, in the megatonnage of nuclear arse-
nals, in the increased control given to computers, in
the number of places in the world where conflict can flare.
The danger is easy to deny. But far from leading us to
an understanding of it and thence to action to lessen it,
Ronald Reagan allows it to worsen by his unconcern,
and draws us to complacency with his per-
sonality.
Believe me, I'm no big fan of Walter Mondale. I
expect his domestic policies to make me cringe. But the
worst he could possibly do is as nothing compared to the
prospect of nuclear death. Ronald Reagan is sleepwalk-
ing, and expects us to join him, to the darkest dawn in 4
billion years. As the graffiti says, "Vote for Walter
Mondale; you'll live to regret it."
[Well, since you asked: That's an awful lot of verbiage to say
"I'm scared Reagan will get us into a nuclear war." And most of the
verbiage is striking purely emotional chords that have little
logical connection to the main statement. This is a typical
liberal position and I'm sure you believe it fervently, but it
doesn't make a lot of sense. (a) Reagan's bark is a lot worse
than his bite. His actual actions (as contrasted with his
rhetoric) have been remarkably mild (removing Carter's grain embargo,
for example). (b) Somehow or another, in this century it has always
been the Democratic presidents that got us into major wars. The last
Republican to do that was Abraham Lincoln. I think the reason is that
the Republicans have been the party of realpolitik and the Democrats
have been the party of emotional idealism--which (in the US) is what gets
us into wars.
The answer to your letter is simple: Mondale is more likely
to get us into a major war, nuclear or otherwise, than Reagan
(but I'm not voting for either one). --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 1 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 98
[This is the "ordinary" poli-sci material. The electronic democracy
stuff forms a separate issue.]
Contents: politics,running for office
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 09:39:05-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Running for office
"If the people come to realize...."
Josh
I trust, of course, that you are not holding your breath! Your thesis
might have some merit in a society of, say, a few thousand people, where
it might actually be possible to talk to and persuade everyone that
government interference is bad. Trouble is, there is an enormous amount
of inertia in the existing social structure of the US (a broad term
I use to include economic trends, political systems, social systems and
values, etc), and the overall path of society is not going to change
quickly unless there is some equally enormous external force (nuclear
war, the arrival of the visitors, or some such).
I want to change the system in the direction of more freedom. I control
some modest resources that I can command/influence. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of my resources, I need to apply them where
the will have the most effect. For a system with this kind of inertia
and stability, that implies using the existing tools to nudge the
system (as opposed to waiting for some cosmic transformation
in the minds of the citizens) in the direction that I want.
This is, I admit, a little academic. I've actually concluded that to
change the system significantly will take much too long for my
purposes (over 100 years), and that I will instead attempt to build a
freer country in space, which I believe can be done in 40-50 years.
TCS
[The point is that I'm not just waiting for people to suddenly
change their minds, I'm trying to increase the availibility of the
crucial ideas throughout the intellectual "market". Nothing is
so powerful as an idea whose time is come--but there is a lot of
hard pushing before that time comes. If suddenly the government
were disbanded here, chaos would ensue. The people aren't ready
for freedom yet. They were more ready a century ago--but a century
of socialist ideas made them ready for slavery. The intellectual
foundations of freedom must be laid before the government can be
removed; and when they are, it will melt away as if by magic.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 13:21:38-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: changing gov't from within
[Terry C. Savage ]
As for actually running for office--I'd do it in a minute, if I
thought I had a chance of winning, and I may do it anyway just to
raise some issues. What would be the chances of success for a
candidate who told the electorate their concepts of right and
wrong were all screwed up?
I agree with Terry that it's preferable to improve a situation than
wait for the "best" to come along, the perfect cure. But I wonder how
much it would really accomplish for one of us "enlightened" types to
run for office. Terry says it himself in the last sentence above.
And while raising some issues is worthwhile, it doesn't get you inside
the system to change it.
The problem here is that we, the masses, elect officials on the basis
of personality, presentation, and their ability to say what we want to
hear, no matter how absurd. Reagan is the paradigm. I fear that
someone who brings up real issues may attract a small following, as
did McCarthy and Anderson, and may actually educate and influence some
folks, but will not get elected. I also fear that the process of
getting elected may actually convert the enlightened candidate to a
Reaganistic style, said candidate rationalizing that he must first get
elected so he can do his good deeds, and finding that the conversion
is difficult to reverse. I cannot cite an example from reality, but
there is a Spencer Tracy movie in which this very nearly happens
(except that an almost-converted Tracy is jerked back to his
principles by a strong-willed wife, played of course by Hepburn).
I think our best chance is to find someone who has the principles and
attitudes we like, but is so strong-willed and self-confident that he
can play the huckster, telling the people what they want to hear, yet
never believing a word of it himself, and knowing that what he does in
office need have nothing to do with what he says to get elected. It
won't be easy to find someone with a strong enough commitment to
survive the election process, who can still speak convincingly about
things he doesn't believe, but that seems to me the best hope for
change within the system. And even if I knew of such a person, does
the end justify the means? In the meantime, I'm always thankful for
the folks who run to raise some issues and help prod the rest of us
into thinking a bit more. Maybe enough people will start thinking so
that we can elect someone on the basis of issues (vs. showmanship).
Annette
[Yikes! Your recipe for good government is "Find a strong-willed,
fundamentally dishonest person, and put him (or her) in charge
of everything." ?!?!?! --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed Oct 31 22:55:59 1984
From: mclure@sri-unix
Subject: reprehensible Democratic commercials
I find the current spate of Democratic commercials associating nuclear
destruction with the Republican party totally disgusting.
I agree with William F. Buckley's remark that when we have "bad"
detente with the Soviets is the only "good" time in our relations.
The Soviets have broken numerous treaties so I don't see much
point in making agreements with them.
Lenin stated that the ultimate goal of communism was to infect
the world and spread its virulent strain everywhere. We must
stop it through strength, the strength of the Republican party.
Don't believe the Democrats. They are a party of bleeding-heart
liberals who intend to make this country little more than a
welfare nation of invalids, begging for gruel from the government.
I am a registered Republican although more a LIberatarian at heart.
While I think the LIbertarian cause is a good one, I feel that they
will never really have a good chance at electing someone to the
highest office, and so I will vote for Reagan in this coming election.
[The remainder of the message censored as being a political ad. --JoSH]
Stuart
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 84 09:40:38 PST (Thursday)
From: RobertsA.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Running for office
In answer to Terry C. Savage's commet;
"If someone runs for office successfully without lying, cheating, or
stealing, and someone (through persuasion or whatever) effects a
*reduction* in the amount the government steals (or at least does not
increse it) they have neither lied, cheated, nor stolen in the process
of running for office."
If someone runs for office without lying, cheating, or stealing; then it
is true that they have neither lied, cheated, nor stolen in the process
of running for office. But if they are "successful"
and they accept the office then, since all State money is stolen i.e. it
is "Plunder", this person now takes part in the process of dividing the
"spoils" and with his/her first paycheck takes part in receiving stolen
goods. This person is now a criminal.
The alternative is to BUILD a non-coercive voluntary society. I emphasis
build because freedom, justice, civilization are products to be built
NOT causes to fight for.
Allen Roberts
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 84 12:54 PST
From: Sybalsky.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Re Steve Upstill's letter
You say, "Is it too much to expect hear a sentence like "Well, this
may be the only way for now, but BY GOD we're going to find another."?
I have never heard any such sentiment from Ronald Reagan, and I don't
expect to."
I beg your pardon. I am under the impression that that's EXACTLY what
he said on October 23, 1983--when he announced the Strategic Defense
Initiative. High Frontier, at least, is a purely defensive weapon
setup. If the backers are to be believed (and their arguments are
persuasive), having such a system would shift us away from Mutual
Assured Destruction--especially if we shared it with the USSR.
Isn't that exactly the kind of shift you want? Well, Reagan proposed
it.
Oh, and Mondale's response? Roughly, "Share out 50-billion dollar
technology with those warmongers? No way!" On balance, it sounds to me
like Mondale is the one who will never say what you want to hear.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 5 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 99
Contents: electronic democracy
CORPS posting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Oct 84 0805 PDT
From: Robert Maas
Subject: Discussion of electronic proxy republic
Subject: electronic democracy, many replies below...
Date: Friday, 19 Oct 1984 14:30-EDT
From: sjc@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Electronic Democracy
Each senator and representative should have an electronic
mailbox on a network so that people could send email to their
representatives.
I've been wanting this for a long time. I agree it's a good idea.
Since the government already pays for free mail from congresscritters
to their constituency, it's reasonable for it to also pay for free
mail in the reverse direction, so it's not unreasonable for
congresscritters to have mailboxes on MILNET with permitted access
from ExpArpanet all paid by the government, and permitted access from
USENET CSNET BITNET et al with the ExpArpanet&MILNET part paid by the
government. Perhaps this government-paid email should be only for
constituents to their own congresscritters (two senators and one
representative), not to others; If you want to mass-mail to all of the
House or Senate you have to use snail-mail at your own expense.
Any reason this wouldn't be a good idea or it'd be politially infeasible?
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 20:37:57 EDT
From: Brint
2. that the "n" key will be the first to wear out on most keyboards;
Could people please refrain from making statements that assume
everyone will convert over to using whatever particular mail-reading
program is the only one the particular author has used? I don't use
the same mail-reader you use, and don't even know what "n" does in
yours. Please translate to something more meaningful independent of
what particular key on your system invokes it. (I.e. flush the
system-dependent jargon and talk plain English/Computerese.)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 17:43:53 PDT
From: David Booth
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Discussion?
". . . Participatory democracy includes discussion and debate
as well as decision-making."
That is a problem. I would suggest some kind of tiered system, based
on coalitions: anyone could express a view or opinion to a small
coalition. If it the idea was accepted by this group, it would be
passed on to a group representing a larger segment of the population,
and they would consider it. This process would continue up to the
national level.
I suggested something like this a couple years ago and I still think
it's a good idea to try. It's a reasonable way to generally reduce the
amount of junk mail as well as to correct typographic errors and other
blunders before too many people have to stub their minds on them. Even
if an idea is good, the initial presentation may be suboptimal, and
the merging of several viewpoints at a low level can improve the
presentation before the idea gets lots of exposure.
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 15:52:39-EDT
From: Bernard Gunther
Subject: Proxy voting
One small group of people, who are devoted to some goal, can
effectively stop the government from working except when they agree
with what is going on. In a networked system around the US, this
group could generate mail at such volumes as to prevent an useful
messages from being sent.
I think the tiered (tree-structure of committees) solves this problem.
Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 20:17:53-PDT
From: Tom Dietterich
Subject: Re: Electronic democracy
Networks seem to be good vehicles for collecting bug reports and
suggestions for improvements, but I don't think they work well for
consensus-building.
The Common-LISP@SU-AI mailing list is currently trying to refine the
Common-LISP standard to be acceptable to most members. This may
qualify as a consensus-building experiment. Perhaps somebody who has
been in that group (or another similar group) for a long time could
offer comments on whether it's succeeding or not and how much
concensus is actually achived online versus how much goes on at
in-person meetings after the mailing list has collected random opinions.
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 1984 17:07 EDT
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Electronic Democracy proposal (V7 #62)
As far as writing your Congressman for 'free' goes, how about going
one further and letting everyone read his mail? This would allow
interested parties to debate (?) each other in the Representative's inbox
That should be the choice of the sender of a message, an "open letter"
to the congressman, or a normal closed letter. It would be rude to
publish a closed letter you receive or even to quote parts of it
without permission. If you're shy about feedback from strangers or you
think maybe your position is too controversial and might provoke the
wrath of Jerry Falwell, you send a closed letter. If you want to get
wide exposure of your idea and want feedback so you can tune your idea
to get rid of minor bugs, you send an open letter.
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 18:36:54 PDT
From: David Booth
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Proxies vs. representatives
Proxies should be paid based on how many people they represented, but
not necessarily proportionately. There should probably be a ceiling,
or the pay should taper off at the top.
I think I agree but I'd like to hear some rebuttal. Like if it
tapers off then somebody with lots of proxy-constituents won't want
any more because they aren't cost-effective, so might get sloppy and
not do a good job because if a few constituents are lost it doesn't
mean a big deal. Maybe a better idea is to simply have an absolute
limit on proxies, with pay linear up to the cutoff point, and a
waiting list of additional people who asked for this particular
representative too late and are granting their proxies to some other
representative (or voting directly) during the wait. If some
constituent drops off a particular representative's list,
somebody on the waiting list automatically takes the place,
automatically dropping off some other constituency list, which if
full-with-waiting automatically gets replaced on that list, etc. Since
this domino effect is always in the favor of a more-desirable
representative for each constituent transferred, the algorithm does
terminate in finite time, and with computers doing the transferring
automatically the whole process could be almost instantaneous.
Second, with a proxy system, if we felt particularly strongly about an
upcoming issue, we could bypass the proxy and vote ourselves.
But unless we were informed of each vote that was upcoming how would
we get to revoke our proxy in time to avoid missing the vote? I think
we need a way to indicate different proxies for different subjects.
For example I'd probably trust Lauren Weinstein or Mark Crispin or Mel
Pleasant or Charles McGrew to be my proxy on matters of computer
security, but I'd want somebody else to be my proxy on space habitat,
and probably Carl Sagan on arms control, but I'd vote myself on some
topics just to make sure the correct vote is entered. If the subject
automatically determined who the proxy was, I would have to spend time
checking each bill to see whom to assign the proxy to or whether to
vote myself. Occasionally my chosen proxy would vote the wrong way
from my point of view, but those exceptions would be many fewer
than either the present system or a single-proxy system, and much less
work for me than keeping track of all bills myself.
One problem, subject designations are difficult to assign, and
misleading when lots of riders are attached to bills. Maybe if we all
vote against any mixed-bag-of-topics bills they will stop getting
proposed and the subject designations will become effective at sorting
bills according to which proxy?
Third, we would have a much wider range of possible proxies than
we do of representatives.
Yup. Carl Sagan space proxy, unburdened by the 99% of bills unrelated
to space or arms control, able to represent us on space and arms
control while spending the rest of his time doing other things he does
now. With special-topic-only representatives like that able to spend
most of their time on useful work and only a little bit on
representing us when a bill comes up, a lot more people will be
willing to be representatives. It won't be an all-or-nothing thing
where you have to give up the rest of your life to be a fulltime
congresscritter.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Oct 84 13:41:10 EDT
From: Mike
Subject: Electronic mail and voting
Electronic democracy: Much as I distrust the government, I don't
think this is the answer. Some questions:
Many people don't bother voting now. Why should such a system
inspire any more interest?
Given the amount of trash that flows every day in Washington
(take a look at the Congressional Record in your library some time),
how can people keep up with all of it? Of course, the volume might
fall off somewhat (no more National Hot Dog Week resolutions), but
more likely people will just ignore vast amounts of it, just like
now.
Of those who bother to vote, how many know where their elected
officials stand on various issues? How many check to see how these
officials have voted? Would people be more likely to do this
sort of checking on their proxies?
This whole idea also strikes me as rather elitist. If one has to
pay a proxy to handle their voting, then the poor will have to do
their own voting, since they won't have the money for a proxy.
Of course, voting will still be difficult for them, as they
have no money for terminals. (See closing note below.) Of
course, the government could pay the proxies, but that seems like
an interesting new opportunity for corruption. The government could
provide terminals for the poor or public terminals (sort of like
voting machines) but both of these approaches might be quite
expensive.
Finally, has anyone given any consideration the the security of
such a grand system? How will we prevent 15 year old crackers
(criminals) from disrupting the whole system? What computer
system could possibly support such a grand national operation
with reasonable reliability, response time, and security?
Closing note: Not only don't the poor have terminals. Most
people don't. Sometimes when I read Human-Nets, I get the idea
that the people who submit ideas to introduce computers into
every facit of life (mail/voting/banking/shopping/magazines/news/etc)
have lost sight of one thing: Most people don't want to spend
their lives logged in to a computer shuffling through this trash.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 84 19:40:21 PST
From: David Booth
Subject: Electronic democracy; Hierarchical discussion groups
Re: Proxies directly charging their clients for the
service they provide -- $10/year?
This certainly wouldn't work: it would discourage people from using
proxies, thus discouraging them from being represented. The poor would
go completely unrepresented. This is precisely why each of us doesn't
have to pay to vote right now, though elections certainly cost money to
hold. No, proxies should be paid by the government, as representatives
are now.
Re: "[Before telecommunications] it was not possible to have
direct democracy on a national scale, but direct democracy was
considered (and tried) on a smaller scale and rejected for
completely different reasons." [Dehn@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Joseph
W. Dehn III)]
Joseph Dehn gives no explanation as to where, how, by whom, or what
kind of "direct democracy" was "considered", and for what "completely
different reasons" it was rejected, so all I can do is refute his claim
point blank with regard to the proxy system.
The proxy system has been tried on a smaller scale and *accepted* --
not "rejected": it has been successfully used for shareholder
representation in large companies for a long time. The proxy system
per se is not a new idea, but coupling it with today's electronic
technology yields some important differences.
Along the same lines, hierarchical discussion groups which allow
thousands -- no, *millions* -- to participate efficiently were
practically impossible before they could be conducted electronically.
Now such groups may radically change how we receive information, debate
issues, and make decisions.
Re: Hierarchical discussion groups -- try them now?
Networks such as the Arpanet and UUCP network could provide the basis
for experimenting with hierarchical discussion groups right now -- all
it would take is some software.
Anyone interested in this subject or electronic democracy in general,
please send me mail so that followup is possible.
-- David Booth
{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 12:57:48-PST
From: Richard Treitel
More problems of democracy:
It is also quite strongly (and plausibly) alleged that Mondale was initially
opposed to the Grenada operation, until his opinion polls told him to be in
favour of it.
I think most voters have the feeling that there is a large group of people "out
there" who want to, and probably will, overthrow everything that is good,
right, and decent unless strong checks and balances are in place to make this
hard to do. My personal feeling is that direct democracy would make it much
harder to take actions which benefit society while appearing to harm
individuals (e.g. require pollution controls on cars). While it can be argued
that there are too many of these "do-gooder" laws now, I don't want to swing
the pendulum all the way back.
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 14:11:13-PST
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
Subject: Electronic Democracy by Proxy
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Electronic Issue Selection
Re: "I'm afraid I can't see the advantages of [electronic
democracy]. . . . What's wrong with letting representatives
make the decisions in [some areas]?" [eyal@wisdom (Eyal mozes)]
Several advantages of Electronic Democracy have been mentioned in
previous messages, for example: the ability to choose a proxy you
really want, rather than choosing between the lesser of two evils when
representatives are elected; the ability to bypass your proxy if you
are not sure your proxy will vote the way you want; and the ability to
change proxies at any time if you feel your proxy no longer represents
your views.
The constitution of the United States, flawed as it is, is the
best system yet devised . . . . [Electronic Democracy] seems
like a prescription for mob rule and a tyranny of the
majority. [eyal@wisdom (Eyal mozes)]
The constitution -- and little else -- protects minorities from the
"tyranny of the majority". It certainly should not be eliminated when
electronic democracy is instituted, nor should the judiciary or certain
roles of the presidency (notably, command of the armed forces in
emergencies). The house and senate could be eliminated if a suitable
electronic mechanism for discussing and introducing bills is
instituted.
Most importantly, Electronic Democracy could help eliminate the tyranny
of special interest, which plagues our current system.
"[Electronic Democracy] leaves little room for leadership,
something which many people value." [ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
(Henry Spencer)]
On the contrary, Electronic Democracy leaves *more* room for
leadership: some proxies would undoubtably become very popular, and
would provide leadership for many people. By being able to choose
*anyone* -- not just the between two competing candidates -- we can
each choose the "leader" who best inspires our own confidence and
following.
Furthermore, people look for leadership in many different areas and
forms -- morality, education, technology, economics, to name a few. A
single individual cannot possibly fill all these leadership roles as
well as separate individuals, specializing more in one area or
another. This problem is evident right now: recent polls show that
President Reagan's economic leadership has been very popular, but his
environmental leadership has not.
Why place all our leadership requirements on one person? We do not
need an individual leader to fill all leadership roles any more than we
need a dictator.
Electronic Issue Selection
This brings up another possibility. Could we designate a different
person to represent us on different issues? Like searching for a mate,
it is much easier to find several people who collectively fit the bill,
than it is to find a single person with all the right qualities. Could
we specify electronically, which proxy should vote for us on what kinds
of issues? And if so, how would the issues be catagorized?
-- David Booth
{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 1 November 1984 05:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: Electronic Democracy
maybe we could given sufficient electronic communications do
away with the legislature entirely except for, say, 30 days a
year?
"The legislature is in session, and no man's property is
safe."
or -- but no, Jefferson is no longer in fashion.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 84 15:39:41 EST
From: Brint
Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy
I guess we'd have to work up to it gradually. For the next few
years, I'd be ELATED if a nationwide, terminal-based citizen
(constituent, taxpayer, you name it) polling scheme were implemented.
Experiments with Usenet-like discussions could follow, preceding some
national, binding referendum on a topic of great national interest but
(at least at first) not of national survival.
Best regards,
Brint
------------------------------
Date: 2 November 1984 02:20-EST
From: Don M. Matheson
To: David Booth, HUMAN-NETS
From: Robert Kubala (c/o DMM@MIT-MC)
RE: Computer Aided Democracy.
I have been reading with interest the recent Human-Nets discussion that
I believe you initiated. I am attempting to write a book on "Computer
aided Participatory Democracy" and have a few comments to offer:
1) The worth of computerized aids to democracy seem to rest heavily on
two fundamental aspects:
a) it can be vastly easier and quicker for 'ordinary' citizens to
access information than ever before possible. Pertinant information
subjects are problem descriptions, budgets, project progress reports,
voting records - and the opinions of other citizens and informal dis-
cussions (such as the recent Human-Nets dialog).
b) such aids can permit those who have pertinant information to
make it available to the public with ease and lack of censor-
ship. This might encourage potential providers to make available an
abundance of "decision making" information to the public.
The idea is to provide true city-wide, national, and perhaps world-
wide "market places of ideas" using technology only recently available
to humankind. "Decision making information" of political relevance has
just been too hard for people to get on a continual, habitual basis.
2) Many arrangements for a Public Information Utility in support of democracy
seem to be possible. Two extremes are:
a) completely independent "political" data base operations to which
people volunlarily subscribe based on interest, and which are owned
and operated by private entrepeuners.
b) a more formally chartered local Information Utility with published and
legally binding rules concerning access by information seekers & pro-
viders. And with definite proceedures for submitting proposals to be
put up for vote.
3) The problems of filtering out spurious or malicious information, and in
forming consensus ar real but probably entirely solvable:
a) one solution lay perhaps in the existence of political interest groups
which are able to formulate coherent plans of action on which the
population as a whole might vote yes or no.
b) authors of information might be required to reliably identify themselves
and deliberate, malicious abusers deprived of future rights to contrib-
ute.
c) items provided not for reference only, but to be "mailed" to the
population (broadcast style), might first be reviewed by randomly
selected sets of people who vote on whether the material should be
propogated.
d) consensus requires real discussion and understanding. But once
practical problems and solution choices are apparent, agreement
should usually be possible.
In contrast it is normally not possible to gain consensus on matters
of personality or ideology. Fortunately practical decisions are what
are required to enable people and organizations to function.
There is going to have to be much evolution and experimentation before
truly democratic action becomes the dominant way of government and
organization in general.
4) There is room for delegating limited authority to project leaders,
department administrative heads, and a commander-in-chief of national
defense. We people do not have to be involved in all details, and
emergencies must be handled swiftly.
But we people have got to monitor the exercise of power like we
have never done before. How and to what extent we must do this
is going to have to evolve.
5) "Proxies" as discussed might not be such a good idea. The "demagogery"
one might fear in true democracy is based upon the ability of some few
to manipulate the many. In order for us people to contribute responsibility
to decisions made, we need to be forced to confront practical issues. IE.
if we don't study and understand an issue, we shouldn't vote. In voting
for representatives or choosing proxies (I'am not sure I see much differ-
ence), matters are and will continue to be settled on the basis of person-
alities and ideology which they probably should not.
Part of the problem with current politics is that politicians and lobbiests
can accomplish their dirty little practical matters by throwing up a smoke
screen of personality and ideology.
6) If we people want democracy, we can build it within the framework of the
U.S. Constitution. The problems are real but solvable. And past Americans
have given us the gift of institutions and social instincts which are
adeqate to build upon.
If we fail to do so, then the very technology which might make us truly
free will almost certainly be used against us in a world in which highly
centralized rulership has its fingers on increasingly powerful instruments
of control and destruction.
We're going to get what we deserve.
Bob Kubala (c/o DMM@MIT-MC)
------------------------------
Date: 02 Nov 84 10:34:20 PST (Fri)
Subject: Electronic Democracy
I know that this isn't quite what is meant, but the Democratic and
Republican National committees set up discussion groups on CompuServe.
While this went more to the party staff than to the candidates, it did
serve as a useful place to discuss the campaign with those running it.
(I had a beef about a particular line of republican fundraising letters,
complained about it, and haven't received one since!) Since CompuServe
has in excess of 100,000 subscribers, it is probably a reasonable size
for a "test" of electronic democracy. (Now, if we could just get them
to put an acceptable mail system on line....)
Tim
------------------------------
From: Liz Allen
Date: 2 Nov 1984 1057-EST (Friday)
Subject: Electronic proxy republic
One thing that concerns me about the idea of an electornic proxy
democracy is based on some history in choosing representatives in
a somewhat similar fashion. In New York state (in the 1930's?),
a system was tried in which the number of representatives each
party had in the legislature was proportional to the number of
votes each party had received state-wide. But, the idea had to be
discarded because it caused the legislature to be so splintered
that they weren't able to form the majorities necessary to get
legislation formulated and passed. I suspect that a proxy system
would suffer from the same difficulties...
Re: a good proxy losing power due to a false rumour: It is hoped
that the proxy could regain their power once the rumour was proved
false -- and could be quickly reinstated. However, I'm concerned
that good news never spreads as quickly as bad news and the proxy
is likely to have quite a lot of trouble regaining the confidence
of his former supporters. My concern here is increased by the
media's tendancy to report more on charges that might be raised
against someone while neglecting to say a whole lot about it if
that person is later cleared of the charges... Part of that has
to do with what's news and what's not news, but even so, it leaves
mistaken impressions with people. It's possible that increased
electronic communication could help reverse this -- the proxy's
loyal supporters would have more of an opportunity to publicize
the positive outcome -- but I don't know if that'll be enough to
offset the damage already done.
-Liz Allen
------------------------------
Date: 3 Nov 1984 1158-PST
From: Rob-Kling
Subject: Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine
CORPS
-------
Graduate Education in
Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society
at the University of California, Irvine
This graduate concentration at the University of California,
Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.
The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in
the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and
PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).
Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social
dimensions of computing.
The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's. The faculty and
students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the
social sciences.
The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of
inquiry:
1. Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
society.
2. Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational
worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
disseminated, deployed, and sustained.
3. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
deployment and use of computer-based technologies.
4. Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
development and use of computing in pro-social ways.
Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
command and control systems, and computing at home. The questions
vary from study to study. They have included questions about the
effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
and their social carrying costs.
CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation -
(i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,
(ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
organizations,
(iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
vivo" in ordinary settings, and
(iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.
Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS
The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal
graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM. Admission requirements for
this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in
ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM. Students with varying backgrounds are
encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research
promise.
The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold
appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Graduate School of Management. Additional faculty in the School
of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have
collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS
students. Research is administered through an interdisciplinary
research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the
Public Policy Research Organization.
Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration
should write to:
Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci)
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, Ca. 92717
714-856-5955 or 856-7403
or to:
Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci)
Graduate School of Management
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, Ca. 92717
714-856-5246
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 5 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 100
[Messages are coming in so fast that I'm holding some and putting
out single-subject issues.]
Contents: Upstill vs McGeer on conventional national politics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 12:14:11 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
Steve Upstill's letter said essentially that he wasn't going to vote
for President Reagan because, well, Reagan was incompetent in foreign
affairs, and had a black-and-white (red-and-white?) world view in which the
Soviet Union was the enemy and must be destroyed.
Ahem. I am going to vote for President Reagan for several reasons.
First, it seems to me that it is a bad idea to defeat a President running
for re-election unless (as was the case in 1980) the sitting President has
mangled his job so badly that only a nut or a fool could possibly recommend
him for any task more arduous than peanut-farming; the hallmark of succesful
policy is consistency, and it strikes me that changing horse without
excellent cause is to sow disaster, which is a wildly mixed metaphor.
Anyway, by any rational standard, President Reagan has been at least
moderately succesful; indeed, the only thing that Democrats can find to talk
about this year is what Reagan *might* do in his next term, in general
refusing to debate his actions in the current term. These things range from
sending troops to central America, conveniently ignoring (and irresponsibly
ignoring, in my view) the President's repeated insistence that his current
policy is an attempt to *avoid* sending troops to Central America. The
price of cutting off US aid to El Salvador, besides almost assuredly
destroying one of the few decent, civilized leaders in latin America, may
well be US troops in combat in the region in the late eighties. And if I
had to bet, and I do, I'd bet that Mondale would likely send US troops to El
Salvador in a few years -- and that Reagan will never have to.
Second. Steve dislikes President Reagan's military buildup;
he espescially dislikes MX. However, with the exception of the B-1 bomber,
every Reagan weapons program in fact was originated by President Carter. I
cannot for the life of me see why the Pershing, Cruise, or MX programs are
any more dangerous now than they were in 1979, when Carter proposed them.
By the way, Steve, MX is *not* a city-buster; that function is reserved for
the sea leg of the Triad. The Air and Missile arms are strictly fr
counterforce. I'm afraid that Mondale's opposition to MX is strictly a
matter of political convenience.
Third. Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire". Well, goodness me, I don't know what else to call it. From
the forced starvation of the Kulaks (while the Soviets exported grain!) to
the conquest and repression of Eastern Europe, to the rape of Afghanistan,
to Gulag, and to the attempted assasination of the Holy Father, Soviet
actions have been purest evil; and one can hardly deny that a nation which
dominates two continents and rigidly controls a score of "independent"
satellites is an empire. One of the cruel facts of human history is that we
must learn to live in peace with evil. We cannot, as Steve points out,
conceivably alter the character of the Soviet Union, and we must certainly
not fight them in a war. However, just because we must live in peace with
the Soviets does not mean that we should delude ourselves as to the Soviets'
nature. Indeed, it is *only* is we recognize the Soviets for what they are
-- aggressive, repressive, opportunistic and expansionist -- can we hope to
live in peace.
Fourth. Steve thinks that Reagan should have signed arms-control
argreements with the Soviets. Well, it was the *Soviets* who walked out of
the talks, not us: and they walked out of the talks because the
administration would not give -- as no American administration *could*
give -- the Soviets a monopoly on theater weapons in Europe. I cannot for
the life of me see how an arms race that the Soviets started -- the TNF race
in Europe -- can possibly be blamed on an American administration. And I do
not understand what proposal or set of proposals the administration could
possibly have proposed that would have been accepted by the Soviets and
would also have maintained the unified defense of free Europe.
Fifth. Steve thinks that Reagan should have met the Soviet leaders.
But how can he? They keep dying on him. Moreover, every new Soviet leader
spends many months consolidating his power, and is in no position to conduct
any foreign business.
Sixth. Steve dislikes MAD. Well, so do I. But it's Reagan who's
proposed a way out, and Mondale is opposed to it. I wonder: if a liberal
president had proposed the SDI, would we really be hearing the oppostion to
it that we're now hearing? Would we? Honestly?
Finally. Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what
Jeane Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome. The Soviets
have been pushing their influence, exploting opportunites and stirring up
trouble for a decade -- while going on a huge buildup of both their
conventional and nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the resulting
chill has been to blame the United States and particularly President Reagan.
There is absolutely no evidence for such blame and it is an absolute
disgrace that Walter Mondale has, for his own partisan advantage, attacked
the President for Soviet misdeeds. Moreover, Mondale's position ignores
AMerican interests which as President he could not ignore; the great danger
is that he will postpone any action until the only possible action is war,
much as Chamberlain postponed prophylactic action against Hitler until the
only recourse to Britain was war. And that, ultimately, is why I think
that we'll be safer in the eighties under Reagan (this decade's Churchill)
than under Mondale.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 22:31:35 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
I am reluctant to respond to Rick McGeer's "Counter Propaganda," but who
can resist a good argument? But I have a thesis to write, so just a few major
points:
[from Rick]
Steve dislikes President Reagan's military buildup; he espescially
dislikes MX. However, with the exception of the B-1 bomber, every
Reagan weapons program in fact was originated by President Carter.
Irrelevant.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Pershing, Cruise, or MX
programs are any more dangerous now than they were in 1979, when
Carter proposed them.
Ditto.
By the way, Steve, MX is *not* a city-buster; that function is reserved
for the sea leg of the Triad. The Air and Missile arms are strictly
for counterforce.
Sources? I believe we've had land-based missiles a lot longer than
we've had submarine-based, and longer than the Russians have had ICBMs.
Counterforce only? Sorry.
Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire"...I don't know what else to call it...[list of Soviet
atrocities] Soviet actions have been purest evil;
Okay, now here's the crux. Let's make the distinction between evil
actions, and pure evil. We can abhor Soviet atrocities without adopting
the quasi-religious viewpoint that they are the result of some Satanic
force. Not being a religious man, this is my position. There is all the
difference in the world between saying your enemy does evil things, and
saying that he IS evil. This difference is what I was belaboring in my
letter. The former case has several advantages, in addition to being the
correct one (:-). If you believe that evil resides exclusively and intractably
within your enemy, there is no sense trying to get along with him, no
possibility of effecting positive change. All you can do is resist or
destroy him. Recall that until Nixon went there, China was lost to the
devil too. He did go there, and now there are more Communists on our
side than on theirs.
If you reject the ecumenical view of the world, you are also free
to acknowledge that Our side does evil things too. Reagan would never
admit such a thing.
I would call the Soviet government a corrupt, Byzantine, incompetent
bureaucracy which tries, as does our own, to expand its influence and its
number of allies. At this, they are of problematic efficacy; America,
believe it or not, really is the example of prosperity and hope the world
turns to. God sakes, Cuba drains them of billions a year,
they can't even tame Afghanistan, and Poland would bolt first chance they
got. Have you looked at the box score of nations that have switched from
one side to the other in the last thirty years? It's close to stochastic,
but it doesn't look good for the Soviets. Face it, imperialism is dead.
But, if you believe, as Reagan does, that we are facing Armageddon,
then you are a dangerous person to have as president. Just as a simple
example, you should realize that in a situation where both sides possess
counterforce weapons, the only thing you need to start a war is the belief
that the OTHER side is about to start one. I maintain that Reagan's worldview
makes him unsuitable for making this decision.
Reagan has reached no arms control with them because he doesn't believe
in it. It's as simple as that, and if you believe otherwise you are
deluding yourself. He has to make a show of trying to talk to them, but
he doesn't really have to try to make progress, because a show is enough.
I really don't have much else to say, because if you can't see it, I
can't convince you of it.
I wonder: if a liberal president had proposed the SDI, would we
really be hearing the oppostion to it that we're now hearing?
Would we? Honestly?
I hope so. But this question is completely irrelevant.
Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what Jeane
Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome. The Soviets have
been pushing their influence, exploting opportunites and stirring up
trouble for a decade -- while going on a huge buildup of both their
conventional and nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the
resulting chill has been to blame the United States and particularly
President Reagan.
This is really upsetting. For God's sake, this is my country, this is
a democracy, what do you expect me to do, go to Moscow? I put my influence
where it will count. I want my country to be as moral as it can be, and its
utter refusal to accept ANY trace whatsoever, of the responsibility for the
arms race, is utterly reprehensible to me. And I do mean any.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 11:04:34 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
:
Sorry, I can't remember the source for that statement. I do know that
Congress has been told that we use the B-1 and the MX as counterforce
weapons, since the sea leg of the triad is completely adequate for
city-busting, but too inaccurate for counterforce. So you might (for
example) want to launch counterforce weapons in a war, but hold back the
citybusters, on the theory that both sides will leave the civilian
populations alone. Of course, if you believe in nuclear winter, then there
isn't any difference between counterforce and city-busters.
Okay, now here's the crux. Let's make the distinction between evil
actions, and pure evil. We can abhor Soviet atrocities without
adopting the quasi-religious viewpoint that they are the result of
some Satanic force. Not being a religious man, this is my position.
There is all the difference in the world between saying your enemy
does evil things, and saying that he IS evil. This difference is
what I was belaboring in my letter. The former case has several
advantages, in addition to being the correct one (:-). If you
believe that evil resides exclusively and intractably within your
enemy, there is no sense trying to get along with him, no
possibility of effecting positive change. All you can do is resist
or destroy him. Recall that until Nixon went there, China was lost
to the devil too. He did go there, and now there are more
Communists on our side than on theirs.
Well, I don't think Communism has a whole bunch to do with the evils of the
Soviet empire. Political doctrines, like religions, have a way of adopting
to the culture that they govern, and I have yet to see any noteworthy
difference between the evil Soviet empire and the evil Russian empire that
preceded it. In any case, "evil" describes why I don't want them to
dominate the world; "empire" describes their intention of doing so. I don't
think that we can ever really get along with the Russians. I do think that,
if we recognize what they are and do so honestly, then we can develop a
modus vivendi within which we can contain our mutual dislike. And I think
that kidding ourselves about their nature (as President Carter did, for
example) simply invites them to follow their worst instincts, which are
pretty damned bad. Nixon, for all of his many, many faults, has been the
only President to date who's qctually (a) regognized that the Soviets are an
evil empire; and (b) realized that you could deal with them anyway. By the
way, I wouldn't want to live under the Chinese, either. But they aren't
imperialistic.
If you reject the ecumenical view of the world, you are also free to
acknowledge that Our side does evil things too. Reagan would never
admit such a thing.
I guess the difference is that we do fewer evil things, we admit them, and
we occasionally try to compensate people and do right by them later. I
think that our behaviour in Chile in the early 70's was disgraceful, though.
I would call the Soviet government a corrupt, Byzantine, incompetent
bureaucracy which tries, as does our own, to expand its influence
and its number of allies. At this, they are of problematic
efficacy; America, believe it or not, really is the example of
prosperity and hope the world turns to. God sakes, Cuba drains them
of billions a year, they can't even tame Afghanistan, and Poland
would bolt first chance they got. Have you looked at the box score
of nations that have switched from one side to the other in the last
thirty years? It's close to stochastic, but it doesn't look good
for the Soviets. Face it, imperialism is dead.
Cuba may drain them of billions a year, and the eastern European subject
states may want to bolt. But, Steve, no nation in the Soviet grip has ever
managed to get loose, unless you count China. I hope you're right, and
America is the shining hope of the world; I've always thought it is. But I
have no faith that right will triumph a priori; civilization has been
overrun by the barbarians before, and there is no reason that it cannot
happen again. What did Harry Truman say about keeping powder dry?
But, if you believe, as Reagan does, that we are facing Armageddon,
then you are a dangerous person to have as president. Just as a
simple example, you should realize that in a situation where both
sides possess counterforce weapons, the only thing you need to start
a war is the belief that the OTHER side is about to start one. I
maintain that Reagan's worldview makes him unsuitable for making
this decision.
That is hauled very much out of context, and is a bit of a cheap shot. As
for the business of counterforce weapons, the whole idea behind MX is that
MX can survive a first strike, hence no President ever need launch on
warning.
[Me]
Steve's letter was the worst example I've yet read of what
Jeane Kirkpatrick calls the "blame America first" syndrome.
The Soviets have been pushing their influence, exploting
opportunites and stirring up trouble for a decade -- while
going on a huge buildup of both their conventional and
nuclear forces -- and the reaction of many to the resulting
chill has been to blame the United States and particularly
President Reagan.
[Steve]
This is really upsetting. For God's sake, this is my country, this
is a democracy, what do you expect me to do, go to Moscow? I put my
influence where it will count. I want my country to be as moral as
it can be, and its utter refusal to accept ANY trace whatsoever, of
the responsibility for the arms race, is utterly reprehensible to
me. And I do mean any.
If I had a nickel for every asinine statement I've made, I'd be five cents
richer today. Steve, I apologize. On rereading, that paragraph sounds like
I'm accusing you of disloyalty, which I would never do -- our feelings for
our country (or, in my case, countries) are a private matter, and the only
thing that annoys me more than the unspoken Republican theme that anyone
that doesn't support President Reagan is disloyal is the spoken Democratic
theme that anyone voting Republican does so solely from self-interest.
Anyway, I extend my public as well as private apologies for that paragraph.
What I MEANT to say was something very like what you said: that is, that
because we can affect American decisions, we tend to be very tough on the
actions of our own government. However, since our government can't surrender
superiority to the Soviets, such criticism, when it is unwarranted -- and I
think most of the criticisms of Reagan are unwarranted -- in fact hinder the
cause of peace, since the Soviets are then persuaded that they can win with
the public what they cannot win from our government.
Finally, let me say I'm very sympathetic to your feelings about America's
responsibility to act morally in the world. What you said earlier about
the world's view of America as the shining hope of liberty and prosperity
can only be true if America acts morally. I admit, America has not and does
not behave with perfect ethics in the world. I guess to an extent that's
because our governments have a bit of that venality which seems to go with
government universally; to a larger extent, it is because power involves
responsibility -- the responsibilty to act and to make decisions in an
imperfect world where there are no -- well, few -- perfectly moral choices,
and where the failure to act may be as bad as any act that one may
make...the question is not "is building weapons bad?" for assuredly that is
true; but the question is "is there a better choice? Will the world be
better is we build weapons or abstain?" And I think that the actions of the
Soviet Union make it clear that they will not negotiate until they see no
alternative.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 11:16:51 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Well, that's as good a way to close the discussion as I can imagine.
Apologies accepted without reservation. All that I can add is:
---my judgement that trying to spend the Soviets into submission is both
morally corrupt and impractical. My view of the Russian government is
inconsistent of them EVER giving in due to economic pressure (one of
their hallmarks under both flavors of czar has been a ferocious
unwillingness to bow to MILITARY pressure, much less economic). I feel
that the most likely scenario is for them to spend until their economy
collapses entirely, and war happens out of the stress of that situation.
---a reiteration of my contention that the lack of alternatives to the
build-weapons-or-surrender "choice" for dealing with the arms race is
a failure of determination and creativity. There are any number of
proposals out there for lessening tension and incrementally backing down
off the current confrontational techniques without endangering national
security. I still feel that the least we could do is consider them
publicly and try each one that has any reasonable hope of success. Even
trying would alleviate the climate of tension and hostility that exists.
At the very least, it would make us unambiguous good guys again.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 16:08:20 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
(1) I agree with your first point...spending the Russians into submission is
not what I had in mind. Spending the Russians to the negotiating table was
a little more like it.
(2) I agree. In fact, I can think of a number of such proposals myself:
crisis centres (not new), NATO observers with every WP military unit and
vice-versa, and so forth. I'm a little cynical about the prospects, though,
given the reward the west got for our earlier period of trust in the
Russians -- Afghanistan and SS-20s in Europe...
Rick.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 6 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 101
[This is "ordinary" poli-sci material.]
Contents: Bond Issues and Answers
Withering States
Speaking Truthfully of the Dead
Voting/Elections/Running
Speaking Truthfully of the Russians
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Oct 84 12:42:24 EST
From: ARAMINI@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: New Jersey: Jobs, Science, and Technology Bond Issue
For those of us that are registered voters in New Jersey:
Note Public Question No. 1, the Jobs, Science, and Technology Bond Issue.
The purpose of the Bond Issue is claimed to be to:
- Create new jobs by attracting high tech industries and encourage
existing industries to stay here and expand.
- Improve the ability of New Jersey's colleges and universities to educate
students and to retain workers for these jobs.
- Stimulate research to find better ways to serve you in vital areas such
as health care, food supply and the disposal of toxic waste.
The issue would provide $90 million to establish high technology centers
in various colleges, public and private. Several other states have already
begun such programs.
[This letter was edited to avoid its being an ad... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Nov 84 00:07 EST (Fri)
From: _Bob
Subject: Running for office
The intellectual
foundations of freedom must be laid before the government can be
removed; and when they are, it will melt away as if by magic.
--JoSH]
As in the "withering away of the state"?
_B
------------------------------
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 08:04:53-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Re: Running for office
Yup!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 1984 16:40 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Waiting for the State to wither ...
The intellectual foundations of freedom must be laid before
the government can be removed; and when they are, it will
melt away as if by magic.
--JoSH
Sounds like faith healing to me. Strange that a libertarian, given
to attacks on the concepts of socialism, would repeat the basically
Marxist argument that the (ideal worker's, in Marx's case) State
would vanish when it had ceased to perform its function. Perhaps
we can attribute it to the need for intellectuals to justify their
ideas on the importance of their own intellectuals.
--Jim
[If what you mean is that my holding "the pen is mightier than the sword"
is merely self-aggrandizement because I'm an intellectual, I thank you
for the compliment but observe that it is logically an "ad hominem"
fallacy anyway--it doesn't matter why I think it, it matters whether
it's right. I ask: if *all* the citizens of a country believed that
the government were illegitimate (ie, including the policemen and
members of the army, etc), how would the government enforce its edicts?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 84 16:27 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Ghandi
Can anyone give me a cogent theory on why the press seems to feel obligated
to laud and praise any well known figure that dies regardless of his/her
actions. Take the case of Indira Ghandi. Here was a women who ran roughshod
over all her father's democratic ideals. When the supreme court in India
banned her from office she instituted marshal law. There was a joke in
India at that time that if Nehru was still alive, he would be found in
a prison writing his famous prison letters to his daughter (instead of
to the Brittish). The lengths she went to set up a dynasty mirror the
actions of Marcos in the Philipines.
So why does the press find it necessary to bring up all these facts about
what a caring mother she was, how she favored humanitarian efforts, etc.
etc. If one considers the actions of someone who takes a country from
one of the most open and democtratic in the world (more than it was here)
to that which more resembles a puppet democracy like the Philipines, that
that person is a tyrant and the Press should finish the story at that.
The truth is, that I am not sure that Mrs. Ghandi was that bad. I cannot
really judge that culture nor the actions that needed to be taken. But
I see similarities with people who clearly were evil.
When Breshnev died, the press was full of the "strong and clear stable
guidance that he gave his country". Yes, tyrants are real good at that
and they also responsible for the emprisoning intellectuals, bloody
suppression by the KGB of dissidents, declaring disagreement with the
government a mental disease and institutializing them, and they
consider gas warfare in Afghanistan as just part of the status quo.
Call the man what he was: a bloody tyrant dictator.
Even Shirer in his book on the Third Reich has to point out how
the political acumen of Hitler in the early years made all the other
supposed wartime heros (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt) look like complete
boobs. Maybe he was politically sharp. But why eulogize him in such
tones?
Just because a person is prominent, or gets killed in a dramatic or
cruel manner (such as assasination) does not cleanse the person of the
actions of their life. We should hold prominent people up to higher
standards than we would the general public.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 08:24:34-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Elections/various
Josh:
I agree that it is a good idea to encourage people to understand
that government intrusion is bad. In the long run, it may work (It is
possible to construct scenarios, however, a la Atlas Shrugged, where it
will *never* work given some distributions of competence in
society). It is possible, simultaneously, to work to *reduce*
the level of intrusion through the policitcal process. It is my view
that both routes should be pusued.
Annette:
It may just be possible to win election to a local office (ie city
council, state legislature) without any kind of dishonesty.
*Marketing*, of course, will be needed, but it can take the form of
emphasizing areas of agreement and being entertaining, rather
than scheming and deceiving. I feel that kind of marketing is
honorable, if not very informative. I am seriously considering such
a campaign in Redondo Beach, Ca in 1986. I think it would be a
hell of a lot of fun, regardless of the outcome, and it might just
work!
Allen:
It is misleading to focus on the academic view that by accepting a
legislative salary you are participating in thievery. I take a much
more "black box" view of the situation--A certain level of thievery
exists-if, through their actions, an individual produces a net reduction
in thievery, they have done us all a service.-the fact that they may
participate in the thievery in the process is inconsequential (except
perhaps to purists)
Numerically:
State Amount of theft Theft by X Theft by others
------ --------------- ---------- ---------------
A $100 0 $100
B $80 $20 $60
If X, through his/her direct action, transforms the situation from state
A to state B, then X should be commended as having done a noble thing
(unless they did it by accident, in which case it was just a fortunate
stroke of luck)
As to building a free society, I of course completely agree! I
just think it has to be done off-planet.
Galt's gultch is in the asteroids!!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 9:17:54 PST
From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Voting for a winner
[I am a registered Republican although more a LIberatarian at heart.
While I think the Libertarian cause is a good one, I feel that they
will never really have a good chance at electing someone to the
highest office, and so I will vote for Reagan in this coming election.
Stuart]
Why does it only make sense to vote for someone who might win? Under
the current election system, you only get one chance to express your
opinion, and reducing the number of choices to those that have a chance
of being the majority (or plurality) view emasculates the process. It
only takes one look at the last race, (in which the polls said that half
the people who voted at all were voting against someone rather than for
someone) and Reagan's subsequent claim of a "mandate" to see that any
vote is construed as implying total agreement with the vote-getter. Why
not say what you want with your one chance to express your opinion?
You'd rather tell them what you think you can get?
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 13:56:05-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: changing gov't
[Yikes! Your recipe for good government is "Find a strong-willed,
fundamentally dishonest person, and put him (or her) in charge
of everything." ?!?!?! --JoSH]
My last posting was rather tongue-in-cheek when it came to that last
paragraph, so I really do agree with you that the results of my
proposal are not likely to produce good government. I was saying that
no one who presents himself as a candidate for significant change is
likely to win an election, so that the only way I see for change
within the system is for a candidate to put on one face to get elected
and then another when he wins. But I do agree (and should have stated
in my previous posting) that such a person is not likely to be the
sort I'd really want in control. I just wish I believed in some
desirable means of change within the system.
Annette
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 09:53 MST
From: "Paul W. Benjamin"
Subject: Re: Running for Office
The biggest problem that I have with running for office is that the
system does not encourage responsible involvement. The state
legislature here (Arizona) would seem a reasonable place for me to
turn. In fact, in my district, 2 of our 3 legislators are running
unopposed in the general election. It would seem like an easy enough
process to get involved in. However, upon examination, it turns out
that most state legislators in this country are paid either a paltry
per-diem or a salary that borders on minimum wage. The real problem
there is that few can afford to serve. It's a full time job, at least
when done properly. If one is self-employed or has an extremely
flexible job situation, perhaps it is possible to do it right, but, for
the most part, the system encourages representatives who are wealthy
(the remuneration is irrelevant), who are poor (the remuneration is
adequate) or who can't devote enough time to the job. The middle class,
is just not represented, at least not by the middle class.
I have been reading this digest long enough to determine that the
notion that anyone involved in government should be paid more is not
going to be particularly popular, but I contend that that is the only
way in which we will obtain competent representative goverment.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 09:10:56-PST
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Giving up on the System
"To run for office is to lie, cheat, and steal"
"all the political doings are bad"
I am a complete newcomer to this discussion so I hope my thoughts are
not just a rehash of what others have said. However I have heard this
argument many times before. Classically it goes like this:
All the politicians are corrupt. They are lying, cheating, stealing
from the people. Hence we must get rid of the politicians. Throw the
rascals out. The people must govern themselves. ... Of course, the people
have been oppressed so long that it will require those of us who understand
the situation to provide leadership in the beginning. All power to the
people! All power to the people's soviets!
Every attempt I know that has tried to put direct power in the hands
of the people has ended with power more firmly than ever in the hands of an
elite. The only revolutions I know that have worked have been those
carried out within the system in which those who held power, though they
may have trimmed their numbers, simply reorganized the way they held power
(e.g. the American Revolution).
But this time it's going to be different! We will have direct part-
icipation of all the people. (Electronic democracy?) In principle,
fantastic! But lets look at the grubby details. Do you really mean that
you want all the people to consider which road is going to be paved next
and which construction company is going to get the contract? All the
people are going to read all the bids? If you actually believe that you
have never read a bid yourself. The alternative is to let someone else do
it for you. But if you select someone else to do it for you, then no
matter what you call it, you have reinvented government offices. I could
go on and on. The fact is that a government organization is a necessary
evil once you have reached a certain level of complexity. And a big city
is already that complex.
Still not convinced? Want to see real democracy in action? Do you
have a small college nearby? See if you can sneak into a faculty meeting.
I don't mean meetings run by the Administration, but the faculty on their
own. (Large schools usually have elected bodies, if this is all you can
find just assume, as is probably true, that these elected representatives
are representing only themselves.) Now don't leave early, sit through the
whole meeting. Then ask yourself "Is thisthe way I want our nation to be
run?"
The government we have in the U.S. is the result of thousands of years
of thought and experimentation. Bad as it is, look at the alternatives. I
believe that every American ought to be required to live in a foreign
country for at least two years. (An American enclave does not count.) We
would really be a nation of chauvinists. So what is it that we have that
is better than what we find elsewhere? I think the key is that our system
is slowly changeable. The government Thomas Jefferson presided over was
quite different from that of Herbert Hoover. Harry Truman's government
differed from that of Hoover. Reagan's is a change from Truman's. (I am
talking about the total government, not the Administration.) Yet, however
different, the bases of our system have remained the same. They have
allowed quite radical changes to slowly take place. The pendulum has swung
back and forth but it has swung. The government can be improved and
changed from within. By participation, voting, supporting candidates, even
running for office, we can make a positive difference. But we might also
make a negative difference. The system has enough inertia so that negative
differences can be noticed early enough to be headed off before they become
disasters. So far, I haven't heard of anybody, including myself, that I
trust to know enough to replace our system with something better.
Sorry to have been so long winded,
Mike
[Hoo boy. This sounds like an open invitation to expound the theory of
anarcho-capitalism... Hold your breath, cross your fingers, and hope
I don't take you up on it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 1984 16:10 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Letting the people have what they want
I'm not sure we really want to put power of any kind in the hands of the
general public, especially not power that is capable of acting quickly.
Consider the accomplishments of the American public when given free reign
to determine some aspect of our society:
1) Nielsen ratings. A favorite issue of the wine-cheese-and-public-TV
elitists, but an example nonetheless of the kind of glop the people will
select for themselves given the opportunity. I wouldn't like to see a
government run on jiggle, laugh-tracks, and soap opera.
2) Presidents. The American public has elected a President for a second
term only once since Eisenhower, and that Presidency ended in disaster.
There's an unpleasant look to this: most of the time, our electoral system
devolves from democracy to rule by a rotating Presidency; when the electorate
breaks out of the pattern, they do so for reasons that are both wrong and
self-destructive.
3) Self-interest in politics. This is the big one. Where I live, rent
control has completely destroyed any semblance of sanity in the housing
market. "Community organizations" hold public meetings on the problem
of squeezing (legitimate) maintenance out of landlords who can no longer
afford to operate a well-run apartment building. In the face of local
governmental pressure, MIT is being forced to build low-income, non-student
housing on land originally purchased for the construction of dormitories.
The reason for all of this? There are many more tenants in Cambridge than
landlords, and they vote. The pattern is repeated elsewhere. Most of the
major accomplishments of I & R have been laws like Proposition 13, which
provided a grab bag of tax breaks to current residents by penalizing new-
comers. You might be able to run an economic system on greed, but you
can run a government by it.
Alas, I'm afraid that I don't have the vaguest idea of how to build a
representative government that won't suffer from the narrow-minded
ignorance of the bulk of the electorate. But removing the encumbrances
to democracy in our present system is only going to put government in
the hands of clods that much more quickly.
--Jim
[OK, I'll ask you the question I once asked Sen. Joe Biden: "Should the
government give the people what they want or what they need?" I sure
hope you can give a better answer than he did... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 14:54:19-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: voting
I finally realized the question that's really bugging me about how people
vote. I don't really want to fool the voters and elect someone dishonestly,
I want to educate the voters to vote more intelligently. But as I see it,
most voters don't *care* about the issues; they don't even care that they
don't care. So before we can educate people about issues, we need to
educate them that issues are more important than personalities. And this
is where I get stumped. Does anyone have any ideas (short of brainwashing
and other forcefully coercive means) on how to make the average man or
woman on the street care about the issues?
Annette
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 1984 00:15:43 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: nastiness tolerance
I gather from a few recent messages, that we now regard the usual "rip the
hell out of the US" items in Pravda as normal Soviet dialog, while "evil
empire" statements by the President are so nasty that they will cause the
Russians to run off and sulk.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 8 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 102
Contents: Evil Empires
Voting
Speculations on Political Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 12:31:55-EST
From: Larry Kolodney
Just a few comments on my old friend McGeers flaming:
From McGeer:
" Third. Steve thinks that Reagan should not call the Soviet Union an
"evil empire". Well, goodness me, I don't know what else to call it. From
the forced starvation of the Kulaks (while the Soviets exported grain!) to
the conquest and repression of Eastern Europe, to the rape of Afghanistan,
to Gulag, and to the attempted assasination of the Holy Father, Soviet
actions have been purest evil; and one can hardly deny that a nation which
dominates two continents and rigidly controls a score of "independent"
satellites is an empire."
Look, there's hardly a nation on earth that hasn't done its share
of "evil" things. Look at american genocide against Native
Americans. Our virtually feudal control over latin america,
harboring Nazi war criminals. Talk about "empire", the entire
western US was gained via "imperialism". And the "holy father".
Look at what the Catholic Church has done in its glorious
history: Kept millions in fearful ignorance, propogated virulent
anti-semitism, did the inquisition, the crusades and so on.
Institutions change. The SU today is quite different from
Stalinist times. So is the Catholic church.
From McGeer:
"But, Steve, no nation in the Soviet grip has ever
managed to get loose, unless you count China."
How about Egypt, Indonesia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Somalia?
And "unless you count china" is quite a BIG 'unless'.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 17:50:57-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: good guys and bad guys
I am appalled, and frankly, frightened, to see an intelligent,
educated, normally clear-thinking person like Rick McGeer defend a
world view where we (USA) are good guys and they (USSR) are bad guys,
"evil". Don't get me wrong; I think the USA has a better system, and
I'm glad I live here, and all that. But Steve Upstill is right about
how that sort of world view leads to problems, like an unwillingness
to negotiate.
"Evil" and "bad" and "immoral" and all those words are simply too full
of emotion and religious imagery. I know that connotations aren't
rigidly defined, but terms such as evil seem to have the implication
of inherent, immutable undesirability, of something unworthy of the
considerations applicable to the rest of humanity. Perhaps you can
say these words and not think of all the connotations, but your
audience will probably hear the connotations, and Reagan is helping to
spread this dangerous viewpoint. In such a viewpoint, there is no
room for opinions, differences, errors in judgment, good intentions,
change of government leaders, and no excuse for *caring* about "that
evil empire" (which happens to be made up of lots of people who don't
like their government's behavior any more than we do). You can't
really argue with someone using terms like "evil"; either you agree or
you must be evil yourself. And that's simply too few bits for an
issue as important as world relations.
I'll leave you with one last thought. One has only to look at history
to see that one of the greatest causes of malicious, "evil" deeds has
been the goal of eliminating "evil" - all religious persecution, for
example. Yes, let's be realistic about the USSR. But let's not label
them in such a way that we no longer see them as a *peer* which we
must work with and try to understand, like them or not.
Annette
[Actually, as a professing Christian, Reagan would (or should)
be the first to admit that he was evil too... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 14:07 EST
From: Dean Sutherland
Subject: Voting for a Winner???
The main historical function of third parties in the US has been to popularize
(relatively) radical ideas. When a third party starts to get noticible
fraction of the popular vote, the major parties tend to embrace portions of
their platforms.
Consider the Populist Party of the 1890s (??? my history is a little too rusty
to be sure of that date). After about 20 years of building support, the
populists got about 15% (I think) of the popular vote in a Presidential
election. Although they didn't win, they did scare the pants off the major
parties, both of which adopted major portions of the populists platform. In
this fashion, the populists had a significant effect on American politics
without ever winning (or "having a chance of winning") a significant election.
This, in my opinion, is the major role of third (Nth???) parties.
Dean Sutherland
PS. The above does not necessarily represent the views of anyone other than
me.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 11:35:32-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Various
Caring about the issues:
For the most part, people care less about an issue the further it
is from their personal lives, and the further away it is in time.
It is not at all clear that this is an irrational response--everyone
has the task of allocating their limited time to the things they find
most satisfying, and reading a bid for a new sewer line, or
understanding why who is doing whatever to whom in the middle east
last week, may not fit the bill! Personally, for example, I burned
out on any interest in Vietnam at all sometime around 1969.
The ideal solution, in my view, has two main parts:
1) The government simply shouldn't do very much.
2) What little government does do should be done at the
lowest level possible.
Rent control:
I will not buy property in any area that has rent control. If all
potential property owners took the same view, the municipalities
that pass it would reap the disaster they deserve!
Power to the peep-hole:
The only real way to do this is to not have the government have
much/any power--if power resides with individuals, people will get
what they want, based on the limts of their wealth and knowledge.
Paying more for govt:
I don't think the government should do anything besides defense
of the system from violent disruption. Since that's sort of an
"overhead" function (I want it done, but I have no intrinsic interest
in it), I would prefer to hire someone else to watch over my interest.
If I could *literally* hire someone to do
this (ie sell my vote, or my vote on certain issues), I would be much
better off. With any other service in a free market, you will get no
better service than what you pay for.
Voting for a winner:
Living in California, in conjucntion with modern sampling
techniques, has distinct advantages--long before the polls close
I will have a very good idea of how close the race is. If there is
any real chance that Reagan might lose, I will vote for
him, cause I sure as hell don't want Walter Mundane in charge.
If it looks like Ronny has it in the bag, I will vote Libertarian to
indicate my real preference.
Viting for a sure winner is dumb, unless you really do
support that candidates views. In my view, however, it's also
dumb to risk a significantly inferior outcome in a close race just to
express an opinion.
My algorithim for voting is:
1) If I really like someone's full spectrum of views (rare), I vote
for them.
2) If the race is close, and the difference is significant, I vote for
the one I like most/dislike least.
3) Vote for Libertarians
4) Vote for women
5) Vote against incumbents
I apply those rules in that order!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 15:41 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Waiting for the State to wither ...
I ask: if *all* the citizens of a country believed that
the government were illegitimate (ie, including the policemen and
members of the army, etc), how would the government enforce its edicts?
--JoSH]
Agreed. However, history seems more full of revolutions that have adopted
philiosophies than philosophies have fomented revolution. It's possible
that you could bring down a government by convincing its enforcement arms
that their function was fundamentally wrong. It's not a battle I'd like
to fight, and I don't think it's a battle that anyone is likely to win.
Mutineer armies usually build new and more repressive governments, not
utopias.
--Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1984 15:56 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Letting the people have what they want
[OK, I'll ask you the question I once asked Sen. Joe Biden: "Should the
government give the people what they want or what they need?" I sure
hope you can give a better answer than he did... --JoSH]
Give the people what they need. But ask them about it first, on the off chance
that they might know what it is. (But give them the least you can, on the very
good chance that you might be wrong.)
--Jim
------------------------------
Date: 6-Nov-84 11:14 PST
From: Kirk Kelley
Subject: The Conscious game
From: Annette
I finally realized the question that's really bugging me about how people
vote. ... Does anyone have any ideas (short of brainwashing and other
forcefully coercive means) on how to make the average man or woman on the
street care about the issues?
There is a proposal being discussed in the ARMS-D@MIT-MC digest called the
Conscious game. The discussion is about the relation of the game to the arms
race, but is just as relevant to other political issues. You can request back
issues from ARMS-D-REQUEST@MIT-MC. The original proposal is in V2 #68 with
discussion in #69 and #71 so far. It would be interesting to see the reaction
of POLI-SCI readers to it.
-- kirk
------------------------------
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 14:09:28-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: salaries for representatives
Someone suggested increasing salaries of elected representatives; others
seem to be in favor of decreasing them. Suppose a representative was
paid the median income of his constituency? That might increase the
chances that the representative is actually in the same socio-economic
class as his constituents, and hence a more true representative. But
it would certainly give them all more incentive to help the people they
represent!
Annette
[Median income AFTER taxes, I hope!
It might be a better idea to have all the representatives paid the
median income of all the people they represent, to avoid attempts
at mere geographical redistribution of wealth by the politically
powerful. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 8 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 103
As it will be in the future, as it was at the birth of Man--
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began--
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
--Rudyard Kipling
[By the way, does anyone know what this refers to? --JoSH]
Contents: Emotionalism Everywhere
Evil Empires
Electronic Electioneering
Electoral Emolument
Rent Repression
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 08 Nov 84 07:48:40 PST (Thu)
Subject: Emotionalism in Politics
From: Martin D. Katz
A few issues back there was a comment (I think it was JoSH, but I am not
sure) that the Democrats deal emotionally with issues and the Rebublicans
deal more realistically. I have waited until after the election to respond
since this could be taken as a political, rather than political science
discussion.
I don't buy the emotionalism argument. I think that we all have several
aspects on which we judge a candidate (or proposal):
1) Emotional feelings
2) Moral acceptability
3) Is it good for me
4) Is it good for the community (country)
These are listed roughly in order of importance. This seems to apply to
both "Major parties." I think the major difference in this election was
which special interest groups were being listened to when the decisions were
made as to how to present the issues.
Examples:
1) The Republican's anti-semitism issue (warping the Democratic platform).
2) The Democrat's antinuclear campaign (partly based on realism,
but emotionally presented).
3) The handling of the deficit/taxation issue by both parties. The
Republicans made an emotion based appeal using the "Is it good for
me" approach. The Democrats made an emotion based appeal using the
"Moral acceptability" approach.
4) The "Prayer in School" and "Abortion" issues. There seemed to be less
discussion of legal and social effects of constitutional ammendments
in these areas, rather there was a major call to Jihad on both sides.
By Jihad I mean force the opponents to do what is correct, if they
oppose our moral position they are (by definition) immoral.
It's no wonder that Reagan won by such a large margin: Mondale handed him the
economy, took a stand which opposed moral intervention (thus leaving himself
open to being labeled immoral), and placed a large part of his campaign
effort into opposing nuclear arms (leaving himself open to charges of
weakening America). The Hart-Jackson-Mondale conflicts is still
remembered (the anti-semitism argument came to Reagan via the anti-Jackson
campaign), and having a woman on the ticket didn't entice a significant
number of women to vote.
Contrary to the argument made in the earlier issue, I think that Reagan
manipulated the emotions and morals better than Mondale. Maybe this is why
Reagan's coat tails didn't result in a Republican controlled house of
representatives?
I think that a remarkable number of people voted for Mondale under the
circumstances.
[(a) Yes, it was me (b) I agree that both campaigns were presented
emotionally, as are all campaigns (c) my point was that the *policies*
once the shouting was over were as I characterized.
(d) I suggest that people voted against Mondale because he is a wimp,
and that any deeper analysis not only misses the point but ascribes
motives that were simply not present to large parts of the electorate.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1984 10:56:55-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Evil Empires
An overwhelming distinction, and one which virtually defines the difference
between truly evil systems and those which are merely bad, is the presence
or absence of the right to freely leave a system, place, organization, or
entity. If there is a coercive prohibition against leaving (as distinct
from merely saying that those who leave are "defectors" or whatever),
then those being held against their will are innocent prisoners and/or
slaves, and those imposing such wrongful imprisonment and/or slavery
are ipso facto evil.
If there is no such coercion, then it is at least arguable that there is
consent.
Moreover, the history of the U.S. is one of increasing respect for human
rights and freedoms (broadly speaking, although not monotonically).
Would those opposing the term "evil empire" to refer to the U.S.S.R.
also oppose using the term to apply to the Mafia or to Nazi Germany?
After all, one may have to negotiate with them or their ilk from time
to time, or is it only communists that one is not to call evil?
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 15:11:22 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun)
Subject: Russia, again...
Kolodney:
Look, there's hardly a nation on earth that hasn't done its share of
"evil" things. Look at american genocide against Native Americans.
Our virtually feudal control over latin america, harboring Nazi war
criminals. Talk about "empire", the entire western US was gained
via "imperialism". And the "holy father". Look at what the Catholic
Church has done in its glorious history: Kept millions in fearful
ignorance, propogated virulent anti-semitism, did the inquisition,
the crusades and so on.
I see no reason to put quote marks around the word "evil" in this little
diatribe. However. While America has wronged in the past, and continues to
do so in the present, there are degrees and quantities of evil; shades of
grey, if you will. Our influence in Latin America is minimal compared to
Soviet domination of Eastern Europe; "genocide" and "imperialism" are gross
overstatements of the case as it applies to the Americas. What bothers me
about Kolodney's letter is that it minimizes Russian wrongdoing, while
overstating the sins of America and of the Church. To compare American
treatment of native citizens, which is admittedly poor, to the Soviet Gulag
or the continuing repression of Eastern Europe is like comparing larceny to
axe-murder; one might as well, and as easily, argue that there is no moral
distinction between Russia of the eighties and Germany of the thirties.
In this life, we must make relative moral judgements. In any sane standard,
Russia comes out very badly.
Kolodney:
How about Egypt, Indonesia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Somalia?
None of these nations were ever absolutely in the Soviet grip, to the extent
of having large numbers of Soviet troops stationed on their soil and veto
power resting in Moscow. For that matter, China didn't, either. And you
know, Somalia was abandoned by the Russians when Ethiopia had a communist
revolution.
Lubar:
I am appalled, and frankly, frightened, to see an intelligent,
educated, normally clear-thinking person like Rick McGeer defend a
world view where we (USA) are good guys and they (USSR) are bad
guys, "evil". Don't get me wrong; I think the USA has a better
system, and I'm glad I live here, and all that. But Steve Upstill
is right about how that sort of world view leads to problems, like
an unwillingness to negotiate.
Well, thanks, I suppose. And I'm glad you find our system, despite its lack
of political prisoners, Gulags and subject states, better than the Russian.
However, you have misunderstood me. I didn't say we shouldn't negotiate.
Indeed, I believe we should. If we refused to deal with all the evil
nations on this planet, then we would deal with none of our adversaries,
almost none of the neutral states, and, sadly, few of our allies. The thugs
outnumber the good guys by an enormous margin on this sorry planet, and we
rather happily live cheek-by-jowl with many of them (Hello, Ferdinand,
Augusto; actually, it's a sad commentary on the global polity that Marcos, a
thug by any reasonable standard, isn't all that bad. Relatively speaking.)
We exist in this world and must take it as we find it, though we need not
leave it as we find it. In any case, we won't get any further ahead with
the Russians (or anyone else) by pretending to ourselves that they are not
what they manifestly are.
In such a viewpoint, there is no room for opinions, differences,
errors in judgment, good intentions, change of government leaders,
and no excuse for *caring* about "that evil empire" (which happens
to be made up of lots of people who don't like their government's
behavior any more than we do). You can't really argue with someone
using terms like "evil"; either you agree or you must be evil
yourself. And that's simply too few bits for an issue as important
as world relations.
Foo, what a load. In any case, no, I don't believe in Russian good
intentions, and there have been four "Little Fathers of All the Russias" in
my lifetime; if there has been any perceptible difference, it has escaped me.
And I don't particularly care about the fate of the Russian empire, save
that I find it highly desirable that it never rule me nor the civilized
societies on Earth; and if the Russian people truly detest their government,
they seem to be doing remarkably little about it. In any case, I do not
believe that either you, or Steve, or Kolodney are evil; I think you're
terribly naive and I'm glad that you're not making our foreign policy
decisions. I suppose it's mutual.
I'll leave you with one last thought. One has only to look at
history to see that one of the greatest causes of malicious, "evil"
deeds has been the goal of eliminating "evil" - all religious
persecution, for example. Yes, let's be realistic about the USSR.
But let's not label them in such a way that we no longer see them as
a *peer* which we must work with and try to understand, like them or
not.
I'd have said that the greatest evil in human history (WWII and the
slaughter of the Jews) was caused in part because the civilized world would
not resist Hitler when very little was required to stop him, and because the
world refused for many years to acknowledge Hitler for what he was. In any
case, I never said we should try to eliminate the Russians as evil. As
you've noted, we can't. We can't even get rid of Pinochet, not that we're
trying. However, that we can't eliminate them, and even that we must work
with them, is no reason to disregard their nature. That would be a most
peculiar moral view, if somewhat expedient. "A thug is a thug, unless, of
course, he happens to have The Bomb. Then he's misunderstood."
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 10:39:35 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Representative Govt.
I agree that there is far too much to government to leave it up to
direct vote, i.e. everything by referendum. On the other hand, there
are significant flaws in representational govt., summed up by the popular
attitude toward "politicians". Add to this the fact that we only get to
vote for representatives every N years, and usually get a restricted
choice then, and well ... you know.
An idea!!! (forgive me if this has been proposed before; I've been
avoiding much of the recent discussion) How about if everybody gets one
vote on every issue, but can assign that vote to a representative (proxy).
If you want to send your vote in a particular direction, you can so notify
your proxy (or do it directly). Otherwise, the proxy manages the votes
given to him/her. You can switch proxy at any time you become displeased
with his/her decisions. You can choose any proxy you like. Your level of
participation is directly proportional to your level of interest. You can even
take your vote back and cast it how you like, if interested. Maybe, you could
even assign your votes on foreign policy issues to this proxy, your votes on
taxation to this proxy, etc.
Needless to say, this idea is only made possible by information-processing
technology, as the transactions involved are super-numerous and rapid. So
how do you like that as a scheme for electronic democracy?
Steve
[Ahh, kind of like the Electoral College? --JoSH (-:]
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1984 13:30:11 PST
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- E-mail discussion & decision making
From: David Booth
Re: "Perhaps somebody who has been in [the Common-LISP@SU-AI] group
. . . could offer comments on whether it's succeeding or not and
how much concensus is actually achived online versus how much goes
on at in-person meetings after the mailing list has collected random
opinions." [Robert Maas ]
From the acknowledgments in Guy Steele's new book, "Common Lisp":
"The development of COMMON LISP would most probably not have
been possible without the electronic message system provided by
the ARPANET. Design decisions were made on several hundred distinct
points, for the most part by concensus, and by simple majority vote
when necessary. Except for two one-day face-to-face meetings, all
of the language design and discussion was done through the ARPANET
message system, which permitted effortless dissemination of messages
to dozens of people, and several interchanges per day. The message
system also provided automatic archiving of the entire discussion,
which has proved invaluable in the preparation of this reference
manual. Over the course of thirty months, approximately 3000 messages
were sent (an average of three per day), ranging in length from
one line to twenty pages. Assuming 5000 characters per printed
page of text, the entire discussion totaled about 1100 pages. It
would have been substantially more difficult to have conducted this
discussion by any other means, and would have required much more
time."
This doesn't entirely address Robert Maas' question, but it is an interesting
testimonial.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 15:46:07 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun)
How much to pay politicians? I think the only criterion that counts
is that it shouldn't be enough to live on. Damn it, we never had any
trouble with those yo-yos when they actually had to quit Washington or
Sacramento most of the time and earn a living like the rest of us. The
single worst idea in a representative democracy is to insulate a politician
from the effects of his decisions; he loses all of his incentive not to be a
damned fool. Moreover, forcing these jokers to work for a living will leave
them less time for mischief.
To make these proposals concrete, let's give these guys the wage
they earn now -- I believe it's on the order of $70K/annum -- but pro-rate
it for a three-month period, giving them about $17K. Now that's enough to
live on, sadly, but they'll have a hard time maintaining a residence plus
accomodations in Washington on that, especially if they have a family. We
won't have to legislate a day when Congress recesses; I guarantee that if
they're only getting three months' pay, on April Fool's Day they'll be long
out of Washington, and being cab drivers, lawyers, or hackers, or whatever
it is that these guys do when they aren't picking our pockets.
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Thu Nov 8 1984 12:09:22
From: Yigal Arens
Subject: Rent Control
>From: Terry C. Savage
>Rent control:
> I will not buy property in any area that has rent control. If all
>potential property owners took the same view, the municipalities
>that pass it would reap the disaster they deserve!
Not so. I've looked into small apartment building (3-8 apts) ownership in
Santa Monica, which has a pretty strong rent control law. Without actually
counting, I'd estimate that at least 50% of these buildings are currently
owned by someone who owns only that building, usually one of the tenants.
Far from causing a disaster, large property owners' desire to sell their
buildings in Santa Monica appears to have resulted in a decline in prices
that has simply made the properties more affordable. This has caused a
"distribution" of ownership of property in the city - a positive effect in
my view.
A contributing factor in Santa Monica is the extremely high price of single
family homes. An average 6 unit building in a nicer area costs slightly
less than double the price of an average 2 bedroom home in the same area
($450K and $250K respectively). Several people I know who can't afford a
home here are looking into buying a small apartment building (usually
together with friends). The greater tax advantages and the rental income
make that easier to do.
Yigal Arens
[The effects of rent control, like any other kind of price control, are
fairly simple to foresee if you're willing to look straight. If the
ceiling is above the market price, there isn't much effect; if below,
the supply dries up and blows away. (Look at the Bronx--it would be
a great place to film "Dresden: the aftermath" or "the Decline and
Fall of the Empire State") When the limit is in the middle of
a range, things get interesting. Some of the market disappears or
has to be propped up by other means--I seem to recall that Santa Monica
requires commercial buildings to have a residence unit in them (which
is funny, since that's the sort of thing zoning tries to prohibit
elsewhere). Anybody know the whole story? --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 13 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 104
Rear, n. In American military matters, that exposed part of the
Army which is nearest to Congress.
--Ambrose Bierce
Contents: Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Evil
Congress: a Proxy on both your Houses!
Billing as a Pollution Remedy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 1984 19:41 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Evil Empires
Date: Thursday, 8 November 1984 10:56-EST
From: sde at Mitre-Bedford
To: Poli-Sci at MIT-MC
Re: Evil Empires
An overwhelming distinction, and one which virtually defines the difference
between truly evil systems and those which are merely bad, is the presence
or absence of the right to freely leave a system, place, organization, or
entity.
Neat. I've always had a feeling that there was something wrong with the U.S.
Government for imposing censorship on many who have left its service, but I
never quite understood the enormity of the problem.
Thank you for removing the blinders from my eyes, so that I may now understand
the purest evil that crawls the streets of Washington.
Jim.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 1984 20:01 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: The greatest of them all ...
Rick McGeer:
I'd have said that the greatest evil in human history (WWII and the
slaughter of the Jews) was caused in part because the civilized world would
not resist Hitler when very little was required to stop him, and because
the world refused for many years to acknowledge Hitler for what he was.
The greatest evil in human history? A war that lasted six years, and the death
of a six million people? Let's not be too wedded to the evils of our lifetime.
I'd make a plug for the Thirty Years War, which consumed most of Europe in
plague, combat, and religious persecution for two generations, or perhaps the
Huguenot persecutions in France (the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre saw the
death of over 140,000 Huguenots in six hours of continuous slaughter, for
example.)
Both of these events were the result of one or more parties deciding that
another group was, by its innermost nature, evil (as was Hitler's relatively
ineffective program). I think that, before you hold up the deeds and supposed
intentions of the Russian empire as an excuse for your accusations, you should
consider that you predecessors in this line of thinking were the ones holding
up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Excuse my cynicism,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 84 19:50:16 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an z29-e)
To: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: The greatest of them all ...
My predecessors in this line of thinking sat on the Opposition
benches in the House of Commons during the thirties, shouting warnings about
Hilter that went unheard...
There is a strict difference between a warning about the nature of an
adversary and a demand that he be exterminated, now. You should not confuse
the two.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 1984 15:41 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: The greatest of them all ...
I'm afraid that I remain unconvinced. The National Socialists of the early
thirties made no demands that the Jews be exterminated; this was a much later
program, carried through without the knowledge of the German people under the
guise of "containment" of a potential internal threat. I apologize for
suggesting that you might be advocating a policy of genocide; I merely intended
to indicate that the invocation of a good/evil dichotomy in any political
discussion might be warped into the very demand for extermination that we
both revile.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 12 Nov 1984 11:50:33 PST
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- proxy system
From: David Booth
Re: "An idea!!! (forgive me if this has been proposed before;
I've been avoiding much of the recent discussion) How about if
everybody gets one vote on every issue, but can assign that vote
to a representative (proxy)."
This certainly has been proposed before: it was what started the whole
Electronic Democracy discussion! Unfortunately, this discussion began
in the HUMAN-NETS interest group, and moved to POLI-SCI mid-stream.
Send me a message if you want a copy of the previous articles pertaining
to Electronic Democracy and the proposed proxy system.
-- David Booth DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 84 17:06:26 est
From: bedford!bandy@mit-eddie
Subject: polluting the enviroment
The penalty for an organization polluting the enviroment
should be that the government will clean up the mess (and
maybe make it a little better than it was in the process),
and then BILL that organization for what it cost the feds
to clean it up. This should be more than adequate incentive
for the polluters to clean up their act themselves (we all
know how, shall we say, well the government spends its
monies.
andy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 1984 21:22 EST
From: "Robert L. Krawitz"
Subject: polluting the enviroment
Throw in a fine as a penalty, and that idea's not bad.
Robert^Z
------------------------------
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 14:14:28-EST
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: Re: polluting the enviroment
Bandy's solutions to environmental polluters:
"The penalty for an organization polluting the enviroment
should be that the government will clean up the mess (and
maybe make it a little better than it was in the process),
and then BILL that organization for what it cost the feds
to clean it up. This should be more than adequate incentive
for the polluters to clean up their act themselves (we all
know how, shall we say, well the government spends its
monies."
This suggestion is unrealistic and inefficient. Suppose a
company was to cause some massive environmental damage.
1. It might not be discovered until IRREPARABLE damage had occured.
2. If the damage was serious enough, the cost of clean up might
very well bankrupt the company. This would cause loss of jobs,
and the government would still end up picking up the tab for the
difference. (while the managment retires on their generous pensions)
3. The short term benefits (to an individual manager) of
polluting often outwiegh any percieved statistical cost due to
getting caught. No criminal expects to get caught.
Thus, this plan is not a likely disincentive to polluting.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 20 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 105
[Sorry for the delay, I've been out sick --JoSH]
Contents: Electronic Democracy
Russia etc
Rent control
Pollution
Censorship
Larouche
?
Contest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 00:08:59 PST
From: David Booth
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- misc. answers
Re: Assigning different proxies to different issues.
Even better than being able to choose a single proxy would be the
ability to assign different proxies to different issues. But how
would the issues be classified? Who would do the classification? I
propose that, like choosing proxies, we each choose our own
classifier: a designated individual who will classify issues that come
up for vote. And of course, anyone could do the classification
himself/herself, or change classifiers at any time.
Re: "How will we prevent 15 year old crackers (criminals) from
disrupting the whole system? What computer system could
possibly support such a grand national operation with
reasonable reliability, response time, and security?"
[Mike ]
The proposed proxy system, even with a hierarchical discussion system
and the ability to assign different proxies to different issues, is
probably several orders of magnitude simpler than the defense computer
systems to which we now entrust our lives each day. For a nationwide
system to be secure and reliable, it is essential that it be simple.
Re: "Many people don't bother voting now. Why should
[Electronic Democracy] inspire any more interest?"
[Mike ]
Because an electronic proxy system would make it easier to be more
continuously and accurately represented. One big reason many people
don't vote in our current system of elected representatives is that
there are only two viable candidates to choose from, and they don't
like either of them! With a proxy system, you can choose anyone to
represent you -- not just between the lesser of two evils.
Re: "Given the amount of trash that flows every day in
Washington . . ., how can people keep up with all of it?"
[Mike ]
With a tiered or hierarchical electronic discussion system the trash
would be filtered out and the relevant proposals would be quickly
propagated to everyone.
Re: Most people don't have computer terminals.
No, but it won't be long before they do. Furthermore, most people *do*
have televisions and telephones right now.
Re: "How many check to see how [their elected] officials have
voted? Would people be more likely to do this sort of checking
on their proxies?" [Mike ]
Yes. Most likely the elected official is someone we didn't want
anyway, but chose as the lesser of two evils, so we know from the start
that they won't vote the way we want. Furthermore, once elected, all
we can do is try to kick them out next time they're up for re-election
several years later.
By comparison, with a proxy system we could choose a proxy we actually
*like*, and since our choice can be revoked at any time, the proxy will
have to be more sensitive to representing us. Because we're better
represented, we will become more interested and involved.
Re: ". . . Direct democracy would make it much harder to take
actions which benefit society while appearing to harm
individuals (e.g. require pollution controls on cars)."
[Richard Treitel ]
This might be true *if* elected representatives always acted in the
people's best interest. Unfortunately, elected representatives too
often take actions which benefit special interests, while *harming*
society.
Re: "I'd like to clarify my proxy tax proposal. . . . Proxies
would . . . be assigned some or all of the individual's tax
amount for voting purposes." [WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA]
This would give the rich more representation than the poor. Rather than
one vote per person, they would effectively have one vote per dollar.
Re: "5) 'Proxies' as discussed might not be such a good idea. . . .
If we don't study and understand an issue, we shouldn't vote."
[Bob Kubala (c/o DMM@MIT-MC)]
We shouldn't vote on that issue, but we *should* be represented on it.
And we *would* be represented if we could assign our vote to a proxy
who held our views on those *kinds* of issues.
Re: "In New York state (in the 1930's?), a system was tried in
which the number of representatives each party had in the
legislature was proportional to the number of votes each party
had received state-wide. But, the idea had to be discarded
because it caused the legislature to be so splintered that they
weren't able to form the majorities necessary to get
legislation formulated and passed." [Liz Allen ]
Again, a tiered or hierarchical discussion system based on coalitions
could solve this problem. At the lowest level, discussion groups
would consist of like-minded people who are thus apt to agree with
each other, work well together, and formulate coherent plans of action.
Agreeable proposals would propagate up the hierarchy until everyone,
at the national level, would view and consider them.
Re: Free electronic (or Snail) mail to your representatives.
Sounds nice. To prevent abuse, the number of free letters to your
representative would have to be limited. It's easy to generate 1,000
copies of the same physical letter, and by computer it's easy to generate
1,000 different variations on a theme. Representatives have the limelight
to prevent them from doing this; individuals don't. Another problem:
how to keep track of who has used their quota of free letters and who
hasn't.
From: David Booth
"Proxies should be paid based on how many people they
represented, but not necessarily proportionately. There should
probably be a ceiling, or the pay should taper off at the top."
From: Robert Maas REM@SU-AI.ARPA
[Hypothetical argument] ". . . If it tapers off then somebody with
lots of proxy-constituents won't want any more because they aren't
cost-effective, so might get sloppy and not do a good job because
if a few constituents are lost it doesn't mean a big deal."
I can't believe this would be a problem, because a popular proxy who
really does get "sloppy" risks losing the bulk of his/her
proxy-constituency.
-- David Booth
{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA
[I have a different kind of question to ask: Given an electronic system
capable of implementing any kind of sophisticated decision procedure,
why must we stick to the simple majority-rules winner-takes-all setup
we have now (which is, I believe, one of historical practicality and
not passed down on graven tablets from Heaven)? Can you (I mean anybody
on the list) think of a better way of doing things? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 10:05:10 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun)
Subject: Re: The greatest of them all ...
Apology accepted...I, too, have given unintended offense recently,
and I know how easy it is to do over this pesky e-mail...
I see your point, but I remain unconvinced; unfortunately, I'm
pretty much reduced to making the point I made earlier: viz, that there's a
vast gulf between "Russia is evil" and "Russia delenda est", which I for one
have not crossed. I'm afraid that many of my correspondents feel that the
immediate consequence of acknowledging Russia as an evil empire is nuclear
Jihad. I view the consequences somewhat differently: we must ensure the
Russians no opportunities for expansion, for these opportunities will surely
be exploited; we must not trust the Russians on arms control, for they are
assuredly untrustworthy; and we must not withdraw our guards anywhere in the
world *unless and until* the Russians withdraw their offensive forces in the
region.
Note that this does *not* mean that we can't seek dialogue or
agreements with them. It merely means that we can't count on their goodwill
-- they haven't any -- to keep the agreements or keep peace in the world.
Rather, we have to rely on what verification agreements we can get, and only
seek those treaties that can be entirely verified. Finally, we can never
again unilaterally disarm, as we did in the 1970's.
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 1984 11:04:03-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Rent Control
Doesn't the Constitution say something about "taking property" w/o due process?
Rent control, by lowering the price of a property, in effect takes a piece of
that property and transfers it to someone else, like the new tenant-owner of
your comments. You may approve of that, but to so approve is to approve of
the confiscation of one person's property in order to transfer it to another.
In many people's book, and in The Book, that is a violation of both,
"Lo Tahhmod" (You shall not covet) and "Lo Tignov" (You shall not steal).
In fact, the commandment against covetousness specifically lists others'
houses.
David sde@mitre-bedford
[As written, ie as intended by the framers, the Constitution prohibits
a whole slew of things commonly accepted today as government prerogatives
--including the printing of paper money--but in practice, "it says what
the Supreme Court says it says", and that's it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 09:29:25 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun)
Subject: pollution, etc.
The penalty for an organization polluting the enviroment should be
that the government will clean up the mess (and maybe make it a
little better than it was in the process), and then BILL that
organization for what it cost the feds to clean it up. This should
be more than adequate incentive for the polluters to clean up their
act themselves (we all know how, shall we say, well the government
spends its monies.
Congratulations. You've just invented Superfund.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 1984 20:59-EST
Subject: Pollution
From: WDOHERTY@BBNG.ARPA
For most types of pollution, it is very difficult to assign
the blame after the fact. Unless someone monitors the polluters
as they pollute, it will be impossible to distinguish their
pollution from everyone else's.
I like Jeff's comparison of the planet with a human life.
It's reminiscent of Lewis Thomas' "Lives of a Cell" and
Lovelock's "Gaia."
Will Doherty
[The life of a cell, indeed. I presonally don't want to be a cell;
with this model of the world you have thrown out any concept of individual
rights, individual feelings, aspirations, or anything else that makes
us human. I will not be a cog in a social machine. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 1984 11:59:45-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: U.S. gov't imposing censorship...
Surely you jest! To compare the is preposterous. Those who freely
enter gov't service freely take upon themselves the obligation to
preserve secrets. But even had they not, even you can't honestly
suggest that the U.S. gov't has banned whole classes of people from
freely leaving this country either to visit or to emigrate (with the
exception of criminals and those under active legal process (or
whatever the term is). If you've done anything of consequence in
either the commercial or DoD world, surely you must be under
obligation not to divulge certain things, but whenever you choose to
do so, you can go to the border and cross to Canada w/o even a
passport, thence to Switzerland, thence to any other country; even
though you might thereby end up doing terrible harm to the U.S. &/or
some honest commercial interest, you will not be stopped. On the other
hand, in those labor camps called communist countries, you would be
effectively held as a serf to the gov't even if you were an illiterate
peasant whose emigration meant no loss or risk at all to anybody
(except that it would show that the "people's gov't" was not favored
even by the people it purports to help).
My apologies to the net for stating the obvious, but Jim's comment
seemed too self-righteously foolish to let pass.
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Tue 13 Nov 84 22:48:17-EST
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: LaRouche ties to Reagan administration
This is an excerpt of an article documenting ties between Lyndon
LaRouche, the right wing conspiricy theorist and would-be
presidential candidate, and our own Ronnie.
From THE GUARDIAN November 14, p. 8:
...
In the past three presidential elections, LaRouche has
denounced Democrats as conspirators of one sort or another.
LaRouche's hostility to the Democratic Party contrasts
sharply with his attraction to the GOP and Ronald Reagan, whose
election he greeted with enthusiasm. James Watt came close to
hiring LaRouche as a consultant until wiser heads put a stop to
it, according to former members of LaRouche's organization.
Neverthe less, two senior NDPC [National Democratic Policy
Committee, LaRouche's front organization -lkk] members were breakfast
guests of Watt in July 1981.
Other Reagan administration officials have treated
LaRouche's rantings as rational. During his tenure as deputy
director of the CIA under Reagan, Bobby Inman met with LaRouche
about half a dozen times. Approximately a dozen meetings between
members of the National Security Council (NSC) and LaRouche and
his aids have taken place. Norman Baily, a former NSC member and
now a Reagan campaign adviser, admitted to "First Camera" [NBC's
60 minutes clone -lkk] that he and others had meetings with the
NDPC, and said that he felt LaRouche followers had some influence
on Reagan policymakers. After the "First Camera" expose of
LaRouche assassination plots, KKK connections and cult
fanaticism, LaRouche stated in a court deposition that he and
Bailey continue a cordial relationship.
LaRouche publications such as New Solidarity praise
cabinet secretaries Caspar Weinberger, Ray Donovan and William
Clark as well as CIA Director William Casey and other Reign
officials. When Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, now under
indictment, was being investigated for alleged links to organized
crime and other wrongdoing in New Jersey, LaRouche people
attempted to defend Donovan and discredit the investigators by
seeking damaging information on them.
An article in the current New Republic magazine by Dennis
King and Ron Radosh further documents ties between LaRouche
operatives and Reagan administration officials. Despite the NBC
and New Republic exposes, and Democratic chair Charles Manatt's
call for an investigation, the media has by and large played down
the connection between NDPC and the administration. The Chicago
Tribune is the only paper that carried more than a mention of the
charges in the original NBC report; it also confirmed the White
House links. Coverage of the testimony in the slander trial
[LaRouche sued NBC for slander, the jury awarded NBC $3 million
in punitive damages -lkk] was virtually nonexistent.
Nor does the Internal Revenue Service seem to be very
interested in the fact that LaRouche has not paid taxes in years
, has mixed non-profit and for-profit funds and has paid members
of his business fronts in cash so that many of them pay little or
no taxes either.
------------------------------
17-Nov-84 08:46:18-EST,624;000000000001
Return-Path: <@MIT-MC:ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!boone@Berkeley>
Received: from MIT-MC by RUTGERS.ARPA with TCP; 17 Nov 84 08:46:13 EST
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
id AA19193; Sat, 17 Nov 84 05:47:25 pst
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP; id AA20951; 12 Nov 84 12:12:59 CST (Mon)
Received: by mmm.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA06791; Wed, 7 Nov 84 08:10:40 cst
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 08:10:40 cst
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!boone@Berkeley (David Boone)
Message-Id: <8411071410.AA06791@mmm.ARPA>
To: umn-cs!stolaf!ihnp4!cbosgd!ucbvax!poli-sci@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V4 #98
References: <3012@ucbvax.ARPA>
---
[Could you please elaborate? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 20 November 1984 01:58-EST
From: Howard D. Trachtman
Subject: contest
Can you name the month and year that this quote
first appeared in a national publication:
"..despite strong objections from MIT's Paul Samuelson, [the President]
called upon raising taxes only as a last resort".
The winner gets something good of his/her choice.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 26 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 106
You can't reshape him, reshade him:
The little god of the world;
He is as strange today as that first day you made him--
His lot would not be so bad, not quite,
Had you not granted him a gleam of heaven's light;
He calls it reason, uses it not in the least,
Except to be more beastly than any beast.
--Mephistopheles
Contents: LaRouche
Contest
Sarcasm Lost
Land Reversion in Biblical Times
Electronic Democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Nov 84 23:49 EST (Tue)
From: _Bob
Subject: LaRouche ties to Reagan administration
From: Larry Kolodney
[LaRouche sued NBC for slander, the jury awarded NBC $3 million
in punitive damages -lkk]
How's that again? The jury could do no such thing unless NBC had
counterclaimed. On what theory? Do you have a pointer to the case?
_B
------------------------------
Date: Wed 21 Nov 84 12:11:34-EST
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: Re: LaRouche ties to Reagan administration
Re: Jury awarding NBC $3,000,000. This was in another part of the
article. I'll see if I can find more references.
-l
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 1984 21:56:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: LaDouche and Bobby Inman
Have you ever met Inman? I find it extremely hard to believe that he would
give LaRouche the time of day, much less meet with him. What was the
documentation for this report?
------------------------------
Date: 21 Nov 84 13:14 PST
From: Kiewiet.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
The President would be Kennedy; the month/year would be early 1961,
perhaps April.
Lorraine
[For those of you who, like me, had forgotten the question...
From: Howard D. Trachtman
Can you name the month and year that this quote first appeared in a
national publication: "..despite strong objections from MIT's Paul
Samuelson, [the President] called upon raising taxes only as a last
resort".
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 1984 04:54 EST
From: Jim Aspnes
Subject: U.S. gov't imposing censorship...
Good lord. After that kind of reaction, I'm giving up sarcasm forever ...
I think we can all recognize that U.S. governmental restrictions on former
employees do not really fall into the category of blackest evil. But
announcing that the definition of evil is anything you can't walk away from
without penalty is sillier by far. There are less absurd counter-examples,
such as prisons for those too dangerous to function in any civilized society,
or Eastern-bloc statist governments, but the ridiculousness of the
generalization was too much to resist.
I apologize if I may have offended anyone's sensibilities with what
(I thought) was an obviously facetious response to the earlier message.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 10:38:30 PST
From: bay.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: RentControl/TenCommandments
I'm not a rent control advocate, but your TenCommandment/RentControl
link stimulated a little "yeah, but" in me. The culture which featured
the TenCommandments in its "constitutional" periphenalia also featured a
bi-generational redistribution of land holdings. Yep, every fifty years
all land holdings reverted to the tribe. This mechanism, which
recognized the tendency toward concentration of wealth in private
holding of land use rights, harnessed the economic and judicial
efficiency available in a
private-land-use-right-ownership/property-rights based system without
subordinating the interests of the tribe as a whole to those of some of
its members. The bi-generational frequency kept it within working
memory of most living tribe members, yet log enough for the incentives
of the system to reward the lucky and ambitious. So, David's arguement
unfairly employs the cultural weight of the TenCommandments by taking
the out of the context of that culture.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Nov 1984 16:50:09-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: bay.pa@xerox on Rent/10 com/Jubilee
Land ownership reversion did take place before the Babylonian exile,
but if I recall correctly, it was to the original families, not to
the tribe(s) collectively, hence "sale" of land was effectively a 50
year lease. Nevertheless, if one family were very prolific and another
not, one could get a situation, at least in principle, in which the
less prolific rented some of their property to the more prolific.
Such a disparity could easily continue for centuries, but w/o the
more prolific (and possibly poorer) family having any inherent right
to confiscate the property of the less prolific (and possibly richer).
(Of course I am including rent control as a subset of confiscation.)
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 1984 22:09:52 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: electronic democracy
To my knowledge the only Congressman who accepted email was James Coyne, a
Republican from some suburb of Philadelphia. He won in 1980, lost in 1982,
and is now working in the White House as a technology foobar liason. So
email doesn't seem to draw the votes in truckloads.
I think the chances for fraud are greatly increased. When votes take place
rarely, substantial effort can be put into detecting fraud. This isn't
possible when votes take place every day. A slight bias in the voting to
pass some little tax provision could mean big bucks to certain groups.
If you need electronics to vote, then voting isn't free. True, there is a
high correlation between having a phone and voting, but you only need a
phone to be polled, not to vote. Electronic democracy would require public
systems for the poor. But if voting takes place every day, this puts the
poor at a big disadvantage. Giving terminals to the poor opens up the same
mess as CA phone customers paying for TTYs for the deaf.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 21 Nov 84 14:18:42-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Alternatives to simple majority rule
I am part of a discussion group that gets together every three
months to talk about various cosmic things. The topics are selected
by voting, but not the simple majority kind. We start with a list of
topics, usually 10-20. Each person gets two votes, which can be cast
either positive or negative, for the same or different topics.
Elimination continues until there is a clear preference.
Political/governmental decision making would be greatly aided if
two principals were held firmly in mind:
1) There are always more than two options.
2) Doing nothing is always an option.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 84 22:22:40 EST
From: Brint
Subject: Electronic Democracy
Many of the objections and limitations to the full implementation of
e"electronic democracy" or even proxy voting might be a few nationwide
referenda. We really have never had direct voter resolution of
referendum issues on a national level. yet, the move toward such
increased voter participation is evident on state and local levels.
Initially, I'd refrain from earthshaking items such as outlawing
abortion, gun control, balanced budget, or declaration of war.
Interestingly enough, perhaps we could have the first referendum decide
whether electronic bulletin board operators are responsible for the
content of illegal or malicious message left there anonymously.
Brint
------------------------------
Date: 25 Nov 84 17:16:48 EST
From: Mike
Subject: Electronic Voting Again
Me: "How will we prevent 15 year old crackers (criminals) from
disrupting the whole system? What computer system could
possibly support such a grand national operation with
reasonable reliability, response time, and security?"
From: David Booth
The proposed proxy system, even with a hierarchical discussion system
and the ability to assign different proxies to different issues, is
probably several orders of magnitude simpler than the defense computer
systems to which we now entrust our lives each day. For a nationwide
system to be secure and reliable, it is essential that it be simple.
This sounds to me like proof by hand-waving.
Me: "Many people don't bother voting now. Why should
[Electronic Democracy] inspire any more interest?"
Booth: Because an electronic proxy system would make it easier to be more
continuously and accurately represented. One big reason many people
don't vote in our current system of elected representatives is that
there are only two viable candidates to choose from, and they don't
like either of them!
Two other reasons:
1. People don't care very much about most things and believe their
interests are pretty much equally represented by both major parties.
2. Except in close races, one vote doesn't count for much.
This system doesn't seem likely to change the validity of these
viewpoints much.
Me: Most people don't have computer terminals.
Booth: No, but it won't be long before they do. Furthermore, most
people *do* have televisions and telephones right now.
You left out two other parts of my argument:
1. Most people do not have any desire to spend their spare time playing
around with computer terminals. This scheme strikes me as a thinly
veiled attempt to establish a techno-elite leadership.
2. Expecting that people will either spend money for this equipment
or pay a proxy will inevitably mean the poor get less of a voice in
the new electronic order.
I don't know quite how you intend to use the phone system in this
electronic voting scenario, but let me make two general observations:
1. The phone system is not very secure.
2. The phone system facilities are based on expectations about resource
needs which might be completely inadequate to deal with electronic
voting.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 26 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 107
Vote, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make
a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.
--Ambrose Bierce
Contents: Disarmament?
Jubilee
Living the life of E. Coli
Electronic Democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Nov 1984 0708-PST
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Unilateral Disarmament
In a recent POLI-SCI digest (V4 #105) Rick McGeer said:
"... we can never again unilaterally disarm, as we did in the
1970's. ..."
The idea that the US somehow disarmed in the 1970s is a myth which
seems to have been invented by the Reagan Administration. The facts*
are as follows: During the period from 1970 to 1980 the US produced 6
new models of warheads:
TYPE PRODUCTION MISSILE # DEPLOYED
---- ---------- ----------- ----------
W62 1967-1978 MMIII 900
W68 1970-1979 Poseidon 3480
W69 1970-1976 SRAM (B-52) 1140
W70 1971-1977 Lance 945
W76 1977-1983 Trident C4 2028
W78 1979-1983 MMIII 900
During the same period the US replaced all Minuteman I missiles with
Minuteman IIs (1973); finished deployment of the Minuteman III (1975);
and proceeded with development of various flavors of cruise missiles;
SLCM (72-79), ALCM (76-79), and GLCM (77-80). This is only a partial
list of US disarmament activity in the 70s.
* - Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 17:37:54 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)
Subject: Re: Unilateral Disarmament
I was thinking more of conventional arms.
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 15:29 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Year of Jubilee (Yuval)
The laws of Yuval are D-orisa, (from the written Torah) and
in D'vorim (Deutoronomy) they are clearly stated as applying
the moment the Jews entered Israel (crossed the Jordan). [Not
after the Babylonian exile as one person stated]. They do
not apply today according to the consensus of opinons.
[Explanatory note: among the property repatriated every 50 years were
slaves. --JoSH]
------------------------------
From: wdoherty@mit-jason (William Doherty)
Date: 28 Nov 1984 1650-EST (Wednesday)
Subject: Life as a Cell
I like Jeff's comparison of the planet with a human life.
It's reminiscent of Lewis Thomas' "Lives of a Cell" and
Lovelock's "Gaia."
Will Doherty
[The life of a cell, indeed. I presonally don't want to be a cell;
with this model of the world you have thrown out any concept of individual
rights, individual feelings, aspirations, or anything else that makes
us human. I will not be a cog in a social machine. --JoSH]
Looking at the world from one simplistic point of view, whether it be
viewing the earth as a cell, or believing solely in the rights of the
individual, will not provide a good impression of what actually
occurs.
The reason it is important to look at the earth as an organism, or a
cell, is to understand that the earth, just as individual humans,
requires some maintenance as a total system, rather than simply as the
individual parts it comprises. Governments and corporations using the
earth's resources do not regard these resources as the property of
everyone on the planet, but as a resource available for them to take
whenever possible without negotiation, but in any case with the least
input of capital possible. Thus, the resources that are most difficult
to protect are the resources that are most difficult to clearly assign
ownership, as they are commonly owned, i.e. air and water.
Few advocates exist for the protection of these resources and those
advocates that do exist have little power to legislate and enforce
environmental protections. Everyone has incentive to fix these
problems, for themselves and for those to come, but the incentive is
spread equally over the entire population, thus no one takes the final
responsibility and little or nothing is done, to the disincentive of
all.
[The world=body argument here is circular, I think. There is no reason
to believe that the world needs "total maintenance as a system", except
that you think of it as an organism, and vice versa. Pointing out that
some resources are not private property and thus not well conserved
only suggests to me that those resources maybe should be private property
after all... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 09:26:09-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Electronic democracy
It has been suggested that electronic voting would mean that the
poor would be less well represented. I think a case can also be made
that the uneducated would be less well represented.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to defend the postion
that both of these would be *benefits* of electronic democracy!
TCS
[E.D. is hardly necessary for the poor to be less well represented.
Indeed I claim that the poor will be less well represented in any
political system whatsoever. Consider the current one.
As usual, this becomes obvious when considered from the opposite
point of view than the one commonly taken. In any political system
which dabbles deeply in the economic life of its country, political
power becomes a source of great potential profit. It is thus worth
a lot of money to obtain this power; and that money will be spent
by those who have it. The law is most avidly bought and sold when
it is worthwhile to acquire it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 1984 16:20:04 PST
Subject: Electronic Democracy
From: David Booth
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
"I think the chances for fraud are greatly increased. When
votes take place rarely, substantial effort can be put into
detecting fraud. This isn't possible when votes take place
every day. A slight bias in the voting to pass some little tax
provision could mean big bucks to certain groups."
In one sense, the potential for fraud may be increased, depending on
how the system is implemented. Any proposed implementation should be
carefully scrutinized to determine its potential for fraud. Again,
simplicity is of the utmost importance.
In another sense, the potential for fraud may be substantially
decreased: recall the fraud that occurs every day in our current
system, as our elected representatives' votes are swayed by Political
Action Committees (PACs) and other special interests. This "slight
bias" does indead mean "big bucks to certain groups", and we
individuals are nearly powerless to do anything about it. We're stuck
with our representative at least until next election, and even then
there will most likely be only one other candidate to choose from.
In contrast, under a proxy system we could select the person we
really want to represent us -- instead of choosing between the lesser of
two evils -- and since our proxy selection could be revoked at any
time, proxies would have to be more sensitive to their "constituents".
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
"If you need electronics to vote, then voting isn't free."
Voting certainly should be free. If any electronics are required, they
should be equally accessible to rich and poor. See also my answer to
Mike Zaleski below.
From: Mike
"How will we prevent 15 year old crackers (criminals) from
disrupting the whole system? What computer system could
possibly support such a grand national operation with
reasonable reliability, response time, and security?"
From: David Booth
"The proposed proxy system, even with a hierarchical discussion
system and the ability to assign different proxies to different
issues, is probably several orders of magnitude simpler than
the defense computer systems to which we now entrust our lives
each day. For a nationwide system to be secure and reliable,
it is essential that it be simple."
From: Mike
"This sounds to me like proof by hand-waving."
It was not intended as a "proof" -- it is merely a plausibility argument.
Until a particular system or implementation is proposed, it is pointless
to debate its security or insecurity.
From: Mike
"Most people don't have computer terminals."
From: David Booth
"No, but it won't be long before they do. Furthermore, most
people *do* have televisions and telephones right now."
From: Mike
"You left out two other parts of my argument:
1. Most people do not have any desire to spend their spare time playing
around with computer terminals. This scheme strikes me as a thinly
veiled attempt to establish a techno-elite leadership.
2. Expecting that people will either spend money for this equipment
or pay a proxy will inevitably mean the poor get less of a voice in
the new electronic order."
I didn't address these points in my last message because I thought they
had been adequately addressed before. In answer:
1. People who do not want to spend their time on politics can choose a
proxy to represent them. Most people will choose to do this; it is
one of the major reasons for a proxy system.
2. As our representatives, proxies should be paid by the government,
based on how many people they actually represented. Individuals
should not have to pay to vote or pay to use a proxy, because that
would discourage participation and prevent the poor from being
represented. Similarly, if a proposed system requires any special
equipment, the required equipment should certainly be made
accessible to rich and poor alike.
From: Mike
"I don't know quite how you intend to use the phone system in this
electronic voting scenario, . . . ."
I certainly would not advocate using the phone system in its current
state. I mentioned that most people do have televisions and
telephones, but I did not mean to imply that our current phone and TV
systems should be used. I was simply trying to demonstrate that we do
have the technology available to implement a system of Electronic
Democracy.
----
From my original HUMAN-NETS message, which began this discussion:
"Widespread availability of computers and electronic
communication holds great potential for improving our
self-governance. The purpose of this message is to solicit
ideas of how this potential might be used to improve our
existing system of government, or as a cornerstone in a
completely new and better system of government."
-- David Booth dbooth@usc-isif.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 1984 16:22:07 PST
Subject: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another
From: David Booth
This discussion of Electronic Democracy has suffered greatly from --
Are you listening, moderators? -- being moved mid-stream from the
HUMAN-NETS list, where it started, to POLI-SCI. Out of deference to
those who had followed from HUMAN-NETS to POLI-SCI, I tried to avoid
repeating answers on POLI-SCI. Unfortunately, the result was that
for many points and questions raised by POLI-SCI readers, either:
1. the point had been made already in HUMAN-NETS;
2. a reply had already appeared in HUMAN-NETS;
3. the answer would have been obvious to those who had read
the HUMAN-NETS part of the discussion; or
4. the point was irrelevant to the purpose of the
discussion, stated in HUMAN-NETS.
The moral:
Thou shalt think long and hard before moving an ongoing discussion.
-- David Booth dbooth@usc-isif.ARPA
[We did. However, remember that it was for purposes of exactly
this kind of discussion that PSci was split off from HNets in the
first place. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 3 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 108
"Let liberty be proclaimed throughout the land,
unto all the inhabitants thereof."
Contents: LaRouche
Jubilee
Electronic Democracy
Moving Discussions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 09:08:20-EST
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: LaRouche Libel Suit
Someone questioned the validity of the article I posted last week
from the GUARDIAN about the LaRouche libel suit against NBC.
Perhaps this quote from THE ECONOMIST (a more reputable paper?)
will allay their fears:
(November 24, "Mighty Pen vs. Mighty Sword", p. 27)
"An even rarer occurrence is for a jury to award damages against
the primary plaintiff rather than the media. Earlier this month,
a jury rejected Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's $150m libel suit against
NBC and ordered him, instead, to pay the network $3m in damages;
this award arose from a countersuit alleging that the followers
of Mr. LaRouche, who has run on several occasions as an
independent candidate for president, had harassed NBC. Mr.
LaRouche, who was once on the far left but is now on the far
right, argued during the last campaign that Mr. Walter Mondale
was a Soviet agent acting as part of a "treasonous operation"
that included among others, Mr. Willy Brandt, Mr. Henry Kissinger
and 'the Swiss-controlled grain cartel' "
[It couldn't have happened to a better guy... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 1984 10:10:04-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Jubilee, slaves
>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 15:29 EST
>>From: Steven Gutfreund
>>Subject: Year of Jubilee (Yuval)
>>
>>The laws of Yuval are D-orisa, (from the written Torah) and
>>in D'vorim (Deutoronomy) they are clearly stated as applying
>>the moment the Jews entered Israel (crossed the Jordan). [Not
>>after the Babylonian exile as one person stated]. They do
>>not apply today according to the consensus of opinons.
>>
>>[Explanatory note:
>> among the property repatriated every 50 years were slaves. JoSH]
1) Steven, you didn't correctly read my comment; I referred to the laws
operating PRIOR to the exile. Afterwards, it was difficult or impossible
to reconstruct the details of who had owned what, hence my comment. The
issue of de facto abandonment of the practice, as distinct from de jure,
is what had been raised, and that only in passing.
2) JoSH, since slaves were normally freed every seventh (Sabbatical year),
how do you get the idea that they could be repatriated every fifty?
(By the way, slavery was more a matter of indentured servitude than
the kind of horror perpetrated in certain other cultures we can all name.
The law said, for example, that if a master had only one bed, the slave
had to get it and the 'master' had to sleep on the floor. Also, the slave
could not be made to do work to which he was unaccustomed. Also, if the
slave was physically injured, we went free. Moreover, it is spelled out
that if a slave WANTED to remain a slave instead of being a free man,
he could do so but was punished by having his ear pierced as a sign that
he was ignoring the command to seek to be a servant only of his Creator.
David (sde@mitre-bedford)
[From the Britannica: "... At the beginning of the jubilee-year the
liberation of all Israelitish slaves and the restoration of ancestral
possesions was to be proclaimed. ... (Lev xxv 8-34)
... These enactments, in order to be understood rightly, must be viewed
in relation to the earlier similar provisions in connexion with the
sabbatical (seventh) year. ...(Exod xxi 2 seq, xxiii 10 seq, Deut xv)...
It is evident that these enactments proved impracticable in real life
(cf Jer xxxiv 8 seq), so it became necessary in the later legislation of
P, represented in the present form of Lev. xxv, to relegate them to
the 50th year, the year of Jubilee. ..."
Also please note that the liberation of slaves only applied to Hebrews--
foreigners were held in perpetuity.
If I may venture a further note of interest, the inscription on the
Liberty Bell is from the same Leviticus XXV. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 84 20:44:20 EST
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Electronic democracy
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it would be beneficial
for the less educated to be less well represented, but I think the
idea that excluding the poor (like poor, albiet educated students)
would be beneficial is less easily supported.
-- Mike^Z
------------------------------
[Flame warning: All the following messages are on the subject of
whether the electronic democracy letters should have been moved to
poli-sci from human-nets. Take any action you feel appropriate.]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 29 November 1984 10:48:16 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: reader assumptions
I think all posters should make the assumption that no one on this list
reads Human-Nets. The babbling (lower than flaming) there got so bad that
hardly anyone I know reads it any more.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 84 11:55:52 EST
From: Charles
Subject: Re: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another
Hi David,
Well, you won't beleive me, but I did think long and hard before
moving the ED discussion. You think I don't like being able to put
out a digest a day? Anyway, I quote you from the 'official'
description of Poli-sci:
POLI-SCI is a spinoff from the HUMAN-NETS discussion list. Shortly after
the November 1980 election, HUMAN-NETS began to discuss the impact that
electronic communications had on the election. As this discussion
continued, it lost its narrow focus on electronic communications and began
to consider the election in general, how elections are won and lost, and the
nature of the electoral college. The growth of these discussions, and their
spawning of related discussions, indicated that a separate discussion list
was merited and POLI-SCI was installed. Since then POLI-SCI has begun to
consider other topics including the history of the Carter and Nixon
presidencies, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc. (with a little less dignity,
the list might be characterized as a permanent distributed political bull
session).
... sound familiar? The ED discussion was, in my opinion (there, I
said it) in the exact same boat. It had become a discussion of the
POLITICAL implications of the idea. Hence, I suggested to JoSH (and
he agreed) that the discussion be moved there.
And yes, we're listening. I'm sorry if my thought processes aren't
exactly the same as yours. No, in fact I'm glad they're not the same.
Charles
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 84 21:28:35 EST
From: Charles
Subject: Re: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another
Well, once again I'll say that in my opinion, the discussion had moved
very much into the political sphere. It seemed to me that the
technical means (hardware, lines, and software) were concluded to
exist for any method other than everyone-sends-to-everyone (this was
pointed out very early on), and the discussion centered on the
*political* model that this electronic system would follow, and its
desirability (or lack thereof)...
Charles
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 5 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 109
Contents: Slave Repatriation
Safety Nazis
Statistics by Phone
Suits by Larouche
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 3 Dec 1984 08:34-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: slaves,repatriation,liberation,etc.
JoSH,
Perhaps I misunderstand your usage, but when you refer to slaves being part
of the property "repatriated," I understand you to mean that they remained
slaves, yet in response to my comment about Sabbatical years, you state that
the Jubilee year freed them. Isn't that a contradiction of your original
statement?
Also, I have repeated been taught that even non-Hebrew slaves were encouraged
to accept conversion and thereby attain the freedom and other rights enjoyed
by native-born Israelites, so the distinction between Hebrew and non-Hebrew
slaves would appear not as clear, especially when one considers that a purely
cynical option would have been for a slave to ostensibly adopt Hebrew practice
just long enough to get free and leave the country. (I've never heard it
suggested that there was ever an Iron curtain around ancient Israel's borders
to prevent such actions.)
David (sde@mitre-bedford)
[Sorry, it never occurred to me that repatriation and liberation might
refer to different things. I don't think it does here. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 84 13:10:24 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Safety Nazis Strike Out at Edwards AFB
You probably saw on TV that test crash at Edwards AFB last weekend.
The antimisting kerosene, which was supposed to prevent a fireball
when the plane's wings were ripped, didn't work, so the FAA probably
won't be able to require its use. What I found interesting was the
cost/benefit analysis that came out afterwards. On average, requiring
the use of the additive would have cost $800 million/year, and saved
30 lives. I suspect the FAA was publicizing this test because it didn't
have a chance of getting the stuff required without public clamour.
[$800 million could save about 3,200 lives if spent on things like
highway modernization or increased ambulance availability. The rule
of thumb is $250K/life as the marginal funding level in many things
like that. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1984 1327-PST
From: Richard M. King
Subject: Political polling by telephone
As I recall, Dewey was predicted to beat Truman by a poll taken
of telephone subscribers before an election. This was inaccurate because
the set of people with telephone service was not a cross sectin of the
voting population.
In 1984, practically everyone has a phone, so this is no longer a
problem. BUT
Pollsters dial numbers at random in order to get unlisted numbers.
I have two lines in my house - one for the people and one for the
modem. We have hunting (might as well) so we often don't remember not to
answer the modem line if it rings while the listed line is not busy. Last
election we were polled on that line.
That pollster had twice as high a probability of contacting me (and
similarly situated people) as of contacting a person with a single line.
They did NOT ask us whether we had two lines, which would have enabled them
to compensate for this.
Are pollsters asking for trouble?
If some poll gets a wierd result circa 1988 or 1992 when approximately
half the population has two lines, you heard it here first!
Dick
[Hmmm... I also got phone-polled, about a month before the election.
(I told them "None of the above.") Wonder how many other poli-sci'ers
were polled? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 84 11:28 EST (Mon)
From: _Bob
Subject: LaRouche Libel Suit
From: Larry Kolodney
Someone questioned the validity of the article I posted last week
from the GUARDIAN about the LaRouche libel suit against NBC.
Someone? Thanks, pal.
THE ECONOMIST
"An even rarer occurrence is for a jury to award damages against
the primary plaintiff rather than the media. Earlier this month,
a jury rejected Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's $150m libel suit against
NBC and ordered him, instead, to pay the network $3m in damages;
this award arose from a countersuit alleging that the followers
of Mr. LaRouche, who has run on several occasions as an
independent candidate for president, had harassed NBC.
Okay. I don't think "rare" is appropriate; counterclaims (not
"countersuits") are routine. Three million dollar awards are not
usual, but you can probably bet that it will be reduced on appeal.
_B
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 17 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 110
Contents: Safety Nazis
Wealth
Inman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 16:18:30-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: safety test crash
Regarding the airplane crash to test the new antimisting kerosene:
At least one news broadcast I heard claimed that the FAA was going to
try to *require* its use, even after the fiasco test crash. Talk about
not learning from mistakes...!
annette
------------------------------
Date: 7 Dec 1984 5:36-PST
From: knapp%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
JoSH,
I think that the figure $250K/life is too high. The last time I read
of such a thing, it was in regard to a freeway interchange, and the
(State of California, I believe) allowance was $25K/life. That was
several years back, but inflation isn't that bad. Sorry, no reference.
One does suspect that the valuation of life is not consistent across
various causes of death. Does anybody out there know of a tabulation
of both preventative and compensatory costs of death, indexed by
cause? It probably turns out that we all die bankrupt.
David
[Sounds reasonable. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 84 01:58:47 est
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Safety Nazis
This characterization of the FAA seems unfair. They certainly wanted
to find out whether the anti-misting fuel would work, but the stuff
has enough problems that its chances of ever being made mandatory were
always a bit uncertain. [Sample problem: it doesn't pump well.] Any
"Notice of Proposed Rule-Making" coming out of this test would have been
more like a "Notice of Serious Tradeoff Evaluation" in reality.
Also, how many lives it would save is a function of the assumptions you
make about safety and crash rate. Most of the casualties in the worst
air disaster in history -- the runway 747-747 collision at Tenerife --
were from the fire that immediately followed the collision. This is a
fairly common pattern in air crashes: fire and fumes kill far more
people than impact.
As for whether the money would have been better spent elsewhere... the
FAA doesn't have the authority to do that.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 16 December 1984 00:20-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: how much is a life ''worth''?
Date: 4 Dec 84 13:10:24 EST
From: DIETZ at RUTGERS.ARPA
Re: Safety Nazis Strike Out at Edwards AFB
You probably saw on TV that test crash at Edwards AFB last weekend.
The antimisting kerosene, which was supposed to prevent a fireball
when the plane's wings were ripped, didn't work, so the FAA probably
won't be able to require its use. What I found interesting was the
cost/benefit analysis that came out afterwards. On average, requiring
the use of the additive would have cost $800 million/year, and saved
30 lives. I suspect the FAA was publicizing this test because it didn't
have a chance of getting the stuff required without public clamour.
[$800 million could save about 3,200 lives if spent on things like
highway modernization or increased ambulance availability. The rule
of thumb is $250K/life as the marginal funding level in many things
like that. --JoSH]
I would like to see a reference for this assertion, if one exists. How
inclusive is the phrase ''many things like that''?
-- Steve
[ Moderator -- Please don't edit or append to this message. Thanx. ]
$$
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 84 17:08:33 est
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: distribution of wealth in the USA
[forwarded from another list]
> >When is the last time you saw ANY newspaper present information about the
> >distribution of wealth in this country? Occasionally they present information
> >about the distribution of income, never about the distribution of wealth.
Always willing to throw some facts at a discussion, here is some
data on 'wealth' in the US. The source data is the Statistical Abstract
of the US, 1978 edition, with adjustment to the present for inflation and
an assumed 2.7% per year increase in real wealth (this is the average
historical rate).
NATIONAL WEALTH -- The value of the United States and everything in it
except the people is 13.75 Trillion dollars, of which 10.5 Trillion
is privately owned. The major components are: Land, 3.1 Trillion;
Residences, 3.2 Trillion; Other Structures, 4 Trillion; Equipment, 2
Trillion; and Households, 1.45 Trillion.
PERSONAL WEALTH -- The components of personal wealth are (in Trillions)
Real estate - 4.5, Stock - 2.6, Bonds - 0.5, Cash & Savings - 2.2,
Debt Instruments - 0.2, Life Insurance - 0.4, Misc. - 2.5, less Debts
- (-2.4).
WEALTH DISTRIBUTION -- These figures are approximate and interpolated
values. Real estate is assessed for tax collection, Stocks & Bonds are
traded on exchanges. Hence, there is fairly accurate data on amounts.
Who owns what, on the other hand, is only investigated at death for
estate taxes, so the data is not as good. With those caveats, the
table below gives the distribution of wealth in the US.
Wealth Class Net Worth ------------Percentages--------------
(K$) of population Cum. Cum. Wealth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Superrich >7500 .1 .1 22
Very rich 4000-7500 .3 .4 39
Rich 1500-4000 .6 1 52
Very wealthy 750-1500 .8 1.8 61
Wealthy 300-750 1.2 3 66
Moderately " 175-300 2 5 71
Upper Upper 100-175 5 10 77
Upper 66-100 10 20 86
Lower Upper 52-66 5 25 90
Upper Middle 30-52 15 40 96
Middle 8-30 25 65 99
Lower Middle 0-8 20 85 100
Poor <0 15 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545
and more ....
Subject: more on the distribution of wealth in US
Newsgroups: net.politics
Distribution: net.politics
THe following is from the December 9 issue of PARADE magazine:
Intelligence Report by Lloyd Shearer
A government survey of consumer finances and wealth distribution,
conducted on a continuing basis by the Federal Reserve Board and six other
federal agencies, reveals the following findings as of 1983:
* The top 2% of American households - those whose wealth was more than
$455,000 per family - held 28% of the nation's household wealth.
* The wealthiest 2% owned 71% of all tax-exampt municipal bonds, 38% of
all taxable bonds, 22% of the individual checking accounts, 13% of the
money market accounts, 23% of certificates of deposit, and 12% of the
money in savings accounts. They also owned 62% of all stocks in private
hands and 42% of all the real estate purchased as investments.
* The top 10% of American families - those eraning more than $50,000 a
year - reported average financial holdings of $123,693, compared to an
average of $18,539 in holdings for families earning $25,000 to $30,000 a
year.
* The typical American family had a net worth of a little under $25,000
- an increase of 18% over the typical family's worth in 1977, even after
adjusting for inflation.
* Almost 20% of all American families had a negative net worth, meaning
that they had more liabilities than assets.
* More than 17% of all Americna households has a net worth of more than
$100,000.
* Houses constituted the major asset of the average American family.
* Home mortgates accounted for 75% of the total household debt.
The basic trend of the survey indicates a growing concentration of
wealth in the coffers of a small number of families with high annual
incomes.
------------------------------
Subject: waiting till I find out more...
Date: 17 December 1984 00:33-EST
From: Howard D. Trachtman
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 1984 21:56:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: LaDouche and Bobby Inman
Have you ever met Inman? I find it extremely hard to believe that he
would give LaRouche the time of day, much less meet with him. What
was the documentation for this report?
No, I haven't nor did I author the original article. I forgot the date, but
(ret) Adm. Bobby Inman will be speaking at MIT as part of the LCS (not LSC!)
distinguished lecture series sometime early next year.
--Howard--
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 21 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 111
Contents: Two Candidates For New Topics
Wealth and Poverty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 11:40:07-PST
From: Terry C. Savage
Subject: Designer Genes
An interesting topic for discussion: custom organisms. If research
with recombinant DNA continues its current rate of success, we will
soon (in an evolutionary sense) be able to design organisms with
almost any characteristics we want. What are the moral implications
of this? What restrictions, if any should be placed on the
use of these techniques? Our legal/moral systems make a big
distinction between animals and humans. What if that distinction
becomes entirely arbitrary? Some examples:
1) A great assembly line/janitorial beast might be somthing with two
human hands, a couple of octopus tentacles, and the intelligence of,
say, a dog. What is the legal/moral status of this beast?
2) Closer to home, what about "humans" that have
reduced intellects/emotions/"souls" a la Brave
New World?
In the not-too-distant future (20-50 years), it will be possible to
have a continuous spectrum of organisms from virus and other basic
things through humans, and more advanced things. It will be necessary
to define "humans" and "rights" in more operational terms, or
accept the fact that the distinctions and rights are entirely
arbitrary.
Anyone care to take a stab at defining "human", given these
conditions?
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 22:44:40-EST
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: New Topic
May I raise a new topic for the winter solstice?
Exhibit A: US News & Word Report, 1984 December 24, p 65
TAX SHELTERS. Taxpayers claiming deductions for investments
in tax shelters suspected of being abusive will find their
refunds withheld until the Internal Revenue Service decides
whether the shelter deductions are valid.
Exhibit B: Constitution of the United States of America, Amendments,
Article V
No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; ...
Can these two exhibits be reconciled? Comments, please
Robert Firth
[I have an almost infinite faith in the ability of the Supreme Court
to reconcile them... The Court has demonstrated a willingness to
interpret laws to mean exactly the opposite of the literal meaning
of the words of the statute, *explicitly admitting this*, in order
to meet what they consider the "spirit" of the law. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 20:34:13 est
From: Larry Kolodney
Subject: poverty stats.
THe following is resent from "another network".
-larry
From: glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser)
Subject: Re: A statistic on poverty
Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 13:26:30 EST
In a recent article Alien (alien@gcc-opus) was trying to make
the claim that entitlement programs (especially food stamps)
where helping as far as the war on poverty is concerned. I will
agree with him in that sense, because without entitlements things
would be worse. However, when he makes the following statement about
including benefits (food stamps, etc.) when determining who is
below the poverty level (8.8% of the population below the
poverty level if benefits are included, 22% if not.) he shows
a great misunderstanding of what the issues are vis a vis the
incidence of poverty in this country:
>What does this mean?
>
>First, Poverty in the US is not as bad of a problem as
>some people would want you to believe. Clearly, 8.5% is
>not as bad as 22%. (Did you ever stop to wonder where
>those 22% were? I mean, if there were that many, wouldn't
>you know a lot of them?)
First, it might enlighten people to see what the %'s of people
below the poverty level have been from 1970 through 1982 for the
total population as well as the white and black population:
% of Persons Below the Poverty Level
(source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252)
Year Total White Black
1970 12.6 9.9 33.5
1971 12.5 9.9 32.5
1972 11.9 9.0 33.8
1973 11.1 8.4 31.4
1974 11.2 8.6 30.3
1975 12.3 9.7 31.3
1976 11.8 9.1 31.1
1977 11.6 8.9 31.3
1978 11.4 8.7 30.6
1979 11.7 9.0 31.0
1980 13.0 10.2 32.5
1981 14.0 11.1 34.2
1982 15.0 12.0 35.6
Also, consider the following data for families below the poverty
line. (source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252)
Where:
Total = Total % of all families in the USA
Female = Total % of all Female headed families in the USA
White = Total % of all White families in the USA
White F. = Total % of all White Female headed families in the USA
Black = Total % of all Black families in the USA
Black F. Total % of all Black Female headed families in the USA
% of Families Below the Poverty Line
Year Total Female White White F. Black Black F.
1970 10.1 32.5 8.0 25.0 29.5 54.3
1971 10.0 33.9 7.9 26.5 28.8 53.5
1972 9.3 32.7 7.1 24.3 29.0 53.3
1973 8.8 32.2 6.6 24.5 28.1 52.7
1974 8.8 32.1 6.8 24.8 26.9 52.2
1975 9.7 32.5 7.7 25.9 27.1 50.1
1976 9.4 33.0 7.1 25.2 27.9 52.2
1977 9.3 31.7 7.0 24.0 28.2 51.0
1978 9.1 31.4 6.9 23.5 27.5 50.6
1979 9.2 30.4 6.9 22.3 27.8 49.4
1980 10.3 32.7 8.0 25.7 28.9 49.4
1981 11.2 34.6 8.8 27.4 30.8 52.9
1982 12.2 36.3 9.6 27.9 33.0 56.2
>From the above, issues such as what the poverty incidence
would be without food stamps, horror stories of people
spending all their entitlement money on soft drinks and hard
liquor, etc. detract from what I consider to be one of the main
issue associated with poverty in this country: The incidence
of poverty shows that RACISM and SEXISM is alive and well in
the United States!
In other words, when: roughly one out of two black female
headed households are below the poverty line; three times
as many female headed households as compared to male headed
households are below the poverty line (this also means three
out of ten female headed households as well); as well as three
tenths of the black population living below the poverty level,
something is seriously wrong!
Stuart M. Glosser
[This is a stupid, egregious, self-indulgent fallacy, which has been
paraded as social dogma for so long that it has come to be considered
proof of it merely to repeat it. I am referring to the assumption
that there is a causal link between prejudice and a low level of
economic performance for a racial (or other) group. This particular
idiocy has been responsible for so much misdirected crusading
that I feel duty-bound to call its name and point the finger of
shame wherever I see it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 19 December 1984 23:04-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: wealth and poverty
Thank you for posting the statistics on wealth distribution, Larry.
Would you ask your sources to answer a question for me? I have been
told that 80% of all people with incomes above $50,000 are registered
Democrats. Is this true? Or is it just someone's disinformation?
-- Steve
[ Moderator -- Please don't edit or append to this message. Thanx. ]
$$
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------